If you only had one prime lens for all occassions . . .

<p>I recently took only my 50 1.8 on a 5d to the zoo with the family and enjoyed the simplicity of it. It got me wondering. If you only had one prime lens (no zooms) for all occasions, which would it be, and why? <br>

I'm not so much asking for recommendations ("look at your pictures with your zoom lens and see which focal length you primarily use), so much as reflections on your own photography. Thanks.</p>

<p>24/2.8 was my favorite for a long time. With the 50/1.8 and 35/2 also in the bag - the 24/2.8 found it's way onto the camera most often. I liked the slightly wide angle perspective on my cropped sensor. The 50/1.8 is also good, but slightly long. The 35 I always liked, but somehow I generally gravited to the extremes of my three primes.</p>

<p>Pockets not deep enough for the 24/1.4L or 35/1.4L. I contemplated the 50/1.4 -> never saw the need to "upgrade".</p>

<p>The image quality (in the reviews) of the 20/2.8 -and the slightly higher price - held me back from buying that lens. The 85/1.8 is sweet -> but too long for everyday use.</p>

<p>Must admit that I have gone over to the dark side, and my main two lenses today are zooms. The 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 are still in the bag for special applications.</p>

<p>If I only had one prime lens... I'd go insane.<br>

However, in 1974.... or was it 73....hmmm...the price of Colombian was 15 dollars...I forget... when I bought my 35mm Minolta 101 (with a leather case.. right as they were going to plastic) all I had was a 50 mm lens.<br>

So... I'd go insane with a 50... and it would be a 1.2 which would be easily affordable because I wouldn't be buying other primes.<br>

When I wanted wide I'd shoot a bunch and then stitch.<br>

I'm glad that's not the world I live in.<br>

Richard</p>

 

<p>800mm f/5.6L IS ... I shoot birds.</p>

<p>35mm f1.4L</p>

<p>A fast 50 on a 36x24mm frame and if it can't focus close I'd like a 12mm tube with it.<br>

So...<br>

Without the 12mm tube I'd want the Zeiss 50/2 MP. However if a 12mm tube falls within the "one lens" limit I'd have a EF 50/1.2L plus tube.</p>

 

<p>35/2.0</p>

<p>Nice travel combo when I had a Rebel XT--pocketable in my overcoat!</p>

<p>I know one polo photographer who mostly uses a 400/2.8, but I think I would still need the 100-400.<br>

But my 300/4 and Sigma 50/1.4 are usually attached to something.</p>

<p>The best 50 I could find.</p>

<p>On a crop sensor camera, I really like the 24mm f/2.8 for a prime. In fact, I can probably just copy/paste what Jim said above. :) I use the combo for family outings to museums/zoos/conservatories/parks as well as around the house.</p>

<p>So that would be my choice, I think.</p>

<p>Recently I've been walking with a crop and the 35 f/2 and it's taking some getting used to. In the past, I have tended to prefer either the 24mm or the 85mm f/1.8 and the 35mm and 50mm f/1.8 have seen little use. But a challenge to myself this year has been to dust off my seldom-used lenses and give them a run. </p>

 

<p>I have never been a 50mm shooter so for me a 35 F1.4. Indeed on my rangefinders this is the lens I use the most. Indeed I find the simplicity of shooting a camera like the Leica M (my only digital one is the M8 so I use a 28mm lens to get the 35mm equivalent) is a joy compared to my 1DIIN, 5DII and 7D. The menu system is much simpler as you have very few settings and the manual nature of the camera coupled with the big viewfinder allow a different photography experience. Of course for most work the Canon DSLRs are much more versatile and flexible (longer lenses, Tilt Shift, high ISO etc...)<br>

What you need to understand is what lens works best for you - in my case I find that I really like that 35mm lens feel and angle of view. After that my next favourite is the 85 to 90mm FL. I have always used and liked fats 50mm lenses but somehow never developed the same bond to that FL as to the 35mm and 85/90mm FL. Of course growing up using fixed primes helped many of us develop this relationship. <br>

Henri Cartier-Bresson shot almost all his work with a 50mm lens and never cropped and must have developed an amazing relationship with that focal length. Of course this is where a Leica helps as the viewfinder (especially with a 50mm lens) allows you to see what is around your shot - helping the "decisive moment" If you have primarily used zooms try shooting with a single prime more - it really alters the way you take photographs. </p>

<p>TS-E 24/3.5 L II</p>

<p>TS-E 90mm + extension tubes + 1.4 teleconverter + panorama head</p>

<p>35/1.4 L <em>or </em>50/1.4</p>

Canon 85 f1.8. I love this lens for portraits and street. My 135 f2 is better, but less useful all around.

<p>Certainly no DSLR (what a waste), but rather a mirrorless with the equivalent of a 24mm.</p>

<p>On a FF camera, a 35mm.</p>

<p>If I had only one prime lens for all occasions I would feel terribly constrained. In an era of excellent zooms and (obviously) the ability to quickly and easily switch among primes, it is hard to imagine how shooting all subjects with only single focal length prime would be a good thing.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong. I love primes, and I own more of them than I own zooms. For certain types of work I prefer them. (Right now, for something I'm doing later today, it turns out that I'm carrying one body and three primes.) </p>

<p>Finally, if you really want to try to shoot "all occasions" with "one prime," why would you want a DSLR?</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>35L or 50L.</p>

<p><em>> Henri Cartier-Bresson shot almost all his work with a 50mm lens and never cropped</em></p>

<p>Urban legend. OTOH it depends on your definition of the words "almost" and "never".</p>

<p>The lens I use 90% of the time when walking around with the 5D II is my 28mm f/2.8, I have always found that 50mm does not give me the FOV I like.</p>

50mm summicron on my nikon

Or 28mm elmarit on my m8

I'd go with the widest lens I could get. I leave a 10-20 on my camera as my primary lens. (DX)

<p>50 / 1.4 .. i love the focal length (and i have an aps-c) , frequently not wide enough but i still would like it more than say a 24 or 28 ( although i dnt have any of these, but have the 18-55 ) .. it has a great image quality, it is light and small and fairly well built.. great for low light and shallow depth of field..</p>