You have 1 choice

There is always talk about which lens choices are the "must haves" when heading out on expeditions or maybe just a day out in the field. I thought it would be interesting to ask the question, If you could only use 1 lens for the next 12 months what would that lens be and why?

I guess I can start with my choice. Like many others I don't have the luxury of buying every lens I would like to have. I have limited my purchases to the top line (professional series) of lens. If I'm only going to own a few they better dang well be good. Being a canon user these have been the L series of their brand. Presently a 17-40 f/4L and 70-200 f/4L. Both have been great for what I like to do. The gap between 40mm-70mm has caused little issue when out thus far. A few steps closer or further away usually takes care of any problem for me. I couldn't imagine not have a wide angle like a 17mm to capture the vast open rolling prairies that I love shooting, but, the 70-200 seems to spend more time on the camera simply for its versatility. One moment shooting miles of open wilderness to shooting butterflies on verbena. I love having the ability to bring landscapes up close and personal with the reach a medium telephoto brings. So for me I would have to pack the 70-200 in may bag.
I think also by limiting the choice to 1 lens I probably would learn much more about using that particular lens. Learning to see landscapes through specific eyes.

Well Brad I am a Nikon shooter and often carry three lenses with me from 17mm through to 200mm when shooting landscapes. These lenses are my beloved 17-35mm f/2.8, 28-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 VR. However since switching to FX format (FF – Full Frame) recently from the DX format (cropped 1.5x) the 28-70mm f/2.8 has started being left at home, more and more.

I love the 17-35mm f/2.8 and I have probably shot about half of my landscape images with it. As for the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR (which I have just part-exchanged for another! One that doesn’t vignette with my D3X as anywhere as badly as my previous (JamJar) copy – another story!) I have found this lens to be extremely versatile and use to for my wildlife and macro work (with a close-up filter attached) too! It has probably produced 75% of all my images shot in the last two/three years’ covering all genres, not just landscapes!

Purely from a landscape point of view I would be hard pushed to choose between the two lenses without knowing what I was going to be shooting for the next year! However if I only had one lens to choose from covering all the subjects I shoot then the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR wins hands down, but I would miss my wide angle and my super-telephoto (whether that be the 200-400mm or 600mm).

I'd grab my Canon 24-105mm. It is very sharp and has a good enough range for most of my landscape needs. However, my 10-22mm is small and light enough to fit in easily. My next purchase will be the Canon 100-400mm and those should fill my needs, unless the urge strikes to od some macro work--there's always one more thing we need isn't there--Larry

Interesting thread. My response is certainly different from the responses so far.

My lens of choice that I would not want to be without is my 500mm f/4. If I look in my catalog of images, a very large percentage of them are with the 500mm and a 1.4x.

I see beautiful landscapes that I sometimes miss with the long lens, but capture many wildlife images with it that aren't feasible with shorter lenses.

I couldn't work with only 1 focal length, but I could probably work well with a normal zoom for a year. I'm not sure if I'd feel that I needed a faster lens or a wider FL range. So for me it would either be a 24-70 f2.8L, 28-105 f3.5-4.5 or 24-105 f4L. I would lean towards the 28-105 f3.5-4.5 for its good resolution, contrast and colors with the broad range plus good close focus capability, low cost, lightweight and compact size. I feel fortunate that I don't find myself in this situation.

Well, considering 90% of my work is landscape, I'd have to say my 24-105L. My 16-35 is the lens I use most, but I find that most of the time I'm shooting at 20mm+. So losing the ultra-wide range wouldn't bother me to much. Plus, the 105mm end gets me just long enough for most tele-landscape applications I shoot.

I mostly photograph birds. If you forced me to a single lens it would be my Zuiko 300mm f2.8 with my 2.0 teleconverter; three-quarters of my best shots were taken with that setup. Like Keith, I'd miss some landscapes, but the 300mm is my bread and butter...

Well, my choice is very easy, as I currently only own one lens (well, I also have a kit lens that I rarely use) - a Zuiko 12-60, f/2.8-f/4.0.

180 macro. Its macro capabilities aside, it is also my most heavily used landscape lens. I think my 70-200 is nearly caught up, but I wouldn't gaurantee it.

