If you have to pick ONE prime to go out...

[Jim_Tardio]

FM3a with the 45/2.8 or a D40 with the Sigma 30/1.4.

[Peter_in_PA]

One lens and a prime only? Sounds like the makings for some very boring photos. No

offense, but I wouldn't take anything BUT a zoom if it's only one lens.

[klix]

If you have to pick ONE prime to go out...

 

I might as well just stay in.

[photo5]

one prime? easy. 55mm f2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor.

 

Dave

[tom_burke3]

I've generally stuck to a standard prime in a one-lens situation. On film that was an EF 1.8 (I

used to use EOS film cameras); with my D70 I use a 35 f2.

[nickwhite]

'I have no plans.. just want to have the camera and one prime on it for whatever comes across..'

My advice would be to slip a top quality compact into your pocket and leave the SLR behind! - have you seen the quality some of these can produce now? I take a Fuji F31 along (ok sorry - I know this is a Nikon forum) for this sort of scenario; I even keep it with me when out with the full D80 kit sometimes. It has P,A,S and even M modes.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Nikkor 45mm Tessar - small pancake lens that is really sharp.

[jose_angel]

Today 85 AF, next weekend 24 AF.

[michael_bradtke]

50 1.2 ais

[marek_fogiel]

I use the D40 with the pancake 45 as an ever ready combination for walking around, but in a

city I find this field of view to be long most of the time, and sometimes slow because of no

autofocus. When I want to be faster, I take the 20mm AF-D, set it at infinity and f8, and use

it as a point and shoot. Actually, I wish I could have a 16-18mm prime to do this, because

the 24-28mm field of view in a city is just about perfect. I've just done a trip to Paris and

used the D40 with the 45P along a film camera with a 25mm lens - and the 25mm got used

most of the time.

[jbq]

50/1.8 as a prime, but in reality I'd go for a 24-85 with no second thought.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Marek - The intended use is a film body, so 45mm won't be long for the intended use.

[juanjo_viagran]

Thanks for all the inputs..

 

I think for my next bike ride I'm going to take the 50mm 1.4 AI.

The camera is a D1x btw.

[Matthew Currie]

I probably wouldn't take the Nikon on a bike ride anyway. My biking camera is usually an Olympus XA2 with a 35 mm. lens. Wide enough to allow quick and casual aiming.

 

If for some reason I did sling the old F along, I'd probably use the 50/2, which is small and tough, with recessed front element and no need of a hood.

[ronald_duren]

My favorite one prime lens digital outfit for biking is the is the 20mm 2.8. It's great for those tight street scenes and makes for a very light weight kit.<div></div>

[upe_vantonni1]

if you just need a basic, capture everything, lens on a digital camera I would use a 24-35 range lens (sigma 30, the 24 you have, but something on the wide end of the spectrum).

 

but as an NYC guy. if i just wanted to carry something biking around, I'd pick up a beat up junker for cheap (canon a1, or an older nikon F). something you won't mind losing, dropping or getting stolen. put on a 35/2 and shoot in tri-x or hp5 or provia. it sounds cliche and very NYC but theres a reason for it to be very cliche and NYC.

 

i second the idea of the 45mm tessar. that lens rocks.

[jeff h.]

My bicycling (and skiing and hiking) "go to" rig is a Nikon body (often a lowly EM) with a

28/2.8 lens. If I'm wandering around town in a street-shooting mindset, I use a FM2n and a

45/2.8P (or a Leica M6 and a 35, but that's a story for another forum). When I was younger,

for nearly a decade, my only lens was a 35. Many people

would select a 50mm prime as their "one and only" prime, but I prefer a 28mm or 35mm

prime. Even if I was limited to one focal length, I'd never give up photography; when I look

back through my albums, I remember the moment or event that a picture captures, not the

focal length (or limits thereof) of the lens that captured that moment. Have fun!

[jeroen dommisse]

Sigma 24/2.8, both digital and on film. This is one sharp lens.

[dbcooper]

The last time I carried a 35mm film camera and one lens, it was a Voigtlader Bessa w/a 35mm lens, and it worked out great (unfortunately lost it and much else in Katrina). I agree with something in the 24-35 (or equivalent) range.

[eajames]

Within your stated range I would begin by trying to decide which side of normal you want to

find yourself on; if you can't decide then a 50 f1.8 or 1.4, or the 55 2.8 AIS or the 45mm

tessar would be great choices.

 

I would be hard pressed not to choose my 85mm f1.4 AIS. It's relatively heavy, so if I thought

about it much more I'd realize that the 28 f2.8 AIS and a 85mm f1.8 would be no more

cumbersome while providing much more versatility. So I think my one prime would be the 28

AND the 85:)

[dan_k6]

Nikkor 50mm 1.8 D

[juanjo_viagran]

Thanks again for all the inputs...

 

Today we (sarah[wife]) and I took the bikes for a ride and I took two lenses, 50mm 1.4 MF and 85mm 1.8 AF. Leave the house with the 85mm on the D1x but no for long... I endup using the 50mm the rest of the day.

Next time I'm taking the 50mmm and 24mm 2.8 AF.

 

Here are few shots from today...

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c41/EastCoastHucker/DSC_4511.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c41/EastCoastHucker/DSC_4512.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c41/EastCoastHucker/DSC_4494.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c41/EastCoastHucker/DSC_4519.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

all from the 50mm.

[jim_gifford]

Your wife is lovely but does she want to be this famous?

 

I agree that the 50 (especially on a NIkon digital) is likely to be more useful than the 85 for street shooting. The 24 might be better yet. I think my own favorite might be the Nikkor 35/1.4, which is a little heavy but makes a fast and sharp companion with a nearly "normal" field of view on a digital Nikon like my D200.

 

In the four shots you posted, the subjects wind up with worse light than everything else in the frame. That's one risk of shooting in a concrete canyon environment... the light is always over THERE.

 

By the way my wife's name sounds a lot like your wife's name... only difference is, my wife is h-less (Sara).

[juanjo_viagran]

Thanks for your comment Jim... but just let me make something clear.. the last shot is NOT of my wife..;)

[eajames]

I like the dog picture!

 

A 24mm lens is pretty unforgiving in many portrait situations - you can make it work, but the

subject(s) need to be centered to avoid the unbecoming cranial and facial warping. As you

climb up to the 28 and 35mm focal lengths people appear more Earth-like. The 24 plus

50mm two-lens combo is a winner, but then you'll want to add a 105mm to make things

complete, and the next thing you know you're asking someone else to carry your tripod.