If you could have one lens, which would it be?

<p>This is the last year I'll be shooting weddings -- actually, this is the last year I'll be a licensed photographer. When I'm done (October 8th is my last wedding, and therefore, my last paid assignment), I plan on selling everything but my 7D and 580 EXII. Everything. I want one excellent fixed lens. Just one. Landscapes will be my main focus, but I will occasionally shoot people (journalistic). I've been going back and forth in my mind on a 35mm 1.4 or a 50mm 1.4. What would you choose?</p>

<p>For the journalistic people part - the 35/1.4. But even that lens on a crop-sensor body seems to be too long for landscape. My choice would be the 16-35/2.8 - and I would consider getting a 5D MKII instead of keeping the 7D.</p>

<p>I agree. 50's too long on an APS-C body, and even 35mm might seem restrictive. But then, limiting yourself to a single lens, in the interests of a monastically minimalist approach seems ... unduly monastic. If you intend to do any sort of event work (not really sure what you were getting at there, with journalistic people shooting), it's just sensible to have spare gear regardless. Might as well give yourself a little bit of focal length flexibility while being responsible about functioning on demand. A wide-to normal f/2.8 zoom and a stellar fast prime seem like a good combination.</p>

<p>The one focal length I find the most universal is the 35mm on full frame. So on the 7D I'd have to say the 24/1.4.</p>

 

<p>I'd probably go with the 24-105 on my 5D. A real compromise zoom, hand IS, relatively compact. But, I wouldn't want to put myself in that boat, there's no reason to. I also have and use:<br />35mm f2.0 (moderately wide, light and compact)<br />50mm f1.4 (standard issue standard lens, and fast)<br />24-70 (slight leg-up in image quality over the 24-105, but heavy, better macro)<br />17-40 (poor man's 16-35)<br />70-200 f2.8 IS (poor man's..., uh, never mind: broke the bank on that one)</p>

<p>I love my 50 1.4 on crop body, for closer up portraits, but for landscapes, it would be really restrictive.<br>

As for your equipment, email and let me know what you have for sale, when you are ready to sale.:)</p>

I currently have a 24-70L 2.8 and the 70-200L IS 2.8. I also have an 85mm 1.8 that maybe I will keep as a lens to use for things nit

landscape.

 

A few years back when I was taking classes in black and white film I had used a chinon that was made in the 70's. I had a 35mm

lens and it took beautiful shots (it did!) so I know landscape photography is possible with a 35mm. You just have to be further distant. Right?

I'm really not interested in an arsenal of lenses (no disrespect)...just one good fixed lens (no zoom) that I can have on my 7D. Given

those conditions... The 7D and one fixed lens... Perhaps it should be a choice between the 35mm the 24mm?

<p>Maira: You have exactly what you need, right now, to determine whether 24 or 35 feels better for your visual tastes on the 7D. Just mount up the 24-70, and force yourself to use it at those two focal lengths for a while, and see how they feel. You're in a much better position than most people trying to make that sort of decision, since you have that lens. Might as well make a personally informed (rather than poll-based, if you know what I mean!) decision.</p>

<p>+1 on what Matt says. Also, for shooting mainly landscape, I don't see a compelling reason for a f/1.4 lens. Thus, a 24/2.8 or 35/2.8 might be a choice - or even a 20/2.8. Or, especially for landscape, you might consider the TS-E 24/3.5L</p>

Good points Matt and Dieter. I don't necessarily need a 1.4 lens. I just find the possibilities with it interesting and

since I am trying to minimize my equipment I want to maximize my possibilities. And you're right I actually have the

ability to test the lenses (so to speak) with my 24-70... And in thinking about it, I often zoom all the way out for

landscapes, yet I'm conflicted because I feel it may be too wide for street photography. I want as versatile as possible

because I really don't to be changing out lenses. Yes I will miss my wonderful lenses but I'm looking forward to trying

a minimalistic approach. Thanks for the advice and suggestions.

<p>Whether a 24 or a 35 (on a crop-sensor camera) is better for street photography depends mostly on your style. Comfortable in getting close or liking a wider view/steeper perspective? Choose the 24. If not, choose the 35 (or even a 50). To me, it seems the 24 is the best compromise if you only want one lens and landscape is the main focus. Though I agree with you that it could be a bit wide for street - it was for me, which is why I sold my 24/2.8. On the other hand, a 35mm might often be too long for landscape - and you may not always be able to step back. Also, there is a bit of a difference in perspective between 24 and 35 - which makes me repeat Matt's suggestion: set your 24-70 to either focal length and do some testing; then decide.</p>

