# If you could only have one



## KreutzerPhotography (Mar 26, 2012)

If you had to chose one (REAL) lens for the REST of your photography career. Which would you chose? And Why?


----------



## Tijn (Mar 26, 2012)

70-200 f/2.8L IS II probably, on a good full-frame body. Of all my photography I like portraits the most, in particular tight ones. This lens would make a nice versatile lens for that.

Alternatively the 28-300L might be the one, to just have all the range covered.

Hard question. I'm lucky that this is one choice I probably won't ever have to make in real life.


----------



## peederj (Mar 26, 2012)

I would get a super zoom then because I have been forced into some hypothetical contortion. I don't have a super zoom and would only buy one if something was forcing me like this. But it's more important to get the right shot than get the absolute best quality.

But I have an even more clever answer. I would get the best Zeiss wide angle prime (e.g. 25 f/2) and just wait for sensor technology to improve so much I can zoom digitally without quality loss. :-*


----------



## Bob Howland (Mar 26, 2012)

*28-300 L*

Why? Well, it was invented as the one lens to use when you could only use one.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 26, 2012)

Do i get to keep my current lenses or forfeit them all and use only one? If i got to keep my lenses, I would upgrade the 70-200 to the 70-200 2.8 IS II or the 70-300L or if i had to choose only 1 lens, I guess it would be the trusty 24-105... Most general purpose range, ok low light, and IS plus great IQ... Not spectacular at any one facet but does a lot of facets very well.


----------



## lexonio (Mar 26, 2012)

24-105L


----------



## prayharder (Mar 26, 2012)

*Re: 28-300 L*



Bob Howland said:


> 28-300L
> Why? Well, it was invented as the one lens to use when you could only use one.



+1


----------



## aZhu (Mar 26, 2012)

lexonio said:


> 24-105L



+1


----------



## KurtStevens (Mar 26, 2012)

35 1.4L. Hands down.


----------



## KreutzerPhotography (Mar 26, 2012)

KurtStevens said:


> 35 1.4L. Hands down.



Why?


----------



## EYEONE (Mar 26, 2012)

KreutzerPhotography said:


> KurtStevens said:
> 
> 
> > 35 1.4L. Hands down.
> ...



Because it's a fantastic lens?

I'd go with the 85mm f1.2L II. I think. If you asked tomorrow it'd probably be a different lens. But with what I normally shoot I could do just about everything with an 85mm.


----------



## Orion (Mar 26, 2012)

Maybe this . . . . . . but not sure yet. ( maybe all the above???  )

http://blog.photoshelter.com/2008/07/the-8-best-camera-lenses-ever/

Canon 24mm f/1.4







Ruby. Photo by Jason Burfield.

If you’re used to wide-angle zooms that max out at f/2.8, you’ll be thrilled to have more than a stop of extra light and a super shallow depth-of-field. Getting this level of isolation out of a wide angle almost gives the pictures a view camera-esque perspective. This is a lens that makes you wish you shot Canon.

$1170

or this,

Leica 35mm f/2 Summicron-M






Some people think 50mm is the ideal focal length. I respectfully disagree. When it comes to shooting “wide”, this lens is pretty close to photographic nirvana. Whether you’re shooting a war or a wedding, this lens has the field of view and lack of distortion to put all the “mmm’s” in Summicron.

$2595


----------



## JR (Mar 26, 2012)

If I had only one prime, it would be a 50mm.

If I had only one zoom, it would be the 24-70 f2/8L II.

I do have a preference for a prime over a zoom though, even if I am loozing on flexibility, because I am addicted to the rasor sharpness of my prime lenses...maybe the new 24-70 will change that!


----------



## Dianoda (Mar 26, 2012)

KreutzerPhotography said:


> KurtStevens said:
> 
> 
> > 35 1.4L. Hands down.
> ...



Assuming I'm shooting full-frame, I second the 35L, and here's why: f/1.4 means I'm good in low light and provides plenty of subject isolation. Being a prime, it's relatively compact. The angle of view is classic - you can make the 35mm focal length work for just about everything (the exceptions being wildlife and sport).

