What is your essential Nikon lens?

<p>Awhile back, Outdoor Photographer played a game where various photographers had to pick a single focal-length that they would stick with if they had to choose just one to shoot with forever. No zooming, no swapping, forever. Results varied from fisheyes and super-wide angles to as long as 600mm (!), with a lot in-between.</p>

<p>So, moving the game to a Nikon format, what Nikon <em>lens</em> would you stick with, supposing you could never change lenses again? We'll even open it up to zoom lenses.</p>

<p>For me, it's tempting to choose the 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 DX and try to cover all possible circumstances. But instead, I think I'll have to go with the 70-200mm 2.8. </p>

<p>How about you?</p>

<p>One prime? My 200 f/2, although when I eventually get a 150mm Sigma macro that might also be a contender (more for the macro than for the portability). But I'd probably be stitching a lot with either.<br />

<br />

One zoom? Far less lofty; my 28-200. But I might have to do more shooting with flash.</p>

<p>Why would I purchase an <em>interchangeable</em> lens camera and then limit myself to one lens only?<br>

But to answer your question - I would sell my camera equipment because I would no longer derive pleasure from photography.</p>

 

<p>Easy, 17-35mm</p>

<p>Nikkor 60mm/2.8 micro. = one lens.<br>

I reserve the option of putting it on any combination of my PN-11, D700, D300 or V1 :)</p>

<p>Most often on the camera: 35/1.8</p>

<p>I bought a PC-Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 lens ca. 1971, and - since it wouldn't fit on my Pentax- also bought a Nikon mount camera body. That lens has shaped more of my camera choices over the years than any other, so although I'd probably go for a tilt and shift lens these days, shift is more critical to me, so I guess I'd stick to the PC-Nikkor for another 40 years.</p>

<p>Hi !<br /> For me, my Nikon 24-70mm f:2.8 ,is almost always on my camera body... This is my all around lens !</p>

<p>Denis</p>

Such a difficult question, but I guess it would be the 180mm f2.8 ED-IF.

<p>I'm looking forward to seeing the results from Nikon's new 18 - 300mm lens. Think this will be an ideal lens for shooting outdoor wedding ceremonies. currently I use two camera bodies with a wide / med and a Med to Tele Zoom, but this one lens will cover the range nicely. Will save me carrying a second camera.</p>

<p>105 f/2DC</p>

<p>85mm F/1.4G, I love 85mms, I have to admit it would be tough going through life without the ability to capture wide angles, but to me, the 85mm sees things exactly as my eye does.</p>

<p>Of the lenses I actually have, the 35-70/2.8D AF Nikkor has been the most useful overall since I use it on the FM2N, F3HP, N6006 and D2H. The 18-70/3.5-4.5 DX a very close second, but useful only on the D2H.</p>

<p>If I had to choose a single focal length it'd be a 35mm f/1.4 prime. That would serve my needs for 35mm film and DX dSLRs. But Nikon doesn't currently make a 35mm prime I'd be interested in.</p>

<p>My 28-70 gets the most work.</p>

 

<p>If I had an FX body, I'd be with Skyler on the 85mm f/1.4. Since I don't, 50mm f/1.4 AIS. A little sharper than the AF/AF-S, but a little more flare/etc.</p>

<p>I would have to select the 60 Micro because I need it for work, and it is a pretty darn good all-around lens.</p>

<p>Voigtlander 58/1.4 on DX, someone's 85/1.4 on FX (maybe the 105/2.5 Ai/Ai-S).</p>

I could live happily with only the 28/2.8 AIS

<p>If it had to be one lens then it would be my 16-85 VR since I have a D7000. If it had to be a prime lens, then I don't know.</p>

<p>Back in the 80s I spent years struggling with a 50mm lens on my Nikon FE, then went wild with happiness when I got a 28mm lens. I then spent the next 20+ years with the 28, a 50, and a 70-210, but used the 28 the vast majority of the time including many times when I should not have been doing so. A few years ago I still would have said that I'm in love with wide angles and that I preferred them to long lenses. Yet over the past few years I've tended to zoom in more in an effort to simplify my photographs.</p>

<p>Out of curiosity I just looked at two sets of photos from a trip I took to the eastern Sierra Nevada last year to see if I could dissect my current preferences and gain some insight. I recommend this exercise as it's rather illuminating.</p>

<p>First, the D7000 photos which were my "serious" photos. The DX focal lengths I used had two large clusters at 16mm and 85mm (the extremes of my default lens); I pegged the lens 47% of the time. Most of the rest of the photos were spread out fairly evenly from 22mm to 70mm. The total range of focal lengths used was from 16mm to 270mm. The median was at 46mm but that focal length had only 6 out of 170 shots. Only 36% of the photos were wider than exactly normal. So much for Mr. wide angle!</p>

<p>It looks like I was too lazy on this trip to ever switch to my 12-24 DX for better photo quality at 16mm, though I have used it a fair amount previously. That's something to correct next time. I only used the 70-300mm VR 10% of the time but could have used it more often. All three zooms overlap so there is some wiggle room for composition after a switch.</p>

<p>By comparison, my S95 (snapshot) photos from the same trip also had large clusters at both ends of the zoom range, at 19mm (DX equivalent) and 71mm; these two made up 45% of the shots. We can assume that some of these shots would have gone longer or wider if that option had been available on this camera. Again, 36% were wider than exactly normal (!). The rest of the shots were fairly evenly sprinkled between the two extremes with no clear pattern.<br /> <br />So it looks like I'm following the common photographer's pattern of disproportionately taking fairly wide or fairly long shots. Even so, it's not like I'd be happy with just those two extremes though I would have been happy with that 20 years ago. I'm also zooming the lens right to the limit an awful lot and settling for what I get there, even when I know that image quality suffers sometimes as with 16mm on the 16-85. Given a choice I'd want at least two prime lenses at the minimum, a fairly wide angle and a moderately long lens, and ideally a normal lens too. So much for one prime!</p>

<p>It looks like my old notion of using a 24-35mm, a 50mm, and a 75-150mm on a Pentax 35mm manual-focus camera (a system that I do own but only used one time) is looking pretty good after all in terms of focal length choices. Too bad there is no image stabilization on that rig!</p>

<p>50mm f1.8. </p>

<p>One prime, 35/1.4AiS.<br>

One zoom, 24-70/2.8AFS</p>

<p>105mm f2.5</p>

<p>Probably my AiS 35 f/1.4. Or the 50 f/1.8G - on the D700. On the D300, going to choose the convenience of the 16-85VR. And in neither case would I be willing to give up my 105 f/2.5.<br>

In short: can't seem to limit myself to 1 lens at all :-)</p>

<p>Didn't the op say no zooms?<br>

For me its the 35/f2D:</p>

<p>Works on all AF Nikons with an onboard focus motor, and older manual focus cameras back to 1977, DX FX digital... whatever.<br>

I have a great copy that has lived on F4, FM2n, FE2, D300, D700. Its the best focal length as you can get in close and close focus with big DOF and wide enough to do landscapes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have a great copy</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You want to get the real thing!</p>