24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8.

>>4372528
Based zoomer boomer.

20mm 2.8 and the 105mm 2 DC portrait meme lens

>>4372524
the m.zuiko pro 12-100 and 150-400
>muh indoor lowlight
i know how to use bounce flash
>muh bokeh
bokeh is a crutch, with wide telephoto range like this it's easy to utilize background compression to get a smooth bg (or take environmental portraits which are much better for wildlife etc anyway)

>>4372534
Hows the base iso of 800 and the diffraction softening after stopping down once thing treating you? All remedied if you go panasonic (cheaper lenses too) or canon rf (they have a cheap 800mm f9 zoom and a 24-240, its very nice)

>>4372524
40mm f2.5 G
90mm f2.8 dg dn

The loss of macro hurts but big lenses are gay for most photography

File: b307078fd3bd33944f282569a(...).jpg (34 KB, 512x512)

34 KB JPG

>>4372524
Helios 103
Jupiter 12

Lenses I own? Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 and probably the 16-35mm. I'd be tempted to say the 150-500mm because you just can't replace that sort of reach, but I don't use it very often. I do really like my 90mm macro but I guess I can slap extension tubes on the 55mm. And I prefer the look of my 135mm over the 55mm but it's such a big size and weight difference and it's just too long for a lot of stuff.

>>4372537
Just get a bellows for your camera.

>>4372524
One landscape one portrait

E.g. Zeiss prime 21mm and Zeiss prime 50mm. Sigma art 24mm and Sigma art 85mm. Fujinon GF30 and Fujinon GF63.

That’s all one needs really if no specialized usecase like sports, macro or supertele. If you have more that’s skill issue gearfag copium0TKNS17

>>4372524
Normie answers are always like "24-120 and 180-600" or "12-200 and a 100-400 on muh m43 equivalence masheen" but ive never seen anyone IRL with anything but a fuji/sony and a prime or a canon rebel and the kit lens

Thats because, dick waving aside, small lenses actually result in fewer missed shots than big ranging ones, because if you're creative you don't need a zoomed to fill detail shot of everything that exists, you need a camera at period even when you dont feel like carrying a bazooka

So something similar to a 35-85 combo is the GOAT. One lens will always fit in your coat pocket unless its a f1.2 gay master leicatron. Neither focal length has a phone-associated aesthetic. Both will cover everything, including landscapes and wildlife. But like artistic "deer grazing in the fog" wildlife not zoomed in detail shots for nat geo. For that, the final redpill is actually buying a whole other camera just for wildlife. Even if you're rich, an ideal everyday body isn't usually an ideal wildlife body.

>>4372524
2 28mms
CAPTCHA: ELMARIT

>>4372524
I only own 3 so it's not a hard call. 24-70 2.8 for landscape and 105 2.8 for macro.

>>4372524
>24-120mm f4
>300mm f5.6 PF
I don't actually own the PF, though.
If we're going with glass I actually have, I suppose
>70-200mm f2.8 VR

>>4372528
Yea same. Both of Nikons offerings are legendary.
I'd get those and a D4 or D850 and be set for life basically.

>>4372586
>300mm f5.6 PF
Sorry, I meant f4

>>4372524
35mm f1.4 GM
70-180mm f2.8

File: NikonD4_35117818_02.jpg (47 KB, 768x577)

47 KB JPG

>>4372589
>D4
are you stupid?

>>4372524
rf 24 70
ef 85 1.8

>>4372544
this is my answer as well, having the non-pro versions of both and enjoying both of them
17(35)mm is just comfy

File: DSCF6200.jpg (324 KB, 1600x1200)

324 KB JPG

first thought is to go with my two most used lenses. vm 35/f1.4 and xf 18/f2

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	GFX 50R
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.38
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	40 mm
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:10:11 14:43:54
Exposure Time	1 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Brightness	1.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1600
Image Height	1200
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Blur Status	Blur Warning
Chroma Saturation	Normal
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Auto Exposure Status	OK
Flash Mode	Unknown
Focus Mode	Auto
Focus Status	OK
Picture Mode	Manual Exposure
Sharpness	Normal
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
White Balance	Auto

>>4372609
No, why do you ask?

>>4372609
What are you implying?

