If you could have only 1 lens...

[Saralonde]

I know we have a wide variety of cameras here, but if you could only have 1 lens for your camera, which would it be and why? Post a sample shot if you can.
It's a tough choice for me, I love the 70-200 and the 100, but I think I'd have to pick my Tamron 28-75mm 2.8. I love the fact that at 2.8 it can be used in low light and the range covers a wide variety of situations. I kind of wish it went a little wider than 28, but generally it's not a problem. I looked at a lot of lenses to replace my kit lens and this one fit my price level and criteria. If not for cost I may have chosen something else (Canon 24-70mm 2.8L!), but the Tamron works for me

http://static.flickr.com/136/359503715_a369493d40.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/23733128@N00/359503715/)
foc. len. 75, 1/20s, ISO 100, f2.8

[Saralonde]

Photo not showing. :o Had this problem once before. How do I fix?

[NaturesPixel]

you need to use the code


[img]http://URL URL URL (http://URL URL URL)

EG


http://static.flickr.com/136/359503715_a369493d40.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/23733128@N00/359503715/)

hmm i will have to think about this one.. not sure...

[Saralonde]

Thanks, Leisa. I usually just use the code flickr gives me. Thistime it didn't work.

[Darren Rowse]

I'd probably stick with my 24-105mm just because of it's focal length (good for everyday stuff with a reasonably wide angle as well as reasonable reach) and quality (superb).

[RainPacket]

My "nifty fifty," the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8. Cheap, but reliable and good optics. (Really, Canon's single best deal on a lens!)

No, it isn't zoom. It can't get me as close in, or as wide a shot. But since I got it, I find that easily 80% of my pictures are taken with that one lens. So if I could only have one lens, I think I'd miss the other two far less than this one. :)

As a quick sample shot (though darn near everything I've posted on these forums is with the nifty fifty):

http://static.flickr.com/152/357721703_9d0cea5423_d.jpg

[Through the Veil]

I'm using the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D. It is really fast and provides great sharpness. The price is really nice as well.

This picture is one example of a day of shooting with the "50". I had a circular polarizer on.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/152/363867013_a259919ed6.jpg

[Morca007]

I love my Sigma 17-35EX, but I'd say my favorite is the Nikkor 50mm 1.8...

[sagelike31]

More of a fantasy lens.....
focal length of 12-300mm and a f-stop of 1.2 with Image Stabilization.

Would be the first to sign up for that one.

[Saralonde]

More of a fantasy lens.....
focal length of 12-300mm and a f-stop of 1.2 with Image Stabilization.

Would be the first to sign up for that one.
Love to know the size and cost of that!:D

[Rommel]

My 18-135 f3.5-5.6 lens would be my all-around choice. Sure I use a longer zoom for nature shots, or a faster lens for action shots, but nothing has its versatility. Luckily it was a kit lens. For lens that I don't own, it would be something with similar focal length.

[smc1377]

The one that stays on my camera practically all the time is my 28-200 3.5-5.6 USM. It's just wide enough and zooms in enough for everyday use.

http://www.adorama.com/images/large/CA28200AFU.jpg

[Pixelmama]

Well I only have one lens 17-85mm ef-s I find it to be a good range and the IS is a plus. I use it for closeups, landscapes, pets and the occasional bird.

[spartan sojourner]

While I love my 50mm 1.8 for speed and versatility, I have to pick the 70-200 f4L for shooting candids of people. This lens allows me to be far enough away that people aren't self-concious and I can catch their natural emotions and reactions. I just wish I had the money for the 2.8 IS!!!

These are a little grainy because I had to shrink them down so much.

http://mdamich.getmypage.com/images/11.jpg (http://mdamich.getmypage.com/index.php?src=11)

http://mdamich.getmypage.com/images/14.jpg (http://mdamich.getmypage.com/index.php?src=14)

http://mdamich.getmypage.com/images/132.jpg (http://mdamich.getmypage.com/index.php?src=132)

[mdwsta4]

i love my 17-40 which is what i use as an everyday lens, but i wouldnt mind another few mm on the wide end and a lot more on the telephoto end. there's a 17-85, but 5.6 at the long end is way too slow. if only there could be something like a 15-105 f2.8 IS! how great would that be?