<p>Totally missed that you want only a fixed focal length. Sorry.</p>

<p>Still, I think it's like a forced diet: you will snap ;)</p>

<p>35 f1.4 would be my choice. 50mm would be too long in most cases on a cropper. BTW, may I ask why aren't you shooting weddings anymore? Reason I ask is I just started and sure there are bumps, bruises and letdowns, but I can't imagine not shooting weddings at this point. In fact, the week I didn't have any wedding to shoot, I felt bored.</p>

<p>I can see the idea of working things out with one seriously good fixed lens. But to me, it's good exercise... not more than that. A step back with a longer lens is *not* the same photo as one step closer with a wide angle. You will be trading creative possibilities.<br>

For landscapes, by far the most useful lens I have is a 16-85 (Nikon, but Canon has got a similar offer). Having only 24 or 35 would have meant not getting quite a significant amount of shots. So, I'd really consider, is that worth it? I use primes a lot, but typically have 3 or 4 of them with me (24 and 35 at least).<br>

If I was forced to choose one prime, it would be a 35mm on APS-C. And I'd miss my 24mm probably nearly every time.It would not be worth it to me. Not to mention how much I'd miss the longer lenses.<br>

What Matt suggested would be the best way to find out for yourself, but I'd also strongly consider what the real aim of this minimal approach is, and whether it would not be too rigid. After all, if photography is "just hobby" again, it better be fun too.</p>

<p>Mendel -- you made me laugh out loud.<br>

Green -- I'm quitting for lots of reasons. I never wanted two full time jobs. I can't afford to quit my day job on what I make in weddings. I miss photographing things other than weddings and don't have the time or energy right now to take my camera out on a date. I am going to simplify my life and get back to basics -- and recapture the fun, the romance, the exploration that I once shared with my camera. I'm not quitting photography - I'm just going to be more faithful to what is most important to me.</p>

<p>Maira, why not just double your wedding rates and cut down on volume?</p>

<p>Cliff, this would mean that I would actually have to advertise, promote, network and all those other things that I haven't done and don't want to do. I would say (and you can disagree) that successful wedding photography is 75% promotion and 25% skill. I've seen photographers who are as unoriginal as a stone who command high prices and get them, because they promote, promote, promote. That's not in my DNA. I don't consider this a failure on my part, nor do I harbor ill will against those who consider marketing a key part of the business. I love photography. I hate marketing. I'm not giving up photography - just the business of it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would say (and you can disagree) that successful wedding photography is 75% promotion and 25% skill.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I disagree, it is 10% skill and 90% marketing. I'm a PT shooter myself and people will not hire me for premium prices just because I'm also an IT guy. The mystique of the photog is just as important as the quality of the work. I'm glad I don't rely on this to put food on the table so I also don't market much. But I'm afraid if I wanted to do high budget weddings, doing marketing will be inevitable.</p>

<p>The simple romance of only one lens, one body! Only Henri Cartier-Bresson had the sheer guts to do that! Truthfully he used other lenses than the 50mm.. The rest of us need "stuff". The idea of selling is not what I did! I gave up a studio, became a Gypsy with a camera and went off to see parts of the world. Sometimes I did my other profession, other times I did Weddings,Portatraits Family functions or tough photojournalism..I always shot for myself in addition to assignments. I seldom sold any equipment! Like most were bought used.. Who would buy? What lowest price? I kept most of it. I added more stuff since the arrival of digital.Gifts of cameras and systems. I enjoy it all. A Chinon SLR with a beautiful 55mm lens for $10. It can do great doubles just like my F3. So back to your question..<br>

Get the best 50mm lens if you have standard 35mm Format, in Digital. Which one? Get a Macro for ultimate sharpness. Usually not much slower than a F2,0/1.8. You have way higher ISO.<br>

Keep your equipment. There will be small assignments. There is your own needs..</p>

<p>If I had to go for a single fixed lens on a crop body, it might be the 35mm <em>f2.0</em>. As long as I'm dwelling in the single lens purgatory, I might as well travel light, and it's <em>slightly</em> cheaper than the f1.4 L 35mm. ;)</p>

24-105 IS L Great zoom. If you hate zooms I've had a ton of luck with the 35mm. Great for landscapes. Probably the most used lens for landscapes

<p>One lens only? I would say a 50mm in either f/1.4 or f/1.8 flavour. Not interested in 1.2L :)</p>

<p>CONGRATULATIONS !!! I quit 2 years ago, & I FEEL GREAT ! I sleep better, don't have photos & albums scattered around my kitchen !! <strong>I do miss the wedding food</strong> ! After $15K+ of equipment, 100s & 100's of weddings, zillions of shots, rolls & rolls of film, (you know, that roll stuff that goes in a back of a camera ? ), then digital, hours on a computer, I don't shoot much of anything anymore ! mainly sunsets on Mobile Bay.<br>

lens ? 35mm</p>