24-105 2.8 and a super takumar (up to series 200000) 50 1.4

>>4372524
A sharp 24-200mm and a very fast 35mm

>>4372524
14-24mm
27-300mm

>>4372537
>Hows the base iso of 800 and the diffraction softening after stopping down once thing treating you
Diffraction is not an issue until like f/8, which has f/16 equivalent dof anyway. Base iso of 800 is also totally fine with modern stacked sensors.
>Panasonic FF
I'd go for it if I went fool frame desu
>Canon
Seems dumb. FF offers me nothing.

>>4372524
I have those exact lenses in the pic, for Nikon film SLR or DSLR they're great bang for buck if you get them used.

If I could only have two, it would be the newer Nikon 50mm 1.8G and 85mm 1.8G, for portraits and general purpose with film or digital.

>>4372528
/thread

File: 1633231799289.jpg (56 KB, 280x280)

56 KB JPG

58mm and 135mm

File: .jpg (223 KB, 3528x1744)

223 KB JPG

35-150 f/2-f/2.8
85 f/1.4
fuck widies

>>4372524
24-105/2.8 and 100-300/2.8

File: rf24.jpg (58 KB, 857x532)

58 KB JPG

>>4372524
Two primes either side of 50mm is still the objectively most effective way to become a better photog.

Currently rocking the RF 24mm f/1.8 Macro and the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro and that's honestly enough. I do carry the RF 50mm f/1.8 with me but if we're picking two, it's those.

>>4372528
this but 12-40 and 40-150 f/2.8.

GF 30/5.6 TS
GF 110/2

>>4372528
fpbp

Panaleica 200/2.8 with both TCs and the panaleica 12-35/2.8

Probably 18-55 kit zoom and some 50 mm. Maybe the 50 could also be a macro lens.

File: Nikkor_400mm_F4.5_VR_S_Ha(...).jpg (1.08 MB, 2400x1600)

1.08 MB JPG

>>4372894
>400mm f5.6
>and a 24-70 f5.6
Sounds like lenses for femboys to me. I hope they're at least cheaper enough to make room for your HRT budget, xister.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: WTF.png (489 KB, 1535x1159)

489 KB PNG

>>4372894
>Heres your equivalence, bro
What the fuck is wrong with penisonic?

>>4372524
RF 28-70 f2.0 and RF 70-200 f2.8. It's the setup I'm moving towards. Plus if possible, RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 for football. Don't need anything else.

70-350

24GM

>>4372524
>You can no longer have more than two lenses. What will they be?
I’m going to choose the two crystalline lenses in my eyes and then I’m gonna go around and rob all you blind fucks of the camera lenses you can’t see

>>4372937
the panasonic is f/5.6 equivalent THOUGH

>>4372524
16-35 f/4
85mm f/1.4

>>4372983
thats what makes it so bad
>mft be like: want something the same size as a faster ff setup? at least your 4k60 is uncropped (because everything is already cropped 2x)

>>4372524
Nikon Z 14-30 f4, and Nikon Z 85mm 1.8.
Fucking excellent, both of them.

>>4373109
Or if destined for film wankery forever, the olde Nikonos 35mm and 80mm lenses bc they are compact AF and sharp as shit, & the both of them on the Nikonos V is the only film camera that does something that my digital absolutely cannot, and that’s shoot in any conditions perfectly reliably, in blizzards, hurricanes, total downpours, submerged in mud or literally underwater at the bottom of the sea. Great lenses, awesome body, if not slightly irritating to shoot (fucking zone focusing jfc)

>>4372524
Nikon Z 26/2.8 and Z 40/2.
Cope and seethe trannies.

File: file.png (1.5 MB, 1200x950)

1.5 MB PNG

zeiss planar 80mm f/2.8

File: lenses.jpg (307 KB, 969x1000)

307 KB JPG

these two
tiny and cover 99% of what i like to shoot
very different optical qualities
see also >>4369310

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 25.12 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:10:13 14:20:42
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	969
Image Height	1000

File: E7bEyTyWYAAseuh.jpg (45 KB, 770x600)

45 KB JPG

Wait, do people actually use more than two lenses? Like actually use and not just letting it sit on a shelf for 9 months?

I've never found I need more than two lenses. All my cameras now just have a one lens setup.

21 1.4 and 50 1.