[property#1]

I had purchased the Sigma 70-300 a few months ago and find it to be ok but very soft at the 200 range not a big issue with me but it is an issue. I am thinking about buying a Sigma 24-135mm F2.8-4.5 Aspherical IF. does anyone have this lens, if so what are you thoughts on the lens? Thank-you in advance for you reply.

[Saralonde]

I had purchased the Sigma 70-300 a few months ago and find it to be ok but very soft at the 200 range not a big issue with me but it is an issue. I am thinking about buying a Sigma 24-135mm F2.8-4.5 Aspherical IF. does anyone have this lens, if so what are you thoughts on the lens? Thank-you in advance for you reply.

I don't have that lens, but here is a review:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=203&sort=7&cat=37&page=1

[property#1]

Thank-you for the reply Saralonde, I had not read that review but have read a number of other. It seems to be an acceptable lens so I ordered it.

[Saralonde]

Let us know what you think of it and post some shots:) .

[PnwGuy]

Sara, how long have you had your Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, and what do you think of it?

[Saralonde]

Sara, how long have you had your Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, and what do you think of it?

I bought it last fall. With the rebate it cost a little less than $350. I did a lot of research. The Canon 24-70L 2.8 would have been nice, but I chose the Tamron mostly because of the price and good reviews.
Pros: Price, 2.8 is good for low light, sharp, versatile, great walk-around lens, lightweight, 6 year warranty, comes with lens hood
Cons: Can hunt a bit in autofocus, edges can be a little soft

I've heard of people getting bad copies, but mine was fine. The 28mm may or may not be wide enough for you. If not, the Tamron 17-50 2.8 is considered a good option. The fact that it is a 2.8 makes it great for indoor shots. Is it perfect? No (what is?), but for the price "great bang for the buck".

Check out these sample pics http://www.flickr.com/groups/tamron2875mm/

[property#1]

Let us know what you think of it and post some shots:) .

As soon as it arrives I will be taking shots with it and I will post a couple for all to view. Again Saralonde I thank-you for your input.

[PnwGuy]

I bought it last fall. ...but for the price "great bang for the buck".

Check out these sample pics http://www.flickr.com/groups/tamron2875mm/

Thanks so much for the detailed reply!! I ordered mine last week and it should be here in a couple of days. The lens received a lot of good reviews but I thought I'd get your opinion. I'm definitely reassured, thanks again!!!

[Diana1979]

Excellent topic starter. I wish more people would have replied and posted their pic.

[property#1]

Well Saralonde, I got my new Sigma 24-135 a week ago and have only taken a few shots so far but my initial views on the lens follow. As I am still unable to get outside for any length of time, my use of the lens has been restricted to indoor shooting or through a window.
The first thing I noticed is the weight of the lens it weighs 17oz or 530g for those on metric. The telephoto adjustment creeps almost continually when pointed upward. Auto focus seems to hunt at the upper focal range more so than the kit lins 50-200. This again is not an issue with me as I shoot most of the time in manual. Most of the shots taken were either inside or through the window of the condo seemed to be soft at both 24 and 135, have tried full manual aperture and shutter moving from f2.4 through full range and don't seem to be able to find the sweet spot, that could be interior ligthing. I think better testing should be done outside. Probably the worse thing about the lens was buying the filters, as I refuse to buy cheap filters the polarizer and UV totaled $20 under the cost of the lens. Cast will be off the leg on Friday and should be able to get outside for more than and hour next week. I should add that I also have the Sigma 70-300/Macro which I find to be a good lens for the price.

[Saralonde]

Thanks for the partial review, Property#1. Hope it works out for you outdoors. You're right about the cost of good filters; it's amazing what they can cost you. I also have the Sigma 70-300/macro and found it really is a good lens for the price. There are some bargains out there!
Glad to hear about the cast coming off:D .

[The Mighty2006]

I chose the canon 24-70 f/2.8 L usm as I had read good comments about it. The other one I would like is the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS usm. Just a canon fan since buying the S3IS a couple of years ago.

[Saralonde]

Sean, those are two lenses I'd love to have.

[The Mighty2006]

saralonde if i had the money I would have bought them all at one time but the problem is, they are so expensive. Then again they produce fantastic results. The only item I need then is a good tripod.