---

[mrca]

No way I could get down to just one lens for what I shoot. Couldn't be done. I could manage to get it down to just the 24-70, 70-200 and my 300 but I have others that fill a need like the 105mm macro.

Exactly. If I am going to be stranded on a desert island and I have to pick only one lens, I'll instead take Wilson. A more appropriate question is what is your favorite lens.

 

[Tyg]

"LUCK is when hard work meets opportunity. So put in the work and be ready."

Good one !

Yes Ron, i see the average FL is about 135 in your kit, i don't know if most of your pictures are made at around that FL?

A pet theory of mine, based on my own stuff is the notion of a factor of 3x. I could do mostly anything i felt i usually wanted to do with a 14mm, 50mm and a 150mm (FX). But shooting just for fun, not as tools needed for work, i got tired of the distorting look of ultrawides - 24mm is about as wide as go, 28mm is plenty wide usually for me. I got tired of carrying a fast AF 150 or even 105. I like small, compact lenses - the Canon 40mm STM , Nikon 3.5/28. But in some situations these don't have enough reach. The 55 is wide enough for general puropse for me, and can be used DX mode ~80mm, or even on the D7100 there is an added 'cropped DX, DX mode' that's takes it into 105 territory with 2.8 speed and good optics.

 

[Tyg]

"LUCK is when hard work meets opportunity. So put in the work and be ready."

Good one !

Yes Ron, i see the average FL is about 135 in your kit, i don't know if most of your pictures are made at around that FL?

A pet theory of mine, based on my own stuff is the notion of a factor of 3x. I could do mostly anything i felt i usually wanted to do with a 14mm, 50mm and a 150mm (FX). But shooting just for fun, not as tools needed for work, i got tired of the distorting look of ultrawides - 24mm is about as wide as i usually need to go, 28mm is plenty wide usually for me. I got tired of carrying a fast AF 150 or even 105. I like small, compact lenses - the Canon 40mm STM , Nikon 3.5/28. But in some situations these don't have enough reach. The 55 is wide enough for general purpose for me, and can be used DX mode ~80mm, or even on the D7100 there is an added 'cropped DX, DX mode' that's takes it into 105 territory with 2.8 speed and good optics.

 

[Tyg]

A more appropriate question is what is your favorite lens.

That would be a longer list of possible candidates, even as a shortlist

The question intent is more aimed at which focal length, and certain FF lenses that that have a performance and look that translates equally into DX use or adapted m4/3 use.

 

[Tyg]

As well as ergonomic considerations. The Otus are too big. The earlier series chrome-nose ZF2 Zeiss too flashy and conspicuous. The Contax C/Y T* i think cooler, more discreet.

 

[mrca]

"LUCK is when hard work meets opportunity. So put in the work and be ready."

Good one !

Yes Ron, i see the average FL is about 135 in your kit, i don't know if most of your pictures are made at around that FL?

A pet theory of mine, based on my own stuff is the notion of a factor of 3x. I could do mostly anything i felt i usually wanted to do with a 14mm, 50mm and a 150mm (FX). But shooting just for fun, not as tools needed for work, i got tired of the distorting look of ultrawides - 24mm is about as wide as go, 28mm is plenty wide usually for me. I got tired of carrying a fast AF 150 or even 105. I like small, compact lenses - the Canon 40mm STM , Nikon 3.5/28. But in some situations these don't have enough reach. The 55 is wide enough for general puropse for me, and can be used DX mode ~80mm, or even on the D7100 there is an added 'cropped DX, DX mode' that's takes it into 105 territory with 2.8 speed and good optics.

Lens focal length should be a function of first setting the perspective by subj/camera distance. Then the lens should be selected to give the desired framing. With the advent of digital and lots of decent zooms. Most folks don't even consider perspective. So many just stand where they saw something and crank the zoom to frame.

As well as ergonomic considerations. The Otus are too big. The earlier series chrome-nose ZF2 Zeiss too flashy and conspicuous. The Contax C/Y T* i think cooler, more discreet.

 

[ronlane]

"LUCK is when hard work meets opportunity. So put in the work and be ready."

Good one !

Yes Ron, i see the average FL is about 135 in your kit, i don't know if most of your pictures are made at around that FL?