File: IMG_0052_v1B.jpg (662 KB, 3564x2376)

662 KB JPG

>>4373560
Zooms for being a lazy snapshitter / paid gigs
Primes for actual sovl and decent photos
I own 5 lenses with the 2 zooms only coming out if weight / size is a constraint for whatever I'm doing. The primes get more use and having three (28/50/100) gives you more options. All my photos are dogshit, mind you, but that's not the gear's fault.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS R50
Camera Software	digiKam-8.4.0
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.1.0
Lens Name	EF-S24mm f/2.8 STM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3564
Image Height	2376
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:17 18:11:24
Exposure Time	1/4 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Image Width	3564
Image Height	2376
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	High
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	AI Focus
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
Subject Distance	1.630 m
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	34

>>4373650
>All my photos are dogshit
Why?

probably Nikon Z 24-120 f4 and the Tamron 70-300. Nikon's 100-400 is unquestionably nicer but it's also bulkier and heavier, and for what I shoot, size and weight is important.

Man do I miss the XF 35mm f2 on my old X-T3 setup though.....

>>4373650
Zooms are slow primes bundled up, learn self-discipline
>All my photos are dogshit
Figures

Nikon 17-55
Vivitar Series 1 70-210

>>4373650
I love this photo and am saving it to my computer.

>>4373839
The vast majority of my photos either lack composition, or are travel pictures. The macro I do is an exception but it's kind of hard to have a macro shot without a subject.
>>4373897
Yes, but the ones taken with primes are less shit.
>>4373935
Cheers, I'm gonna go back there soon with hopefully my CPL that I forgot and on a day without bushfire smoke fucking up the horizon

>>4373560
how many cameras do you have?

>>4372524
Viltrox 27mm 1.2 and Viltrox 75mm 1.2

>>4372524
What if my camera has a fixed lens?

>>4375790
Then you get to pick two fixed-lens camera bodies.

>>4372524
Leica APO-Telit-R 1:5.6/1600mm (picrel, valued 2 million usd) and a 50 mm f/1.2
I'd sell the first one and live a happy life without having to work any more

File: Most-expensive-lens-in-th(...).jpg (12 KB, 570x338)

12 KB JPG

>>4375817
Forgot pic

>>4375818
That's a telescope, anon. Be cheaper to build an observatory

File: WRC-C1.jpg (442 KB, 1705x952)

442 KB JPG

>>4372524
being restricted to only 2 lenses mean you would have to sacrifice image quality or your style for the purpose of being able to cover all the focal ranges AND it also immediately eliminates any and all prime lenses from the list for 99% of photographers both amateur and ones who live off it... 3 lenses is doable but 2 is just forcing you to pick 2 zooms that cover the biggest focal range.

that said, since i do portraits/fashion and weddings and do automotive/nature/macro in my free time, i would probably be forced to go for either
1. 16-35 and 70-200
2. 24-70 and 70-200

>>4372657
i know SOOO MANY pros that do portraits and similar, who have only a 45-58mm lens and a 100/135mm lens as their only 2 lenses

people are switching back to the 1970's to early 2000's meta where nobody uses a 60 or 85mm lens and only 45/48/50/52/55/58mm are used in combination with 100/105/110/135mm

honestly do you even need a 80/85? i always thought that this focal length is shit when there are 55mm and 100mm lenses in existence

>>4372524
24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8, given the restrictions, though those aren't my favorite lenses. But it gives me the most flexibility.

If I had to pick 2 primes for my Leica system, let's say, 35 and 75. I don't currently have a 75, just a 90, but I'd get one.

>>4372540
I kinda want the 55mm for the 3D pop, but the CA on that thing looks so ass. Is it really that bad?

I just need a 50. If I have to pick another, probably a 20 or 24. Doubt I'd use it much though.

File: 462848567_101600621126968(...).jpg (779 KB, 2048x1366)

779 KB JPG

>>4376493
I can't say I'm displeased with it. I've had lenses with much worse CA. What I care about most is that it's sharp enough to actually use wide open and that it gives a pleasing look when doing so. And that it's small and was fairly cheap is a nice bonus, I could have got a 1.2 GM but I'd be less inclined to take it with me.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 432248370_101595954530818(...).jpg (422 KB, 1440x1800)

422 KB JPG

>>4376528
And an example of the bokeh. It's not creamy, I have my 135mm if I really want that, but it's a look that I like.

The two lenses I have for my Sony full frame system. 35mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8.

