If you could use just one lens . . .

[keith selmes]

<p>50/1.4. On an SLR so you can use extension tubes. Is that cheating ?</p>

[ian_tindale]

<p>40mm (in 135 format terms) is all I really need.</p>

 

[leicaglow]

<p>35mm Summilux.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>A reasonably fast "normal" lens for the format, f/2.8 or faster. A 35mm f/1.4 for both 35mm and DX SLRs would do just fine. No big switch for me. That's all I used for the first 15 years I was in photography, whether the 80mm lenses on my TLRs, the non-interchangeable lenses on compact 35mm rangefinders or the 50/1.8 on my first 35mm SLR.</p>

[marcaubin]

<p>If I had to ditch all my lenses but keep my crop body, I would probably get along best with a Sigma 28mm f1.8 since I don't do portraits. The next thing I would do is curse it's limited close focusing distance (1:3 max magnification).</p>

[sd_woods]

<p>At the minute I'm using a 50mm f/2. I really like it, but then again I've never used a different prime, except a 42mm on my RC. They're not really that different. So, for now, 50mm f/2.</p>

[donald_weed1]

<p>I use a nikon 24 2.8 on my D70s which makes it a 36mm lens. I feel it fits my vision best. I also use a 60mm 2.8 D. These two lenses are all that I ever use. It"s like having a 35 and a 90 on my old leica. I use the 24 about 80-90 % of the time and it"s the one lens I would have to have. They are both very sharp! Much better than most affordable zooms .</p>

[clay2]

<p>105mm f/2.5 Nikkor on my F2AS.<br /> Best regards,<br /> /Clay</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>The poorly rated by some, Nikon 24-120 on FF. Heres one at 1/5 second handheld.</p>

[maris_rusis]

<p>12 inch Turner Reich triple convertible; three focal lengths to choose from and they all cover 8x10 nicely!</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>It would depend on the camera. For my OM-1 it would be my 35 mm f2.8 Zuiko. For any of my MD mount Minoltas I'd go with my Celtic 35 mm f2.8. For my Nikon FE-2, the Nikkor 28 mm f3.5. For my Yashica FX-3 Super 2000 the CZ 45 mm f2.8. ... the list goes on.</p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>When I was a poor college student, I carried my Nikon FM body with only one lens. The Tamron 24 mm f2.8 I believe it was. I had it mounted on the dash of my CJ-5 Jeep and that's all I ever needed. I had boxes and boxes of slides that I created from those few years still stashed in my attic.</p>

[michael_oxford]

<p>it would be a real toss up between a Canon 85mm L lens or some sort of premium wide angle like the 24mm f/1.4L II or that new 21mm f/1.4 Leica lens (i just read about it recently and it looks very, very interesting)...</p>

[johnw436]

<p>If I could also only have one camera:</p>

<p>If my Bronica ETRsi then I would be happy with my 75/2.8 This lens blows me away every time I see the negatives. This lens is the reason I still use my Bronicas.</p>

<p>If DX, then painfully it would be my Pentax DA70mm/2.4 Limited. I can't say enough about the lens. If only I had a wide angle equal to it I would choose the wide purely for perspective. Optically, the 70 is "it" in my current DX bag.</p>

[jim kerr]

<p>Well, I suppose to be honest I should pick the lens I use the most. It's The Tamron XR 28-200 f4-f5.6. The one that just came out right before they started making them for digital. I use it on a Pentax K20d. Jim</p>

[sknowles]

<p>I would use a 45mm lens (or something in the 40-45mm range) because it's a wysiwyg lens and replicates the view and perspective of the human eye. You get images which appears normal to what you would see standing there. For years it was my most used street photography lens.</p>

[john gettis]

<p>If I had to go with just one lens it would be the 50 1.4 its all I had when I got my first real camera in 1973 a OM-1. Still have both. John</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I was always impressed with the book: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.kennerly.com/portfolio/pdj.php" target="_blank">Photo Du Jour</a> where David Hume Kennerly took one photograph a day for the entire year of 2000. He used one camera and one lens: A non-DSLR/SLR M7II and 43mm (21mm in 35m equivalent). It is very awe inspiring and shows that the use of on angle of view, at least for a while, can spark a lot of interest in photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is a big difference between (1) selecting a bunch of images captured by one particular lens and display them (in a book, on a web site ...) and (2) allowing you to use one particular lens regardless of what the situation and subject are.</p>

<p>I can show you a lot of images I captured with the 500mm/f4 lens, and there will be a lot of wildlife and sports images. My image may not be as great as some master's, but I have plenty of good images captured by the 500mm/f4. I can also do the same with say the 24mm and there will be a lot of landscape, scenic, architecture ... type images.</p>

<p>However, if you tell me that I don't care whether you are capturing a wedding, landscape, wilidlife, sports, children ..., I have to use this one particular lens day in and day out (be it a 20mm, 35mm, or 500mm, just one particular lens), that will mean I'll have "the wrong lens" perhaps 90% of the time because my photography is very diverse. In that case photography wouldn't be nearly as fun to me any more.</p>

<p>For someone else who mainly shoots one type of subjects, the "one lens" idea might work. E.g. for someone who only shooting portraits, perhaps a 100mm lens on FX is all that person needs. I am not at all like that.</p>

[tobycline]

<p>Shun, I appreciate all you do here, but why did you respond to this thread if the subject matter of it doesn't fit your style? I'm sorry if the premise bothers you. But I am glad we live in a world of SLRs where we can change focal length at will. <a href="http://www.kennerly.com/portfolio/pdj.php">Photo Du Jour</a> is still impressive as Kennerly took at least one photo each day for a whole year with one lens and camera. I hope to try a project like that someday!</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses! I'm really intrigued to see how some see our world in wide angle and semi wides (a lot of votes for the 35mm in 135 format) and others would go as long as 85 & 105. I'm also surprised to see very few responses for the 50. For me, it's too long as I tend to see the world very wide 21-28ish. To challenge myself, I think I'll stick on some longer lenses for a while and see what I can come up with. Happy shooting to all!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Toby, I responded to this thread because I have a strong opinion about this topic. Apparently you do not like my opinion, which is fine. However, "this idea does not work for me at all" is a valid answer.</p>

[the celt 2]

<p>My wonderful little Orion 15 on my blue Fed 2, or my zorki 4k. Also a wide angle junkie.</p>

[michael_dimarzio]

<p>I liked the question as it made me think about photography in general. I almost thought that the 35mm focal length would be it. But than it's just an all around great focal lenght, but I think if I had to limit myself to one lens it would be eitehr 75mm or 24.</p>

[maciek_stankiewicz]

<p>Probably 45mm on my Yashica GSN or 50mm with SLR.<br>

But...When I am using 50-135mm Rokkor with my Minolta I tend to set it around 100mm...</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>On a full frame the 24mm would be my only lens.</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>A fast 50mm. The 50 is a chameleon, back up and it's wide, move in and it's long. There is a reason they call them 'normal'.</p>