A pet theory of mine, based on my own stuff is the notion of a factor of 3x. I could do mostly anything i felt i usually wanted to do with a 14mm, 50mm and a 150mm (FX). But shooting just for fun, not as tools needed for work, i got tired of the distorting look of ultrawides - 24mm is about as wide as go, 28mm is plenty wide usually for me. I got tired of carrying a fast AF 150 or even 105. I like small, compact lenses - the Canon 40mm STM , Nikon 3.5/28. But in some situations these don't have enough reach. The 55 is wide enough for general puropse for me, and can be used DX mode ~80mm, or even on the D7100 there is an added 'cropped DX, DX mode' that's takes it into 105 territory with 2.8 speed and good optics.

My average FL may be 135 on here but I shoot a lot of sports and for that most of the time it is the 300mm f/2.8 that I shoot with. The 135mm is probably shooting with the 70-200mm for when the action gets a lot closer than the 300 can shoot.

In all honesty, I am just trying to figure out what I am going to take with me on vacation this summer because I can't take everything with me. I'll probably end up taking the RF50mm, 24-70mm and the 70-200 with me on that trip.

 

[mrca]

I select a lens on how it renders the image more than focal length. The zeiss lenses from late 90's early 2000's as well as that era nikons (105 and 135 dc, 180 2.8) have low element counts, the zeiss 100 mm 2.0 makro planar has 9 not 22 light sucking and reflecting pieces of glass in the tube, so they have the classic "zeiss pop" or what is called "Leica look:" 3D as opposed to flat rendering. Here's a shot taken with the 100 and just ambient light that shows it. It also has gorgeous oof/bokeh. The newer zeiss lenses moved away from this as a goal some actually designed for video and cost thousands. My zeiss 35 distagon has the same 3d rendering and when shooting environmental portraits I can get subject to pop from the image without a wide aperture oof background and use the bg to give context. And you will find these older lenses can be half the price of the newer glass.

 

[snowbear]

My current workhorse is the 28-85 f/3.5-4.5 Nikkor, though should be replaced with the 24-70 f/2.8 in the next few weeks. My other two favorites are the 70-200 f/2.8 Nikkor (coupled to the TC20), and the old AI-S 105mm f/4 Micro Nikkor.

 

[ac12]

Exactly. If I am going to be stranded on a desert island and I have to pick only one lens, I'll instead take Wilson. A more appropriate question is what is your favorite lens.

Actually, for some of us, that might be even harder.
I don't have a "favorite lens."
I just use whatever lens I think is best suited for the shoot.
If I use one lens more, it is simply because it fits more shoots than the other lenses.

 

[ronlane]

What kind of vacation?

Walking/active? Museums? Blending in on a city street somewhat with the locals? Wildlife or landscape interests?

Taking the family to the beach, so landscape, waterfalls. Maybe some snorkeling and some portrait stuff of the kids.

 

[mrca]

My current workhorse is the 28-85 f/3.5-4.5 Nikkor, though should be replaced with the 24-70 f/2.8 in the next few weeks. My other two favorites are the 70-200 f/2.8 Nikkor (coupled to the TC20), and the old AI-S 105mm f/4 Micro Nikkor.

The 24-70 is a work horse for wedding, event, photojournalist photographers. It has earned more money than any other lens. I have one and use it when called for but with all that glass, it is an ok lens. I sold my 70-200 because with 46 mp I can shoot a much lighter 135 2.0 dc with better bokeh and just crop in post.

 

[mrca]

Taking the family to the beach, so landscape, waterfalls. Maybe some snorkeling and some portrait stuff of the kids.

Nikon has a 16-35 with 4 stop VR that allows you to hand hold down to a full second from 16 mm. Ideal in museums or churches, gives you modest wide angle. But if it mainly for landscape group portraiture, the 24-70 2,8. Plenty wide and add an 85 or 100 and you should have it covered. An 8 element 180 2.8 is only $400 and blows the doors of zooms. If you want just one lens, perhaps forget the slr and go with a point and shoot with a 50.

 

[petrochemist]

Thinking afresh about this I'd keep my left eye it's sharper than the right & without at least one eye photography is out of the question anyway. Doing photography with out a lens on the camera is very limiting but not totally impossible a pinhole or a Newtonian telescope in prime focus are examples that let me slip in a camera still.

Fortunately I don't have to limit myself like this & can pick from literally hundreds depending on what I'm shooting & which camera I'll be using.

 

[webestang64]

Where did the question go.....?