File: PICT7507.jpg (524 KB, 1728x1152)

524 KB JPG

Does Pentax have any (cheap) 50mm lenses that are f/2 or faster AND decently sharp? I have a vintage 50 but it's not very sharp

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX K-7
Camera Software	K-7 Ver 1.13
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:10 15:47:14
Exposure Time	1/90 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1728
Image Height	1152
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Soft
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: alps.jpg (1.46 MB, 2493x3232)

1.46 MB JPG

>>4376528
a fellow biker i see
shot the main (top) pic with my phone, so only shitty resolution available... wish i had my snoy with me...

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4376800
holy shit anon thats nat geo magazine worthy

>>4376801
"here you can see a phonefag desperately coping"

File: R1-09514-0016.jpg (1.3 MB, 1800x1200)

1.3 MB JPG

>>4375877
dawg what are you talking about how are you 'forced' to do anything? plenty of posters itt chose something completely different

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.38
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:08:30 23:44:05
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4377053
its because, lets say youre doing only automotive work for your local auto magazine, or maybe you shoot only landscapes and nature, in both cases, since youre restricted to only two lenses, if you pick anything other than two zooms, you will only be able to do shots and compositions that work with whatever 2 primes or 1prime/1zoom you chose. meaning youre literally forced to shoot a certain way and youre forced to do only certain compositions because your focal ranges dont allow you to do anything else, where as with two zooms OR with being allowed to pick 3 lenses instead of only 2, where you can do something like 16mm, 55mm and 100mm, in both of these cases, you have 3 out of 4 of the main focal range groups covered, instead of only 2/4 by being restricted to picking only 2 lenses, UNLESS you pick 2x zoom lenses......

>>4377103
but then again, more and more pros are going back to using 50+135 combo across all fields, especially portraits and similar

>>4375877
Not everyone needs to cover such a wide focal range
Picking lenses primarily to cover 16-200 seems like such a beginner move

>>4377053
Because he’s an actual working artist and needs to achieve his vision not play gear games like nonworking nonartists ie: leica strapping poseurs

Focal length affects perspective first and foremost. Get-closering every photo just makes everything look like winogrand.

>>4377145
he's such a working pro he has to post the same car pic with the ugly toning
such a pro he doesn't even know if a 16-35 or 24-70 would suit his needs better
so pro he admits explicitly to sacrificing quality and/or style to simply cover "all" focal ranges
so pro, he can't imagine doing pro work with a pair of primes (no one ever does that)
so pro he simply lists focal lengths, not even actual lenses (of course all 70-200 are equivalent)

>>4377160
I use my 24-70 as a 24mm prime that sometimes allows me to shoot a protrait without switching to a prime or telezoom

A 16-35 could be better or worse depending on the frequency of 2/3s portraits in the event.

The majority of pros own 2 bodies, half the prime lineup and 3 zooms for a reason. You’ll get it when you end up doing a real shoot. It gets fast paced and suddenly yes, you do not know if tomorrow will favor a 14-24+70-200 or a 24-70+135mm f1.8 because you’re not speaking with the client until tomorrow

2 lens kits are almost overkill for a hobbyist, but a serious shoot for a living professional, not a basic “i shoot duh weddangs” guy, who caters to clients, basically buys into a brand for their entire lens catalog because we need a shitton of lenses to work faster than or as fast as the other guys. Studio space lighting modifiers and clients are all charged according to time spent and models today like their “flow”.

>>4377161
this

if you have more than 1 40mm prime for a general photography hobby you are living a life of luxury. your second lens better cover a whole new genre like macro or wildlife. the oft cited 35-85 f1.4 pair is a work setup. as a hobbyist you need a 28-75 f2.8.

a professional works for people and does not make excuses about limiting themselves and working in the snarky artistic style of trevor wisecup. a professional needs a large lens selection to meet client needs, unlike a hobbyist who can play the shoot your day on a 50 game and get creative any time they want. yeah if your name isnt leibovitz, they dont want you to step too far out of line, do that for your own gallery debut not the cover of better homes and gardens.

