DSLR Photography Forum

If you could only own one lens, what would it be?

If you could only ever use two lenses, what would your choices be?

And if you were limited to only three lenses, which ones would you pick, and why?

Interesting topic Matt. The problem is it varies for what type of body you are using them on (the crop factor will affect your choice of lens). For me I will talk about lenses on a full frame body - 5D and the 1D3 1.3 crop as I think they are pretty close together for me in terms of what lenses I use on them.

Keep in mind that I do most of my photography at Weddings.

1) Canon 24-70L 2.8
2) Canon 24-70L 2.8 and Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS
3) Canon 24-70L 2.8, Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS and Canon 16-35L 2.8

If it was a 1.6 crop camera I would select the following.

1) Canon 17-55 EFS 2.8 IS
2) Canon 17-55 EFS 2.8 IS and Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS
3) Canon 17-55 EFS 2.8 IS, Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS and Canon 10-22 EFS 3.5 (I can't remember if this is a constant minimum aperture or not).

I think WS has summed up the choices many Canon shooters would make when it comes to zoom lenses... so in order to be a bit different I'll further limit my choices to prime lenses only.

Like Chris, I'll also give two lists (for Canon bodies only) - one for full frame and one for 1.6x crop factor cameras.

Full-Frame Camera:
1. Canon 50mm f/1.2L
2. Canon 35mm f/1.4L and Canon 135mm f/2L
3. Canon 24mm f/1.4L, Canon 85mm f/1.2L and Canon 200mm f/1.8L

1.6 Crop Factor Camera:
1. Sigma 30mm f/1.4
2. Canon 24mm f/1.4L and Canon 135mm f/2L
3. Canon 14mm f/2.8L, Canon 35mm f/1.4L, and Canon 135mm f/2L

If I could choose 5 prime lenses, but they had to suit both FF and 1.6x cameras then they would be:
Canon 14mm f/2.8L, Canon 35mm f/1.4L, Canon 85mm f/1.2L, Canon 135mm f/2L and Canon 200mm f/1.8L

Taking into account my kind of photography and my poor experience with any other lenses, I would choose the ones I have in this order.... All of them mounted in my 5D.

1. Canon EF 24-150mm f/4 L IS USM.
Very nice lens to take lanscapes: It makes a bit of distortion but nothing you can't repair in PS. At 24mm, it works fine with a slim CPF, and with the cokin system you get a thin vignetting you can crop. Very nice for portaits and close up. With this only lens I would cover more or less much of my photography... I would be limping in my birds pictures, though.

2. Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L USM Macro Lens
Excellent macro lens, I have taken birds in flight and landscapes also and works really nice.

3. Canon EF 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS USM
As my third choice, I would chose this lens because it is great for wild life photography. Well, I am not shooting in Africa, but still great to take to the fields to hunt pictures of deer or birds, great to take pictures in the zoo as well.

As you know I am not a professional photographer, but only an amatteur photographer, keen on nature photography and recienty architecture, so my choices might differ a lot from pro photographers working in specific areas...

It's interesting to see the differences in what people choose. I've been thinking about this because how and where I take photographs has changed. I used to grab a camera and a lens and go for walks, limiting me to what I can comfortably carry in a small bag, but with the opportunity to come back the next day if I had the wrong lens for something interesting. Now I'm much more likely to go somewhere that I can't easily return to, and need a few lenses that can take care of anything I'm likely to want. I also have to balance what I want personally with what I need to do the work that I want to have -- architecture, product (especially jewellery), and theatre/event photography.

As I'm using a 4/3 camera, my focal lengths need to be doubled to convert to 35mm-equivalents. I also have two stops more depth of field than a 35mm camera, or one stop more than a 1.5/1.6x crop, so I need smaller apertures to throw backgrounds out of focus.

If I could only have one lens, like Irma, I'd take a good standard zoom. In my case that's the 14-54 f2.8-3.5, which is the lens that I used for the first year with my SLR. It's a good lens and covers just about all of my everyday needs. The quality is very good, and it's small and sealed. The only problem is that I don't particularly enjoy using it, and carry others instead whenever possible. Projecting into the future, I might take the 12-60 instead, but it's not on the market yet.

For two lenses, I'd take the 11-22 f2.8-3.5 for a wide-normal zoom. It's not quite as wide as I'd like, but the wider 7-14 f4 isn't worth giving up the length. I'd also keep my 35-100 f2 long zoom. I wasn't initially a big fan of this lens simply because it's so large and heavy. Without the tripod collar, it weighs as much as my heaviest camera with its battery grip and the 11-22 lens attached. With the hood in place, it's over 13" long, and even without the hood it's bigger than my Sony F828. This isn't something to pull out over Thanksgiving with the camera-shy nieces. Still, the quality, speed, and versatile focal length has finally won me over.

If I could have a third lens, I keep the 11-22 and 35-100 and add the 50 f2 Macro. It's a nice small lens with no real flaws, except for the focusing quirks that are common to macro lenses. It's excellent for product photography, and does pretty well for camera-shy nieces, too. While the 35-100 doesn't have nearly the reach non-photographers expect it to, the 50f2 is deceptively long and is really good for portraits and less intrusive photography.

