If you could bring 1 lens...

kathyt · May 12, 2015

tirediron said:
I wouldn't go.

There is no such thing as just picking one. Why? Why would you do this to yourself? It could only lead to possible PTSD or potential severe depression. I wouldn't risk it. I really wouldn't. Just leave a child back. Really. Save yourself!
***When I go to Mexico, they all go with me.

fjrabon · May 12, 2015

Solarflare said:
Actually in the film days there have been quite a number of SLRs with a fixed lens. I think the earliest SLRs have all been fixed lens designs.

Its just that the invention of the EVF such a solution seems to be weird nowadays.

I would always say a single lens is the optimal number of lenses for any camera, including any system camera. A system camera just opens up the possibilities which lens it would be; but it doesnt force you to choose any specific one.

For example I would totally go for a single Canon EF 85mm f1.2 and mount it to a Canon EOS 5D. It would be a specialized camera just for portraits, obviously.

Or if I would get a D750 or a second D600, I would lower my number of lenses per system camera from 4 to 2; I would probably mount the wide angle lens permanently on the D600 and the telezoom on the D750, unless its bad light, at which point I would switch to my two prime lenses.

Yes, the earliest SLRs were fixed lenses because they were easier to make that way, not because it was the optimal solution. That's like saying cameras without autofocus are viable solutions because the first film slrs didn't have autofocus.

What is your reasoning for thinking that a single lens per dslr is the optimal number? To me that either locks you to a relatively small number of options or forces you to carry around a body per camera. I get having multiple bodies when you're an event shooter, for speed purposes, plus you're being paid to hulk around a lot of gear, but why in the world would you dedicate an entire camera body to be "just for portraits"?

Do it all zooms are fine to me for vacations, but at that point you might as well get something like an LX100, rather than a D5300 or whatever and an 18-105. The LX100 will pretty much match that combo in versatility and image quality and can fit in your pocket.

runnah · May 12, 2015

I'd bring a thermos full of G&T and a beach chair.

ronlane · May 12, 2015

No marshal law here in Oklahoma, so I don't have to choose just one. I can put my camera, 28-135 and 70-200 in a small messenger bag and take it all with me.

jovince3000 · May 13, 2015

Derrel said:
Canon's 24-105 f/4 L IS USM for Canon FF

When I don't know what I will need and I'm restrained by heavy luggage, it's always what I chose.

nerwin · May 14, 2015

On FX, I'd probably bring my 35 f/2. If I was on DX, I'd probably bring a 24mm or 20mm prime lens.

Dave442 · May 14, 2015

I have often gone to the beach with just my 70-300mm VR or just the 35mm f/1.8DX. The first when I expect pelicans and the second when just want some family shots and to take along for a long walk along the beach.

goodguy · May 14, 2015

70-200mm, how else can you get close to the interesting things ? :048:

fjrabon · May 14, 2015

goodguy said:
70-200mm, how else can you get close to the interesting things ?

I usually say "hey you're cute, I've got an extra margarita if you're interested."

jovince3000 · May 14, 2015

goodguy said:
70-200mm, how else can you get close to the interesting things ?

I found out 20 or so years ago ( I'm 22 in a couples of days ) that WALKING is a good way to get closer to things. I know, Life hack. I must be a hypster. (that's a joke btw, don't take it the wrong way).

And when they(people you photograph) notice you, I find that saying "hi" and then proceed to interact a little is a good way to make friends / clients.