My most use lens right now is the 24-70mm f2.8. Love it for landscapes, but once I sack up and buy the 14-24mm f2.8, then we'll see what happens.

I guess it would have to be my Canon 24-105mm f/4, but I sure would miss my 16-35mm f/2.8 and my 70-200mm f/4. I pretty much have these three with me all of the time. Glad I don't have to choose!

This is a great topic, Brad. I have three lenses: the Canon 16-35mm, 24-105mm and 100-400mm. I keep the 24-105 attached to my camera at all times with the other two in my pack. It's razor sharp, very little to no CA and provides an excellent focal length with image stabilization. If I could have only one lens the 24-105mm would be it!

I would have to pick my 17-40 f4L. It seems to be my most used lens. Then I am using it on a 30D (1.6 crop) body. I also have the 70-200 f2.8L, the 300 f4L and the cheap 50 f1.8. The 50 is the least used and not for lack of image quality as it is a way better lens than its price would reflect. Like Brad I don't seem to miss not using the gap from 40-70. I thought I would, which is why I bought the cheap 50 in the first place.

Bruce

Reflective of shooting styles and subjects, my midrange zoom comparable to the 24-105 spends the most time on my camera. I'm Nikon-impaired, but that great Canon 24-105 has always tempted me to buy a Canon body so I could use it. Nikon has nothing that comes even close.

I'm with you on the value of shooting with one lens exclusively for awhile in order to get really acquainted with it. I do that with each new lens, and it informs my choices of which lens array to carry for specific shoots, and which to reach for when I have special needs.

For the last 20+ years my go-to carry lenses have covered the range from approximately 20-200mm. In the days of film those were a 20-35, a 35-70 and an 80-200, all f.2.8's. With the switch to digital (1.6 crop) I eventually switched to a 12-24, a 24-120 which covered roughly the same focal range due to the crop, and reluctantly that heavy 80-200 if I needed a little more reach or DOF control. The first two aren't f/2.8, but I was willing to sacrifice for weight. Recently I picked up an 18-200. I am delighted with image quality, and with that on the camera I rarely switch to the 12-24.

If you're really trying to decide which will be most useful to you, try this: Spend a day or two studying all the best and favorite photos in your files, making note of what focal length each was shot at. Many years ago I did that as a challenge from Bryan Peterson and was shocked at the results. About 90% were taken at the two extremes of my lens arrays, either very wide or very long. Much as I use that middle range from day to day, it appears that the very best of the best aren't taken there. Serious food for thought.

I have three lenses for my LF camera - 47mm, 65mm and 90mm. I'd choose the 65mm every time and find it in use 80% of the time anyway. Approximately 20mm in full frame terms. Tristan

I can't remember the last time I took my Canon 1-400mm lense off, I'm a wildlife/bird guy who attempts an occassional landscape. Interesting thread.

Sometimes I shoot birds and sometimes I shoot landscapes, and occasionally both. When I am shooting landscapes typically I might have 17-40 on the camera, 24TS and 12-24 in the vest. Maybe I have the 70-200 f2.8 over the shoulder. 12-24 is the least used - it can be quite tricky, but sometimes it is the only one that will get the shot. 24mm TS-E is a great lens, but as a prime is less versatile. If there are man-made objects in the scene, it gets more use for perspective control. The 70-200 is versatile and gives more reach, but I often don't take it with me because of the extra weight. Often, when I do take it with me, it never comes out of it's pouch. The 17-40mm f4L is the winner, if I could only have one lens for a year. But ain't it great that we don't need to limit ourselves so.

On the other hand, if I were limited to only one lens for birds, it would be the one I use anyway - 300mm f2.8. Can I keep both my TCs?

500mm and I'd spend the year on song birds.

For me, with a 40D, it would be the Canon EFS 17-55/2.8 IS... But I would really miss the Sigma 10-20, and Canon 70-200/2.8. All of these lenses get regular use.