Coming from my current crop of lenses, I would miss weather sealing and IQ could be better from f/1.4-f/2 (the Samyang is the sharper lens), but yeah, if I could only have one lens, the 35L is it.


----------



## lol (Mar 26, 2012)

100-400L. Who needs wide angle anyway?


----------



## dunkers (Mar 26, 2012)

I would probably choose my 100mm L macro, although my 70-200 f2.8 IS II comes in at a close second. 

I don't have the eye for landscape photography, so I don't even bother with wide angles. 

The 100L is quiet, ridiculously sharp, light, and very discrete. Sure I lose the versatility of a zoom, but I love having to physically move to get the shot. The color, weight, and size it make a lot less noticeable than my 70-200. 

I mainly shoot portraits and this lens is always my go to lens for the such shoots. It also works wonders for street photography because the focal length gives you plenty of working distance for those nice candid shots. I can also shoot macro if I happen upon a bug or spider. If I'm walking around bushes/flowers and whatnot, I tend to search for them as I move along.

The IS is a huge plus for me. Sure the focal length and lens is light enough for handheld, but the hybrid IS eliminates all of those miniscule movements. I've found it very useful when taking pictures in awkward positions that affects my balance. 

My 70-200 II is a fantastic workhouse lens, but the size and weight isn't as practical for me. Plus, it sometimes scares people off when trying to do street photography.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 26, 2012)

I'd just give up photography. I've lived with one lens in my film days, I could not afford additional lenses, and ended up losing interest.


----------



## Dianoda (Mar 26, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'd just give up photography. I've lived with one lens in my film days, I could not afford additional lenses, and ended up losing interest.



Funny you say that. I spent about 8 months with the 100L as my only lens (and on a crop body, to boot), but I didn't lose interest in photography at all - I somehow managed to take more than 15K photos during that period (and, according to my back up drive, apparently decided to keep 14,892 of them).


----------



## VASH1291 (Mar 26, 2012)

Canon 50mm f1.2 L hands down ;D


----------



## sproggit (Mar 26, 2012)

Interesting question...

Before I get to lenses, I'm going to touch on camera bodies first. I currently run an EOS 7D, having upgraded from a 40D when the former was released. If I had to operate a single camera body [and to heck with the expense] then it has to be the 1DX. My subject of interest include macro work, but also wildlife - particularly raptors (birds of prey) and for that sort of subject I'd be interested in the impressively high frame rate of the 1DX. My only real concern would be the bulk. I've not tried to work with one of Canon's full-frame, extended-body cameras, and I wonder how fatiguing that would be after a day of shooting...

So to lenses. I haven't tried the 100mm L Series Macro that you mention... At the moment my slowly growing collection covers the 16-35 f2.8,24-70 f2.8 (Mk I), 70-200 f2.8 (Mk I) and 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L Lenses... At the moment I'm very interested in trying a 35mm prime, but will wait for the anticipated Mk II to come along before I make the move. And if I could have absolutely anything? Well, I'd cheat, of course! I'd go with the 70-200mm f2.8 Mk II L Series (which by all accounts is absolutely cracking) and I'd perform near-field and closer work with extension tubes... 

And now for the blasphemous bit... Having run a Powershot alongside my SLR for a few years (I started with the G9) I've come to love the compact portability and usability of Canon's smallest "serious" camera. I'm currently running a G12 (no current plans to upgrade) and this gets used both in 'round-town' environments such as days when I'm traveling on business and also, in Canon's own water-proof housing, when I'm indulging in some recreational scuba diving. It's stupendous for both tasks. And the blasphemy? Well, I just bought myself a Panasonic DMC-GX1. I was intrigued to see what all the fuss was about. And. Well. Wow. 

It came with a stock lens (14-45mm - 24-90mm equivalent for 35mm) that is average, but I augmented with a 20mm f1.7 Panasonic branded lens and an all-manual Voigltander Nokton 25mm f0.95. That Voigltander is so sharp it would make your eyes bleed... Yes, it softens appreciably into the corners when it's wider than about f4.0-f5.6, but it's exquisite to work with. Oh give me something like that for my 7D and I'd be in heaven... These were my first experiences of primes, and I think I'm a convert. Hence the 35mm Mk II L-Series will go on the shopping list!


