One focal length only...

[User_4525289]

<p>50mm almost all the time.</p>

[alexander_ghaffari]

<p>Canon FDn 35mm f/2...fantastic lens.</p>

[summitar]

<p>If I had to choose 1st one, it would be the 35mm. I think that telephotos are highly over rated. If I could choose just two, it would be 28mm and 50mm.</p>

[tim_drake]

<p>35mm on a 35mm film camera, 75mm on my Pentax 67, and 135mm on my 4x5.</p>

[riley_s1]

<p>Without a doubt, my Nikkor 24 2.8. I can't remember the last time it came off my camera.</p>

[gt1]

<p>I love 65mm on my 6x9 Press Super.</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>I seem to use 50's mostly, when I think of it. Of course, shooting with one lens only is like trying to walk with one leg, and the other with a roller skate on it.</p>

[swilson]

<p>It seems there are a fair number of people who would go with something shorter then 50mm and a fair number that thing 50mm just about right. One other thing to consider is that you can always crop the image from a lens shorter then 50mm, to match what you would have gotten with a 50mm lens. But you can’t go the other way, adding field of view after the fact. </p>

[frank.schifano]

<p>For me it would be the 50. If I'm going out with only a single body and a single lens, that's it. Why? Maybe because when I started that's what I had and I learned to use it. Maybe it's because I just feel comfortable with that focal length on full frame 35 mm. Maybe it's because they're fast, good, and inexpensive. For me it's the jack-of-all-trades lens. I would not want to be without it.</p>

[donnie_strickland]

<p>35mm.</p>

 

[tom leoni]

<p>I think a fast lens between 35mm and 50mm would fit the bill. I own several lenses from 35mm to 200+, and I always end up using a 50mm Elmar. Never found it wanting, also because that's what I am used to use.<br>

And this is the key. If you get used to one lens and learn to look at the world in all its things big and small through it, your photographs can only get better and better. </p>

[bob_miller4]

<p>I like my 85mm/1.8 lens best for general purpose shooting. For me it functions as a quasi-normal lens and portrait lens. As compared with a true normal lens, it gives me tighter composition at the usual distances, with less clutter in the frame. Large buildings and landscapes tend to call for 35mm or 50-55mm, though.</p>

[lalon_karim]

If I had a full frame body, it would be 85mm f/1.2.

For my APS-C camera, it will be 50mm f/1.2!

[astral]

<p>135 or 180mm - just right for Springtime landscapes, misty mornings, sunsets, cameo portraits, flowers ..... But the 'where' and 'when' aspect is very important to me. If I was to spend a week in Paris or Prague a 24 would be <em>de rigeur</em> - Arizona would probably involve an 85mm ......</p>

<p>I'll be visiting London tomorrow and I <em>might </em> take a 24mm on a SLR. It's a regular trip, involving a stroll along Piccadilly and through Green Park, etc - "been there, seen it, got the photos". <em>But,</em> in a familiar environment like this, wide-angles (for me) <em>can </em> just become snapshot lenses pulling in too much scenic clutter and not packing much punch. A longer lens allows for rather more 'studied' and 'edgy' photographs in my view. I used to take a Leica IIIf & 3.5cm Summaron, but now feel that a 5cm/50mm would actually be more useful. A 90mm works in theory (<em>a la</em> HCB) but never for me, especially on a LTM Leica.</p>

<p>Elsewhere in the world, and for non-scenic photography, the choice would be very different. Someday I'm gonna do a "1785 Challenge Project" - 17mm & 85mm only, for a week. But, ultimately, it ain't <em>what </em> you use that matters, it's <em>how </em> you use it.</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>Another stick-in-the-mud here, I'd use 50mm on a 35mm body. 35mm is also nice, but I'd still take the "normal" - although I really like the lens to be more like 55mm or 58mm (as in in the Nikkor f/1.2 and the Biotar f/2, respectively) if I have those in mounts/adapters I can put on a given body.</p>

<p>I do like the 80mm on 6cm wide film, although the best lens for that format that I have is the 180mm f/2.8 Sonnar.</p>

[teun_dijkstra]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>Patrick Stack: " have often wished my XA had a 40, rather than the 35" . So did I.<br>

Now I mostly use 50 and is just to tight . And 35 is more than just to wide. I really liked an old Ricoh with fixed 40 mm lens.</p>

[doug herr]

<p>280mm. I take it almost everywhere.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>I like 35mm as my primary focal length on 35mm film. When I want wider I go to 20mm and when I want more telephoto it's 85mm. But a 35mm lens will be used 95%.</p>

[alberto_c]

<p>I often carry only a 35mm (for SLR) when I want to travel light. Other times is the 40mm (Ricoh 500 G) or 45mm (Hi Matic 7s) when I bring a fixed rangefinder.<br /> From that experiences, the 35mm seems to be more versatile, but it is really a matter of switching your brain. Even with one lens (45mm in this case) you can make it to appear as wide-ish or short-tele.</p>

<p><img src="http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/4463/alcazaba04td1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/7277/alcazaba01sgs8.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[jtayloreckstein]

<p>The 40mm lens on my Smena 8M is bringing me lots of joy. Put in a roll of Efke 25 and bought an ND filter so that I could shoot wide open at f/4 with a shutter of 1/250. I need DOF sometimes as a defining point in a picture. I have been playing exclusively with the Smena since Thursday and plan to finish it off sometime next week. I don't plan to touch another camera.</p>

<p>A good 50mm on a camera with a fast shutter comes in second, but sometimes 50mm has me laying on the ground to get the wider perspectives when I need them. People look at me strange in public... the 40mm has a little extra Field of View to keep me from always acting so clownish. A very fast 35mm would tempt me, no doubt. Sometimes shooting wider than 50mm is difficult because I don't want everything in focus.</p>

[dennis_w3]

<p>I use a Topcon Super D, which is good for the biceps but heavy to lug for extended periods, so shedding as much weight is important. The smallest, lightest lens Topcon made is the 28 mm 2.8 Topcor, which I've grown used to as a prime lens. I will bring a 100 mm 2.8 Topcor along occasionally, it's also a smallish lens. Those two will do everything I need to do. Sometimes makes me wonder why I keep 10 other Topcors in a drawer.</p>

[alan_rockwood]

<p>I prefer the field of view of a 58mm lens, such as the Biotar on my Exakta, but 50mm, as on my Canon EOS film camera, is OK too. When it gets wider than that (e.g. 40mm Tessar on my Rollei 35TE) it starts getting a little wider than I would like for a general purpose lens, though still usable.</p>