This will all change soon, as I have the Canon 5dMII and 16-35/2.8 on order, and the 18-55 will not work on the full frames. I intend, where feasible, carrying the 5D with the 16-35 attached, and the 40D with the 70-200

Should be an easy choice, before i picked up my 5D two years ago, all i used for photos was my 18-55 kit lens with the Rebel, and i never felt short-changed; won some international contests with that cheap lens. The photograph is more important than the lens. So, should be a wide angle for me, just because of familiarity.But you have a good point, going to a long lens might be more fun, so ill say an 800 mm prime.

For me its a choice between the 16-35mm and 500mm... completely different worlds, but I have shot birds with my 16-35, and landscapes with my 500

I'm actually torn 50/50... for my 5D2 I have only three lenses: the 16-35/2.8, the 70-200/2.8, and a 50/1.4 that is excellent for video. But for stills the choice is between the 16-35 and the 70-200, and that's DIFFICULT!

I think the 16-35mm would have to win, I'm really starting to fall for that lens. I love gorgeous vistas (the ones y'all take, not mine, lol). Also, it's too easy sometimes to get a great shot at 200mm on f/2.8... instant isolation and great bokeh makes the composition a bit easier, for me anyway. The 16-35 would be my choice, I so need to learn to work a scene with a wide-angle. Plus, I can shoot at 35mm and crop with decent results if I need a closeup (OK, that's cheating. ).

I'm a total gearhead, so that makes it even tougher! My current line-up is the Sigma10-20mm, Tamron 17-50 F2.8, and the lovely Sony 70-300G SSM (I shoot with an A700).
I do mostly landscape, so out of these three I guess I'd go with the 17-50, but then I also own the Sigma 17-70 and the Sony 16-105, so I'd go with the Sigma 17-70mm for both it's versatile focal length and it's close focusing abilities.
If I had to stick to a prime though, I'd then go with my Sigma 24mm F2.8. Hey do tele-converters count as lenses?

I don't like questions like this. It is uncomfortable to waste my time trying to decide these hypothetical queries when they will never happen and the answers provide no useful information at all.

But to be nice about it, I'd just take my G10.

I'm primarily an avian photographer, so while I lived if Florida the lens that was on my D200 almost all the time was the Nikon 80-400mm VR. My style of shooting was to get down & dirty, laying in sand, tidal mud or in the water and I didn't want to do that with my 200-400mm VR.

I also walked between 4 - 10 miles each photo trip, so carrying a heavier lens & tripod there just was not practical considering the humidity, heat & terrain. The 80-400mm VR was light enough to carry all day and still gave me the reach I wanted for birds.

Now that I have moved to Utah the lens that is on my camera almost all the time is the 200-400mm VR with the 1.4x TC, I can use it on a tripod, steady it on a vehicle window or hand hold it.

I keep the 18-200mm VR on the D70 for landscapes & close ups, but that set up rarely comes out of my packback.

Jeffrey,
In reply to your comment -- these answers are pricless to me and to probably to many others who are young/intermediate photographers. This thread is a look into other, skilled and experienced photographers' gear bags, and a lesson on what lenses they like and use most, and why.
For pro/experienced photographers considering gear purchases -- what a great way to get others' thoughts on what they own, and possibly ideas on which lens to get next.
Rebecka

Bravo Rebecka! And on behalf of working pros, they're invaluable insights for my future lens purchases. Believe it or not, pro choice are even harder because you simply can't waste money on poor choices. Is the new lens more or less useful than one already in the locker? One answer to this question isn't enough to convince me to buy a lens, but in reading lots, trends emerge and help me narrow my search.

I hadn't thought of this thread that way, Rebecka and Hank.
One of the shortcomings of my lens-body combos is that my 1.6 and 1.3 crop-factor bodies aren't able to take full advantage of my wide angle lenses. I love my Canon 17-40 but sometimes it just isn't wide enough. I got the 12-24 to get around that problem. It's price was about a quarter of the cost of a 5DII, but after all I think maybe the real solution is a full frame body.

Choose only one lens for 12 months? Ouch! I'd have to pick my 300mm f/2.8 since I shoot mostly wildlife. I'm spoiled on the clarity and crispness of the images that lens helps me produce.

