If you had only 50k for lenses

[Curran Giddens]

Probably Leica Summilux-C 16mm and 50mm.

If only they were available to buy individually.

 

[Adam Howden]

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?95418-FS-Ultra-Primes-24-32-50-85mm

I'd jump on these if I were looking. I own some Ultras and they are just beautiful. The right balance between speed, price and weight in my opinion

 

[Will Keir]

Huh?

Do you mean LumaTech Illumina's? Whom are just releasing the 135mm? They are Russian glass but not refereed to as "lomos" from my experience. This is Gregory Mirand's operation.

A set of 6 Lomos Illumina T1.3 (18-25-35-50-85) and the 135mm T1.8.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

I don't pretend to know anything but I say:

Buy 3 Zeiss Ultra Primes like a 24/32/85 and build from there later as money allows 1.9 across

Personally I feel like we often have too many lens options when you could shoot so much on a 32 and be happy. Those three lenses would cover you for almost everything but I would ditch the 24 and go 20 for sure if not 16.

+1

20mm

 

[Björn Benckert]

Ask yourself why you would spend that money...
I would not spend such amount on something as risky as lenses if I did not believe I could make it back within a years time.
Then I mean make it back from the lens rental/use alone.

As renting out lenses takes effort and comes with quite a few disappointments. The will be broken, worn and you will fight clients over budgets etc, etc.

Not saying the above things are all bad. But they are definitely things that are valid to consider. And if you do not know what lenses you or your clients and rental clients urge for then I would actually wait.