If you could only have one lens?

[zollo]

i'd choose the 24-120 f/4 on a full frame. it's not the best lens out there but i find it on my camera a lot. failing that my next choice would be the 28-300. good iq in general and a very useful range

[fabian628]

canon 400 f2.8


oh wait....our collections LOL never mind silly me

maybe i should read the question properly next time

even if you could have any lens, would you still pick it?
Dont even try to take this into the street you will feel like a big tool

[fillum]

I'd go with the 18-200, not the best but certainly versatile. [I bought it because it would be the only lens I'd ever need, right? . I now have a dozen...]




Cheers.

[jjphoto]

I'll suggest that any lens can capture any and all things, so, I'd disagree you really need more than one.

That's just not true, and you with your long tele in your avatar. See how you go shooting product shots or macro with it. Conversly how well would a nifty 50 or wider lens suit a sporting event or maybe birding?

It's a gross oversimplification to say you can shoot anything with anything. Maybe you can in a sense but would you want the resulting images? And more importantly, would you go to great effort to do so knowing that the lens was unsuitable for the task at hand (for whatever optical reason, eg sharpness, veiling flare, contrast, not just too wide/long etc).

JJ

[fabian628]

That's just not true, and you with your long tele in your avatar. See how you go shooting product shots or macro with it. Co

the answer is alot of extension tubes.

[kiwi]

That's just not true, and you with your long tele in your avatar. See how you go shooting product shots or macro with it. Conversly how well would a nifty 50 or wider lens suit a sporting event or maybe birding?

It's a gross oversimplification to say you can shoot anything with anything. Maybe you can in a sense but would you want the resulting images? And more importantly, would you go to great effort to do so knowing that the lens was unsuitable for the task at hand (for whatever optical reason, eg sharpness, veiling flare, contrast, not just too wide/long etc).

JJ

Jj, I bet you I could shoot rugby well with a 20mm, no issue at all

I bet I could shoot product shots with a 400

With ext tubes I can shoot macro

It would be a challenge and the shots would be different than the stereotype but you can still do it

[lay-z]

At the moment it'll have to be my 10-20 but with that said, I haven't had much chance to try out my new 70-200/2.8.

[JayR]

Although a zoom would be more useful in theory, I'd find it hard to pass up on my 31mm prime.
Its probably my most used lens. I can tend to get everything I need in frame with a little repositioning of myself, has a close minimum focus and beautiful bokeh from the F1.8 aperture and 9 curved blades.

[Pine]

I am suprised how many chose the 20-70L mine is just gathering dust.

Cilla and I were in the Kruger Park last week and I simply love my new 70-200 F4.

However if I was stuck with one lens the 100 mm F2.8 makro would be king

Regards

[Jules]

I expected a few 24-70s to pop up, but I'm particularly pleased to see there are other people who would also choose their 100mm 2.8 macro lens.

[para]

Defiantly agree with Kiwi 70-200 2.8

[Indigo]

If I could only have one, it would be my 100mm 2.8L macro, Love that lens

[joffa]

Would be my 35mm f/1.4 fo shizz...

[James T]

Jj, I bet you I could shoot rugby well with a 20mm, no issue at all

I bet I could shoot product shots with a 400

With ext tubes I can shoot macro

It would be a challenge and the shots would be different than the stereotype but you can still do it

If I only had a 1200mm f/5.6, I could not do my job. Never mind it being different, a photo of a small patch of wall on the opposite side of the room wouldn't be much use to anyone.

[jjphoto]

If I only had a 1200mm f/5.6, I could not do my job. Never mind it being different, a photo of a small patch of wall on the opposite side of the room wouldn't be much use to anyone.

Actually, you could only get that photo of a "small patch of wall on the opposite side of the room" if the wall was 14 metres away, the minimum focusing distance of that lens.

JJ

[James T]

Actually, you could only get that photo of a "small patch of wall on the opposite side of the room" if the wall was 14 metres away, the minimum focusing distance of that lens.

JJ

Exactly, an out of focus patch of wall is even less use.

[kiwi]

shoot from 20m away through a window to a special curved mirror you have strategically placed on the wall. Would look brilliant.

[Jules]

If I only had a 1200mm f/5.6, I could not do my job. Never mind it being different, a photo of a small patch of wall on the opposite side of the room wouldn't be much use to anyone.

Well if you were forced to reduce your collection to 1 lens and chose the 1200mm behemoth, you wouldn't get any sympathy from me if you struggled in your work!

[James T]

shoot from 20m away through a window to a special curved mirror you have strategically placed on the wall. Would look brilliant.

True. I could shoot from 7 metres away into a mirror as well. Compact solution right there.

[Art Vandelay]

70-200 f/2.8 over here too.