If you could use just one lens . . .

[ty_mickan]

<p>it would have to be a 35mm for me, and specifically the Voigtlander 1.2/35mm. <a href="http://tmickan.wordpress.com/"> Here's</a> my review.</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>I'm with Lil and Shun on this.</p>

[mt4x4]

<p>For me, I would go with my 180 f/2.8. Its long enough for most of the sports I do, but also works well for portraits. I haven't tried much landscape with it, but I have taken photos of old cabins around here and it was the perfect focal length to capture them from the road.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> Mendel typed: "I suspect 90% or better of responders come into this page with a zoom lens in mind. Maybe the moderator could change the title to something like:<br>

If you could use just one <strong>prime</strong> lens..."</p>

<p> Which is what the OP did in the opening question: "If you could use just one lens (in this case, PRIME of course) what lens would you use to view your world and express yourself to others?".</p>

<p>Here's a <em>partial</em> list off the top of my head of famous photographers that worked with <em>one</em> lens by choice (Not their entire lives, but for years and for huge famous sections of their life's work):</p>

<p>Gene Meatyard<br>

Diane Arbus<br>

Henri Cartier-Bresson<br>

Rober Adams (What We Bought series)<br>

David Alan Harvey (<em>Viet Nam, Cuba, NASCAR, yes, NASCAR, with a 35mm lens! All for National Geo)</em><br>

Eugen Atget<br>

Rebecca Woodman<br>

Edward Weston<br>

Imogen Cunningham (Rollei Work)<br>

Bill Eggleston<br>

Garry Winogrand<br>

Elliott Erwitt (personal work)<br>

Mark Cohen<br>

Jeanloup Sieff</p>

<p> Thank God none of them stopped photographing instead. We would all be poorer for it if they had. So if you only have one lens, either by choice or circumstance, carry on. It's not as big a handicap as one might think.</p>

<p>Thanks, Toby, it's a seemingly innocuous post that makes you think.</p>

<p> </p>

[stp]

<p>When I was shooting 35mm film, the Nikkor 24mm was by far my favorite lens. I'm older now, and the lens that is most often on my ff camera is a 70-200 zoom, so in a prime lens I would probably choose 135mm. However, one of the joys of photography is to be able to experiment with a variety of focal lengths and therefore a variety of styles. Still, the use of a single lens does somewhat the same thing in forcing you to see photographic possibilities that you might have missed with a change of lenses.</p>

[yunming_cai]

<p>Tamron 18-270 for me. As long as the sun is up, I get to cover 'most everything... :D</p>

[tobycline]

<p>Thanks Luis G, I appreciate your comments and that you get what I was trying to convey. We have so many focal lengths to choose from today, we get caught up in thinking we need them all when really, just working with one for a while can help us truly "see" and help our compositional skills. I've tended to see the world around me in wide angles, but seeing so many here wanting long focal lengths, I want to challenge myself to working with a long lens for a while and see how it helps me develop as a photographer. </p>

<p>For those in the northern hemisphere, enjoy the fall colors my friends!</p>

[tholte]

<p>Why would anyone want to "limit" themselves by using one lens, prime or zoom? Seems like a silly question by those that just don't quite get it. </p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>A 28mm on a full frame.</p>

[pictureted]

<p>For years I went back and forth between the 28 and 105/2.5 on a Nikon F3HP. Now I'd opt for a 35/1.4 on a Leica M-9. (I find my 16-85 on a D90 a perfect one zoom solution - and do leave it on my camera often).</p>

[jeffrey_synn]

<p>Wow, so many naysayers to the question. It's not meant to be taken literally, just as a thought exercise. Geez.</p>

<p>So few takers for the boring 50mm, huh? I'll take that then. I'm more of a realist, so I like having what I capture to closely match what I see; a big part of that is proper proportion between near and far objects. Even though zooms mostly live on my camera, I find myself just naturally selecting the 50mm FOV (on 135), regardless of the format I'm actually shooting.</p>

<p>That said, regardless of the lens I am using, I almost always wish I had longer with me. I just think in telephoto, I guess. 50mm is just the "widest" I like to go.</p>

[joseph_leotta]

<p>I with the no reason to have discussion club. I have many lenes and always will have.<br>

But to bring up the past and to agree with the previous poster its a 50mm 1.4.<br>

When I got my first SLR in 1969, a nikon F it drained all the resources and I only had 1 yens for about 2 or 3 years. Amazing how much beautiful worl I did with that 1 Lens. <br>

Next came a 135 and soon after a 28.</p>

[jeannean_.]

<p>For me, it'd be my 150mm Sigma 2.8. I like shooting bugs the most. If I shot more variety, the answer might be different. (I know I need to diversify, but darn those bugs.) However, it can shoot other things pretty well too. It's on my camera, since getting it 98%, of the time.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>Can I have two since I shoot in two formats? Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor and 150mm, f/4 C T* Sonnar!</p>