jim_e._lara Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 i shoot landscapes and was wonder other photographers opinions on this... If you could only pack one lens with you, which would it be. Im talking 35mm, digital or film camera... same question for your tripod. cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manjo Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 my choice is 50 f1.8, gitzo tripod, velvia 50 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian_schall Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 For my, it would be a 24mm. I'm just a wide angle type guy. For the tripod for a 35mm camera, I'd take my old Bogen 3001 with the 3025 head. Small, light and stable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrettPrucha Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 I would take my Nikon 28mm f2 AIS and Gitzo Explorer tripod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy1 Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Where am i going with this one lens? meaning, what's the destination?<br> Or did you mean if we can only KEEP one lens... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 I recently attended a very good illustrated lecture by a landscape photographer who uses a Pentax 35mm SLR with 24, 50 and 200mm lenses. He has captured an enormous variety of beautiful images over the past 20 years with solely this kit. I would not place myself beside this man in terms of skill or attainments but I have used a similar small set of lenses for some time. However, the idea of restricting myself to just one lens seems pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Until it becomes illegal or inconvenient to own and use more than one lens, I'm not going to do it. Unless the question is a Zen Koan. What is the sound of one hand clapping? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 It would be educational, and possibly entertaining, to shoot with a single lens. With a DSLR, I use a 28-70/2.8 AFS lens for 85% of my landscape photography. With an Hasselblad, the same is true for a "normal" 100/3.5 Planar. Those are just averages, though, and it's the exceptions that make the day worth while. I would not travel without a tripod for landscape pictures, and with nothing lighter than a Gitzo 1227 (CF), or a 1340 (Al) with a leveling head. Landscapes are supposed to be sharp. I'd rather carry a tripod than rely on luck. Regardless, if I were only ALLOWED one lens (or no lens), I'd go somewhere else less restrictive. I passed on a dozen or so cathedrals in Spain for that reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_lofquist Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 If you are wishing to keep the load light, perhaps the tripod could be negated by having the lens be a VR or IS. For landscapes I have been using the Nikkor 24-50, almost exclusively (on a tripod). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 It has to be the 14-450mm f/1.021 lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_potts1 Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 I have been giving this question thought for a camera purchase I am considering. Right now my answer is 70-200L. Tripod: Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark pav Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 If we're talking a single prime lens for landscapes, then I'd say a 20mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgarity Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Film camera - EF 17-40 f4L Digital camera - EF-S 10-22mm f3.5/4.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_e._lara Posted January 6, 2006 Author Share Posted January 6, 2006 i guess it was just a "what if" ...kind of like what cds would you take on a deserted island...no need to run and hide your lenses...no one is making you give up your lenses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Well, if you really insist.. the 15mm f/4.5 CV Heliar with the Bessa-L. A tiny package with a huge amount of coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheldonnalos Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 I'm going to Mexico tomorrow morning for a week. Even though I have a 20D and 7 lenses, I'm only taking a film body and one lens (to keep it simple). So for me, the answer is: Canon 35mm f/2 Tripod? Not this time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jd_rose Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 He mentioned "pack", so I am going to assume he is hiking and under some sort of weight constraint. I would have to pick the Nikon 17-55 mm f/2.8 ED-IF AF-S Lens. --- JDR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Doo Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 "It has to be the 14-450mm f/1.021 lens." Vivek, I agree! But seriously, a Tamron 28-300mm will do very well for me. Fit that on an F6/F100/D200, this combo can sit on the compact Gitzo G026 very comfortably. That's what I would do stranded on a desert island with one lens. Mary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_j2 Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 I'm a film, nature & wildlife shooter. Many times I do only take one lens, . . . my Canon EF 100-400L IS. Tripod - depends. With the IS most of my shots are handheld. But I do use the tripod when combining with the 1.4 TC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_jordan3 Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 I shoot with Nikons. Prime would be the 24mm f2.8; zoom would be 17-35mm f2.8. Gitzo 1325 tripod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two23 Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 What you're finding is that everyone has a different style. You really didn't give a lot to go on, either. If I were heading to Jasper Park, I'd take my 80-400mm VR lens. If I were heading to Arches National Park in Utah it would be my 18-35mm (a 12-24mm if digital.) If I were mostly shooting landscapes I would want a tripod, polarizer, and a couple of ND grads too. Last month I went to Chicago and only took a Nikon N80 with broken autofocus and a Nikon 50mm f1.8 lens. I shot the Loop trains at night. The fast lens worked great. Not having something expensive didn't attract attention. (From thieves and security types.) Really, can't a good photographer use whatever they have to create good images? Kent in SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill sullivan Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 If it's just a walk, or a drive in my car someplace, and not a real photoshoot, the one lens I carry depends on the conditions and terrain I expect to encounter, and what I intend to shoot. For big skies and narrow canyons, I like my 28mm lens (I use a film camera), especially if the terrain is not that interesting. On the other hand, I sometimes find myself tiring of shooting wide-angle pictures only. I don't like the way they put things so far away. I like a good big subject in a picture, a frame-filling picture, like the portraits on your Web site. I have recently wished I had brought my 50mm lens when climbing some narrow mountain ridges. I was carrying a 100mm lens and was too close to the subject and couldn't back up without stepping off a cliff. I fell in love with my 50mm lens all over again a couple of years ago on a boat ride through the fiords of southeast Alaska. It seemed a perfect match for the tall mountains beside the water. It's a fast lens (f1.7) which was helpful under Alaska's gray skies. I mostly carry a 100mm macro lens on my walks which are mostly in desert or desert mountain terrain. I might choose differently if walking someplace else, like in a forest full of tall trees. When walking by the seashore, I carry a 200mm lens with good glass and a 100-300mm zoom (not as good) for shooting up and down the coast and also for portraits of birds and sea lions. Thinking about it, I probably could or even should carry a zoom lens, manufactured by my camera's manufacturer, and covering the wide angle to short or medium telephoto ranges, up to 100mm or 135mm. I might also look for something from a reputable third party. I moved from zoom lenses to primes several years ago, because of quality, but I believe that zoom lenses as a category have made advancements since then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank uhlig Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 One Pinhole body cover. No lens, no glass at all ... Now my answer sounds as silly as the willful silly question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timcorridan Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 my 17-300 2.8L usm lens, and a wheelbarrel to carry it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pradeep banavara Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 Possibly take the nikon digital route and buy the 18-200 VR lens. Ken Rockwell has a lot of praise for this lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now