Thanks for the catch
I should add that these are not necessarily the lenses that make me the most money, simply the ones that let me make the pictures in my portfolio
85mm f1.4 AF-D (or AF-S.) Clients always seem amazed the the rendering, even when I'm not taking advantage of the shallow depth. I shot a decent amount of wedding work with just the 24-70/2.8 & the 85/1.4 AF-D on my D700 and people were always more impressed by the 85/1.4 shots.
~75% of my sales (prints/digital downloads) were taken with the 70-200 f2.8 VR II
~15% with the 200 f2 VR
~5% with the 50 f1.8G
the balance with either the 17-35 or the 'beast'
in my case 35f2 AF-D paid it self zillion times over all those years.
When i was younger I had only 50f1.8 nonafnond on full frame. I cannot stand that focal lenght now but am sure i could go by if i would try. You can do pretty much anything with that lens.
third place would be tight between 14-24 (i had my wide times), 85 and 200/2. Everytime i take 200/2 for a shoot it generates $$$s in post sales, it is probably (except maybe 14-24) only lens regardless of costs which cannot be reproduced by anything except those. So sad that 200/2 is so huge and i cannot use it as often as i would like to.
600 VR
70-200 VRII (Close Second)
300 f4 (half the above lenses)
105 VR macro (about the same as the 300mm)
14-24 (about half the prior)
50 1.4G (close to the 14-24)