Only one? I'd cart around the Canon 28-300 L IS for a year, especially on a full-frame body for help at the wide end. The 28mm is wide enough for many, many landscapes (and think in terms of stitching together overlapping exposures as well), and 300mm gets you plenty of telephoto muscle for many wildlife/bird images (especially if you look for compelling environmental portraits instead of tight portraits). And on either of Canon's 21 Mp full-frame bodies you've got the ability to crop away a lot of the file to achieve a tighter look and still end up with plenty of image.

Price wasn't really mentioned but, more practically, the 24-105 would also be a great choice, both in cost and weight.

I guess I could add to my comments, to not appear as a curmudgeon. Questions like this, along with the never ending 'what tripod should I get' type of posts, primarily end up as popularity contests, with most posters simply saying what they have and telling it's the best. No one learns to tune their vision from that. I would firmly guess that people that participate here do have more than one lens and probably some sort of bag to carry it all in, so this scenario will rarely, if ever, be a part of your life. What I see as somewhat counterproductive here is that people will always think that others have better ideas than themselves, and most people want to be like others with more experience. That's why so many images are so similar, and as an example, why so many look like they come from the Galen Rowell school of design. I'm not saying he was not good (just an example), but rather that so many people today do the same thing, rather than take the time to explore the world, and themselves, more thoroughly, seeking new and interesting images to create. I wish more photographers were more original, and not so many copycats. I'm sure I did not address the feelings of Rebecka or Hank with this reply, but that's how I feel about it now. I may fee differently later!

This thread has the wrong tense for me. How about "what lens has been the only lens on your camera for the past 12 months"? (answer: Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS)

I own three other lenses and a teleconverter, but haven't bothered to take them out of the bag in longer than 12 months. With the 5DII I can crop on the computer and still print really big. If I find myself needing a wider lens, it usually means I haven't thought about my composition yet.

The answers to this question should definitely be taken in the context of what kind of images the commenter takes. Many of the above answers were wildlife answers, which are typically much longer lenses than "landscape".

While I used to shoot landscape, and to this day refuse to shoot anything with eyes (either literally or with a camera), these days my work is better described as "nature related still-life fine art". I don't need a particularly wide lens, because my way of seeing seldom encompasses ALL of a large tree or all three mountain peaks. Thus, I need a somewhat longer lens than the typical landscape photographer but shorter than a wildlife shooter.

I like everything about this lens except that it doesn't focus close enough to suit me. I don't have much use for true macro, but often wish I could focus on things in the range of say 3 feet to 6 feet, which is too close for this lens. I would be lost without the tripod mount. Being able to so effortlessly switch between horizontal and vertical is a real joy. It would be nice if my "one and only lens" weighed a lot less, but since I quite often go off hiking with only that one lens, mounted on the camera and sitting on the tripod...and a bottle of water tucked in my back pocket...the weight of the lens isn't a big deal.

jp

Before I comment about my one lens choice, I need to say something about my shooting style. I shoot very little of what many consider to be wide-angle photographs, preferring instead more intimate views and extracts of grand landscape scenes. The widest lens I currently own for 4x5 is a Nikkor 90mm (equal to about 27mm in 35mm terms). and I use it very infrequently.

If I had a camera with a bellows draw in the 400-450mm range, I'd likely choose my Nikkor M 300mm-f9 as my one lens to use for a year. This puts it in the 'short telephoto' range (although it is not a telephoto design), being equivalent to about 90mm in full-frame 35mm. The lens is wonderfully contrasty, very sharp, has a huge image circle for 4x5, and it will fit in a shirt pocket. It's only shortcoming on my current camera is that it is not very useable for close-in work becasue it takes almost all of my bellows draw to focus at infinity.

If I had to choose a single lens for use with my current 4x5 field camera (a Tachihara), I'd pick my Fujinon 180mm-f5.6. It is fairly small and light weight. The 180 is in the 'normal lens' range for 4x5 (150mm is considered 'normal'), and has a large image circle to provide for swings and tilts without vignetting. Because I like to do intimate landscapes, as well as more grand views, the shorter focal length allows me to extend the bellows to obtain good magnification for close-in subjects.

-P

Canon 24-105L