----------



## FunPhotons (Mar 27, 2012)

Smart choice would be my 24-105. Best must have lens, I get most of my best shots from it. 

Favorite choice would be my 16-35. Less versatile and 'useful', but I do most of my shooting in this range with this lens. 

Close runner up is my 70-200/2.8II. Wonderful lens, heavy as a rock. I don't like telephoto generally, as much as I like the lens I don't actually use it too much.


----------



## Jim K (Mar 27, 2012)

100-400 on a crop body. 
It was my first DSLR lens (on a 50D) and works well with our friendly Florida birds. I did spend $200 on the 28-135 kit lens too. If you let me I would add a full frame body to get a bit wider when I needed it.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 27, 2012)

50mm 1.2L + 5Dc = My perfect one lens setup.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Mar 27, 2012)

Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II!


----------



## RC (Mar 27, 2012)

Well for my 7D, I'd pick my 16-35 II. Sharp, reasonable fast, and wide to normal range. Besides it my most used lens.


----------



## Minnesota Nice (Mar 27, 2012)

The 8-15mm fisheye.

I use fisheye more than anything else. It adds a fun aspect to shooting and I always shoot some sort of board sport so that's my go to lens.


----------



## solarpos (Mar 27, 2012)

For my 7D I'd pick a 24-70 2.8 L if a zoom and a 35 1.4 if a prime. For my Elan 7 I'd pick the same zoom and a 50 1.2 for a prime.


----------



## nkbeer (Mar 27, 2012)

70-200 f/2.8 is all I use for shooting musicians. Even full stage shots. However, I have the advantage of daylight balanced LED's and flash.


----------



## KreutzerPhotography (Mar 27, 2012)

prestonpalmer said:


> Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II!



My favorite too. What makes it so special to you? What type of photos do you take?


----------



## Bosman (Apr 4, 2012)

Dont make me choose!
Most images for me occur between 15 & 70 mm
24-70
For killer portraits and sports
70-200II
For everything is beautiful in the world and everything can be shot honestly without changing perspective but offering out of focus goo without sacrificing focus speed 50 f1.2 

But to answer you perfectly as you asked 24-70 and its only going to be easier to decide when the Version II comes out.


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 4, 2012)

70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II, hands down


----------



## kev8d (Apr 4, 2012)

Assuming I was taking photos as a hobby, the 100mm f/2.8L IS. 

If this was for video (which is my bread and butter), it'd be the 50mm f/1.2L.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 4, 2012)

70-300L on a 1D4. Lack of speed would be taken care of with flash


----------



## smirkypants (Apr 4, 2012)

Does the 200/400 f4 1.4x count as being real? If so, that one.


----------



## sweetcancer (Apr 4, 2012)

VASH1291 said:


> Canon 50mm f1.2 L hands down ;D



This


----------



## KreutzerPhotography (May 28, 2012)

I shot a wedding yesterday and fell in love with my 16-35II. I have owned it for about 6 months now and never really challenged myself to use this lens. On a crop body it is a pretty good indoor lens. I think I might get a 70-200 2.8L for the ceremony and use the 16-35 for both ceremony and receptions. 

My new Pick-One lens is now the 16-35


----------



## drjlo (May 28, 2012)

85 f/1.2L II. 
Just "wide" enough for indoor portraits and even small groups and just "long" enough for things like outdoor wedding, while remaining sharp and bokehlicious.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 28, 2012)

If I could only have one lens, I'd choose the 70-200 2.8L II IS and the 24-70 f/2.8L II.


----------



## Razor2012 (May 28, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> If I could only have one lens, I'd choose the 70-200 2.8L II IS and the 24-70 f/2.8L II.



I'll take that one lens also, the 24-200 2.8L II.


----------



## briansquibb (May 28, 2012)

35-350L


----------