I'd probably miss the ultra-telephoto of my 50-200 and the flexibility of the 1.4 teleconverter the most. That could always be fixed by adding a fourth lens like the 90-250 f2.8, but that's another thread.

hi

interesting, I do not have many lenses, just because i'm happy with them,only 3. But if I have to choose I will go with the one that is always attached to the nikon d2xs which is the 18-35.

Christian
www.6701.sunpixs.com

if I could only ever have one lens, it would have to be..... the perfect lens for the situation! lol.


I really don't know much about lenses. I only have 2. *looks ashamed*

Hey, there's nothing wrong with having a little less equipment.

Seriously, the point of the exercise for me has been to really think about what I actually need instead of want. I could get along just fine with only three or four lenses. (Someone has argued that a teleconverter's an accessory, but I think that's a close call.) "Lens Lust" is a waste of money.

I find it interesting that when faced with a 1 or 2 lens limit, most people will gravitate towards zoom lenses, particularly those that cover a large focal length range.
It's very understandable that people would want a "swiss army knife" lens that can be used in many situations, but while a swiss army knife can do a lot of different things, generally speaking it doesn't do any of them as well as a dedicated tool would. Similarly a zoom lens will almost always sacrifice it's maximum aperture and some image quality in order to gain the benefit of zooming. Personally I more often find the aperture range more useful than the focal length range of a lens. I guess it depends a lot on the type of photography you intend to use the lens for.

After using my EF 70-200mm f/4L zoom for a year or two (and loving it, it's a great lens) I then bought an EF 135mm f/2L prime lens. Now after a couple more years of using both, given the choice between these two lenses I would pick the 135mm f/2L every time. Sure there are times when zooming would be nice, but most of the time I can "zoom with my feet" and simply reposition myself to get the composition I want. It is a lot more difficult to get an f/4 to behave like an f/2 lens. And that's not even scratching the surface of zoom vs prime IQ differences.
The prime lens will teach you not to be lazy and make you work to get the shot you want. But a fast prime can take shots that simply aren't possible with a slow zoom.

But having said that, the two lenses I have just ordered are both zooms! Shooting with primes can slow my photography down quite a lot, leading to missed opportunities (particularly with sports or event photography where things are unfolding quickly around you). So yeah, there is definately an important role for zooms too, particularly fast ones that come closer to replacing primes for me.

matthew Wrote:Seriously, the point of the exercise for me has been to really think about what I actually need instead of want. I could get along just fine with only three or four lenses. (Someone has argued that a teleconverter's an accessory, but I think that's a close call.) "Lens Lust" is a waste of money.

This is so true... I wanted to buy the 85mm f/1.2 just because I have seen pictures with this lens and they are beautiful, and gorgeous for portrait photography, which I very seldom take... Then I thought, about my needs and I decided to get firm with my ladscape and architecture photography... I decided for the TS 24mm... I am already waiting for the lens to arrive home

I understand well what you say Kombi, about dedicated tools... but... when your pictures don't pay your lenses ... and photography is just a hobby, and a very expensive hobby if you take it to this level... well... I think .... a very good zoom lens will do a pretty good job....

Another thing that to me is a bit frustraiting somehow... is that I am not dedicated to just one kind of photography. If I were just keen on macro photography, let's say. I would spend all my money to get the best tools to take only that kind of photography. Unfortunately, I enjoy macro, as well as landscape, portrait, or action photography. And you will never have enough money to get the "best" gear for all these kinds of photography.

Kombisaurus Wrote:I find it interesting that when faced with a 1 or 2 lens limit, most people will gravitate towards zoom lenses, particularly those that cover a large focal length range. ... Personally I more often find the aperture range more useful than the focal length range of a lens.

Before I added my 35-100, my 'two-lens kit' consisted of the 11-22 wide-normal zoom and the 50mm macro prime. It covers the same basic focal length range that my 14-54 ('one lens' choice) but I'd use the two-lens set up specifically for the faster aperture, bringing me to f/2 instead of f/3.5. For a light-weight kit it's a hard combination to beat, and if I hadn't visited so many wildlife parks in Australia, it would have done the majority of the heavy lifting. So, I can certainly see your point about the value of fast primes.

Kombisaurus Wrote:... So yeah, there is definately an important role for zooms too, particularly fast ones that come closer to replacing primes for me.

...and that's why I picked (after considerable consideration) the 35-100 over the 50mm prime. They're both f/2, so it's a choice between macro capabilities, simplicity in use, and small size versus the zoom. Zoom won, but if I could fit both in my camera bag, they'd both be there.

Irma Wrote:Another thing that to me is a bit frustraiting somehow... is that I am not dedicated to just one kind of photography. If I were just keen on macro photography, let's say. I would spend all my money to get the best tools to take only that kind of photography. Unfortunately, I enjoy macro, as well as landscape, portrait, or action photography. And you will never have enough money to get the "best" gear for all these kinds of photography.

I certainly feel this as well. There are so many specialties, and not just about lenses. There's far too much divergent equipment and skills to be mastered, which is why I'm thinking that the best thing that I can do is limit myself. The challenge is finding a limit I like.