>>4372524
50 and 55

File: R1-09038-0008.jpg (967 KB, 1800x1200)

967 KB JPG

>>4377103
i'm a hobbyist but that seems reductive. there are many factors to style other than fl, and there are innumerable ways to compose any given focal length. i'm not knocking zoom coveragemaxxing if that's your preference but i'm doubtful that it's what literally everyone would be 'forced' to do in this hypothetical
also all this is beside the point of OP which asked which lenses, not which fls.
>>4377145
(You)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.38
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:10:13 00:17:37
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4377161
I shoot a lot of events and weddings too, I understand having all your bases covered, surprised me because I have no doubt I'd prefer a 24-70 over a 16-35, not even close
I'd at least give you some credit if you made the effort to specify which 70-200 and etc, but you've still neglected to do that even when brought up
you also proclaimed what focal ranges are necessary for not just yourself, but others as well
how sad that you think focal length is all that matters for a lens, how sad that you think they are all equal in quality
you missed the spirit of the thread quite hard, your answer was not of someone who is passionate about photography at all

>>4377278
Quality? All lenses have been sharp since the late 80s. L2shoot and stop enlarging everything 400% and standing nose to print.

>>4377282
if we're going to be that lazy, don't even need the 70-200 at all since we can just high mp and crop

>>4377287
>crop your cropped crop for reach!
>enlarges his bayer subsampling blur
Ew. Get it right in camera. Thats the exact kind of shit that makes a good lens look ”soft“

>>4377290
nah, see
>stop enlarging everything 400% and standing nose to print.
modern cameras are simply good enough in resolution, your just peeping
> a good lens
wait, but i thought all lenses since the late 80s were the same and that sharpness he literal only factor when it comes to a lens

so are there differences between lenses or not?

>>4377294
a good lens is one made in the late 80s or newer duh.

primes are only for bokeh.

>>4377298
>primes are only for bokeh.
and manual focusing

>>4377307
and street photography

>>4377298
or different optical qualities and characteristics
or shooting in lowlight
or different size / weight
or for consistency

>>4377328
>myth unless $20 soviet meme swirly bubble lens
>thats just bokeh
>skill issue
>skill issue

>>4377333
what a silly perspective

File: smug_pepe.jpg (71 KB, 750x1000)

71 KB JPG

>>4372524
1. 16-35mm f/4 zoom
2. 35mm f/1.4 prime

>>4372524
sigma 18-50 f/2.8
xf 50-140 f/2.8

File: pepespeedo.jpg (54 KB, 708x708)

54 KB JPG

>>4372524
>Tamron 35-150 f/2.8-4
in ef mount
>Pentax 35-105mm f/4-5.6
in k mount

You wanna fight about it?

>>>4372524 (OP)
I'd go with just a 50mm 1.8, thank you.

>>4375778
>APS-C

>>4377432
>diffraction.

>>4377460
>variable aperture

>>4377461
>he needs the crutch of a fixed aperture
skill issue

Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM (ver 2)
Sony 70-200mm f2.8 GM (ver 2)

File: Tamron 28-300mm f4-7,1 Di(...).png (184 KB, 397x550)

184 KB PNG

>>4377462
This is your fate.
Accept it.

File: consider.jpg (7 KB, 222x227)

7 KB JPG

Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F 4 R LM WR

i seriously cannot tell who is trolling anymore

>>4377464
It's not, for two reasons;
>I don't need a 300mm focal length
>I don't shoot mirrorless

>>4377461
>no photo
opinion discarded

>>4377470
>no photo
thread was answered here >>4372559
everything after that post is just peak gearfag cope

>>4372559
based

>>4372524
CabiCanon 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
Hexanon 24mm f/2.8

>>4377567
TOP MINT++++++ answer

>>4377575
Is this joking that the lenses I picked would be filled with mold, or serious?

>>4377575
>>4377726
Probably because of “Cabi” in the OP. “Kabi” means “mold” in moonspeak.

>>4377726
Both. Good lens choices, and see >>4377730

35/1.4
70-200

>>4372614

He's right, why not a Df, same sensor as D4 and weighs 1/3 as much

>>4378721
idk i want the big fatso battery grip and dat fps

>>4372524
i have a voigtlander 27mm f2 and it's pretty much welded on my camera, it could be a fixed lens device at this point. Given the comfort of having two lenses, I'd probably keep my shitty samyang 35mm f1.2, or revert back to 7artisans 35mm f0.95 that I weirdly liked a lot despite how shitty it was. So, I'd have one tiny little pancake on a wider side, and one standard 50mm equivalent that would be very bright.

Some standard zoom with my favorite prime lens

>>4376794
theres a pin sharp 1.7 in both A and M flavours and a 1.4 thats a little more expensive but the 0.3 of light doesn't really do that much difference, theres also this XR rikenon f2 that has a very good rep