If you could only have one

[3bayjunkie]

What one lens would you chose. If you could only have one? And why?

Me: I would chose the Canon 50mm f/1.2. Because A) I use Canon bodies and B) because I do portraits and the 85mm lens is some times too much lens for small inside rooms.

Sent using PhotoForum

 

[fjrabon]

Probably the Nikon 24mm f/1.4

Gotta have wide, and on a crop frame it gives you that classic full frame 35mm look.

I could never shoot a portrait, telephoto shot, or anything like that, and I could be perfectly happy shooting an awesome lens somewhere between 24mm and 35mm on a crop frame forever.

There are times when I consider just going to the 10-20mm sigma, the Nikon 35mm f/1.8, Nikon 24mm f/1.4 and Tamron 60mm f/2 macro/portrait.

 

[Solarflare]

Well, if I could freely choose ANY lens: 30mm(*) f/2.0(**) tilt/shift(***) with autofocus, image stabilization, insertable apodization filter(***), and macro extension(****). I would also want a camera that supports manual focus much better, though.

(*): I use APS-C/1.5 crop factor. If its a full frame, I would want 45mm instead.
(**): Or better, but I rather have a smaller aperture that I can use at high quality already wide open. Also, its more lightweight this way.
(***): both using the tilt/shift or using the apodization filter will of course disable autofocus and metering of the camera.
(****): Not that I'm interested in macro, but it doesnt hurt to be complete.

If I can only use one lens, well thats what I'm doing right now. Its 35mm instead of 30mm, though. And I'm waiting for my 55-200mm lens since 3 1/2 weeks now.

Starting to contemplate to get a cheap manual 85mm and trying this: Markus Keinath - DIY Apodisation Filter

 

[BuS_RiDeR]

If could only have one lens, it would be the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L, because I've always wanted a good leans to shoot hockey and other sports with... Plus I could use it for portraits and landscapes and other stuff... My Canon 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 is just too slow to do sports...

I really think only one lens isn't enough. I'd want an EF 50mm f/1.2L and an EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro as well... Too bad I'm poor and on a limited income. I guess I'll make due with what I've got for now...

 

[slackercruster]

Pentax 17-70. But weather seal it.

 

[KmH]

If I could have just 1 lens for a Canon DSLR it would have to be the Canon EF 10-1000 mm f/0.95L II IS Apochromatic USM.

But, those are pretty rare and hard to come by, so instead I would choose the new II or older version of - Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras

 

[KenC]

Oh no!!! I have an SLR but I can't change lenses!!??? Oh, just give me some cyanide instead ...

 

[sovietdoc]

24-70 II if it had Image Stabilization.

 

[gsgary]

24-70 II if it had Image Stabilization.

Why would you want IS on that lens i have the 24-70 and have never needed IS

 

[KmH]

IS on lenses under 200 mm seems like paying for a crutch when you don't have any problems with your legs.

 

[sovietdoc]

24-70 II if it had Image Stabilization.

Why would you want IS on that lens i have the 24-70 and have never needed IS

1. Because you can shoot in low light with small aperture and shoot handheld.
2. Because it lets you shoot video that isn't jerking all over the place because your hands can't keep it super smooth.
3. Because if a lens costs this much and there are other cheaper ones with IS, it should also have IS so you're not paying more for less.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

.
2. Because it lets you shoot video that isn't jerking all over the place because your hands can't keep it super smooth.

If your hands are so jerky you can't keep the frame smooth enough for decent quality video, you need to be taking a tripod with you everywhere you go. If they are really that unstable, anything you shoot below 1/80 shutter will have camera shake.

 

[sovietdoc]

.
2. Because it lets you shoot video that isn't jerking all over the place because your hands can't keep it super smooth.

If your hands are so jerky you can't keep the frame smooth enough for decent quality video, you need to be taking a tripod with you everywhere you go. If they are really that unstable, anything you shoot below 1/80 shutter will have camera shake.

It's impossible to shoot a perfectly smooth movie handheld. Every time you pick up the camera, EVERY movement of your hands, no matter how steady they are, will be very noticeable in post. IS/VC/VR whatever, doesn't make the movement go away, but it significantly smoothens it out so there aren't any jerks and even if the frame moved because you're hand holding, it moves nice and smooth.

For handheld video shooting IS is a must. It's so important, Canon even put IS on their 24 and 28mm primes. Yes, Wide Angle primes. For pure photography, the wider the angle, the less important IS is because movement is less noticeable. But IS still helps you shoot in lower light.


Saying IS is stupid on anything lower than 200mm is like saying a crutch is stupid when you got problems with your legs.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

.
2. Because it lets you shoot video that isn't jerking all over the place because your hands can't keep it super smooth.

If your hands are so jerky you can't keep the frame smooth enough for decent quality video, you need to be taking a tripod with you everywhere you go. If they are really that unstable, anything you shoot below 1/80 shutter will have camera shake.

It's impossible to shoot a perfectly smooth movie handheld. Every time you pick up the camera, EVERY movement of your hands, no matter how steady they are, will be very noticeable in post. IS/VC/VR whatever, doesn't make the movement go away, but it significantly smoothens it out so there aren't any jerks and even if the frame moved because you're hand holding, it moves nice and smooth.

For handheld video shooting IS is a must. It's so important, Canon even put IS on their 24 and 28mm primes. Yes, Wide Angle primes. For pure photography, the wider the angle, the less important IS is because movement is less noticeable. But IS still helps you shoot in lower light.


Saying IS is stupid on anything lower than 200mm is like saying a crutch is stupid when you got problems with your legs.

I've got video I've shot on my dSLR that says different. Granted, it's not PERFECTLY stable, the camera shake isn't enough to make you not want to watch the video. I don't know how shakey your hands are, but I've shot images with 1/2 - 1 second shutters that barely show signs of camera shake.

I have an 18-55mm AF-S VR that I have not once ever used the VR on. Why? Because on my first dSLR I owned with VR, I couldn't tell the difference between a shot with VR and without... and you won't be able to until you get focal lengths of about 200mm or higher. The ONLY other situation I could see this having an effect, is if you are shooting Macro with slow glass. On a standard wide angle or portrait shot... VR and IS are completely irrelevant.

 

[sovietdoc]

I've got video I've shot on my dSLR that says different. Granted, it's not PERFECTLY stable, the camera shake isn't enough to make you not want to watch the video. I don't know how shakey your hands are, but I've shot images with 1/2 - 1 second shutters that barely show signs of camera shake.

So you're going to tell me that for shooting video you are better off without IS than with it right?

I have an 18-55mm AF-S VR that I have not once ever used the VR on. Why? Because on my first dSLR I owned with VR, I couldn't tell the difference between a shot with VR and without... and you won't be able to until you get focal lengths of about 200mm or higher. The ONLY other situation I could see this having an effect, is if you are shooting Macro with slow glass. On a standard wide angle or portrait shot... VR and IS are completely irrelevant.

You must have not been looking at 100% crops. Also not all VR/IS systems are the same even if they say "IS" or "VR" While both 18-55 and 70-200 lens say "IS", the IS is very different in performance on 18-55 versus the 70-200.