If you could only take one lens...

[ole_tjugen]

For 35mm camera I'd bring the Bessa-L with 21mm lens, since the only thing that could make me travel anywhere with only lens (or indeed only one camera, and 35mm at that) would be extreme weight restrictions!

 

"same question for your tripod."

 

I use only one tripod at a time. Most of the time it's a Stabil wooden tripod, with a huge UniLoc ballhead. But if I could really only take one tiny camera and one lens, I doubt a tripod would be allowed at all???

[jim_gifford]

The closest I have to a do-it-all lens is my 35/1.4 Nikkor, so that's the one I would take.

 

Be well,

[dennismk]

I would try Nikons new 18-200mm VR lens. Which I am saving for because I do a lot of shooting from a boat.

[dan_fromm2]

I've been watching this thread with growing amusement. Its an old question whose answer is of some commercial importance.

 

Time was when very few people could afford cameras with interchangeable lenses. Manufacturers of fixed lens cameras had, therefore, to make the fixed lens a generally useful focal length.

 

Makers of folding cameras that shot nominal 6x9 or nominal 6x6 universally offered them with lenses that were normal or slightly longer for the formats; 100 - 105 mm and 80 - 85 mm, respectively.

 

Makers of nominal 6 x 4.5 cameras tended to use longer lenses, usually around 75 mm.

 

And there was a divide among makers of 35 mm fixed lens cameras. In the west (Europe and the US), most offered cameras with 50 mm lenses, i.e., around 15% longer than normal, but many japanese makers offered cameras with 40-45 mm lenses, normal +/- 5%. Japanese camera-makers have often seemed less fettered by convention than, in particular, the Germans.

 

In short, normal for the format is it.

[jd_rose]

Dan,

 

Going back to the original question; he did not ask what was a normal lens. He asked what was the one lens he should pack? That is a much more dynamic and far-ranging question. I must, still, suggest a single ultra-high quality zoom lens.

 

 

--- JDR

[stacy_egan]

Canon 17-40 f/4

 

That new 24-105 f/4 looks interesting though, but I'd miss the 17-23mm focal lengths.

[ben_lanterman1]

I have found it useful in a variety of conditions when I didn't have the choice of hauling

several lenses.

 

Of course the greater the zoom range the greater the compromise in image quality for the

most part. But it just isn't that bad for normal "stuff" and perfectly adequate for most

lighting conditions. The ability to go from wide angle to 300 tele is awfully conveinment at

times.

[jordanzuniga]

Im split between the Nikon 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 VRII, and the Nikon 50mm AF-S 1.8 ... hmmm.

 

Glad I have em both! =P