One lens?

I used to shoot a prime lens exclusively 30+ years ago. The lack of being able to crop within the lens just became a source of frustration for me. I still will use my trusty 50mm lens from 1985 for special shoots, or when I need good low-light performance. But if I had to choose only one, then a zoom has to win it.

It would be neat, however, to do a photo challenge (even here at AK!) where we all take photos using our prime lenses only. Maybe a bi-weekly photo challenge series of threads? There could be a lot of themes. I can think of a half dozen right off the bat. :)
 
I am new to photography this year. Current setup is a Nikon D3300 with the 35mm prime Nikkor lens. I'm shooting and editing in RAW and trying to figure out how to properly calibrate my new monitor.

My goal is to shoot only with this 35mm lens for one complete year. After that I'll evaluate what I do and don't like about my current setup and probably upgrade body and lens. I see blogs where people shoot exclusively fixed focus lenses and I love that minimalism. We will see how practical that goal is.

With the 1.5 crop factor, this is equivlent to a "normal" lens, so an ordinary print seems to have normal perspective. To me, using only this lens for a year seems restrictive. I would go for something wider, like a 28 or 30 mm [correction , 24mm], (about 35mm eqivalent, what you might find on a 35mm film rangefinder camera) to give me a chance to "zoom with my feet" or crop a bit in the print.
 
I could almost get by with just a 35mm on a crop body. When the D300/D90 were my main bodies, a 28-75 f2.8 and the 35 1.8 got the most use.

In fact, I just ordered a lowly Yongnuo 35mm lens for Nikon as theirs work on a crop and full frame. I ordered through Amazon in case there are any issues.

In my opinion, esp for crop bodies, that Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX lens is probably the best value going. I think it does almost everything the 50 1.8 does, but just a little bit better.
 
In fact, I think two of my favorite guitar pics were taken with the 35mm on a crop body.

index.php


index.php
 
Using a crop body with full-frame lenses, and sticking with Sony due to being able to use my A-mount lenses. Some pros are starting to switch over to Sony's latest from Canon and Nikon, and I'm likewise eyeballing an A68 as my next body, possibly before my next trip in July.

I switched to a 24-105 as an "everyday" lens--I could probably live with that if I only had to use a single lens, as it covers most of my needs. It replaces the 28-85 and 28-80 lenses I have (except I keep the 28-85 in the bag, due to the macro). No prime lens could ever handle the range of photos I take. This lens hits most of what I need.

Yet if I were taking strictly landscape photos, I would probably have to take only my 17-35 with me, as the 24 does not get wide enough for many of the types of shots that I take. I thought I would use it only occasionally on my last trip, but found I pulled that one out of the bag the most when I was out west. I've really enjoyed this one, and I have a better one on the way, due here tomorrow. (The Sigma has nice optics but uses the older 5-pin Minolta contact connection and is not fully compatible.)

If I were doing street/night photography, I would probably live with my 50mm prime. Animal/bird photography? The 75-300. I could easily take that to the zoo as my only lens (and it stayed on my camera most of the time during my last trip to the zoo, come to think of it).

Valuable info and all valid points but it kind of is the opposite of the OP question (1 lens):idea:
 
Valuable info and all valid points but it kind of is the opposite of the OP question (1 lens):idea:
Sort of?

If I had to live with only one of those, it would be the 24-105.

But if I were going on a trip, and could only take one lens with me (like when I'll take just the camera, and not the entire camera bag), it might be one of the others like the 17-35.
 
I used to shoot a prime lens exclusively 30+ years ago. The lack of being able to crop within the lens just became a source of frustration for me. I still will use my trusty 50mm lens from 1985 for special shoots, or when I need good low-light performance. But if I had to choose only one, then a zoom has to win it.

This may well be my experience. So far I've used 2 lenses: the 35mm Nikon prime and the AF-S 18-55 kit lens that came with the body. As you might guess, it was an underwhelming intro to zooms.
 
This may well be my experience. So far I've used 2 lenses: the 35mm Nikon prime and the AF-S 18-55 kit lens that came with the body. As you might guess, it was an underwhelming intro to zooms.
Underwhelming due to picture quality? That is a good basic zoom range, but with zoom you might lose slight image quality (not that I'd notice unless I were extremely nitpicky), and it is not as "fast" as a prime lens can be due to the smaller apertures. That is roughly 28-80 in 35mm (aka full frame sensors) which is why it's a popular zoom.
 
I've given all my 18-55s away but from about 24-50mm, as long as I was stopped down one entire stop, I don't see a whole lot of difference between the 18-55 and a pro 35-70 or 28-70 2.8 at the same aperture. Maybe in the extreme corners when the subject is much closer than the background but in those conditions, it's completely expected.

I took a D90, an 18-55 VR and 55-200 VR on a trip a few years ago. I'll see if I can dig those pics out. I would have done maybe 5% or 10% better with a better lens, but I don't think those super cheap 'free' lenses held me back much at 1/3 the weight and 1/5 the cost.

Personally my biggest beef with the 18-55 and 55-200 is the plastic mount, not the optics.
 
I'm a LONG way from pro, and don't have any amazing lenses.

Right now, if I had to choose just one of my lenses, it would be the 50mm f/1.4

*I do have a 17-85mm f/4-5.6 lens, but the picture quality from the 50mm is just so much better. Knowing what I know now, I would have passed on that 17-85.
 
Personally my biggest beef with the 18-55 and 55-200 is the plastic mount, not the optics.
That is the one thing that bugs me about some of the newer DSLRs--they also have plastic mounts. Granted, there are many different types of plastics, some that are very hard and durable but still...it just doesn't sit well with me. I don't know if it is possible or not, but if the ring for the lens mount is simply screwed onto the camera body, I could probably order a metal mount for it and replace it myself.

My original Minolta glass is heavy, but I certainly can't fault the quality of it.
 
It would not be quite that easy to replace the mount as AF lenses have several contacts through which they communicate with the CPU of the camera.

I've had several lenses with plastic mounts and still have a 55-250 STM lens. I think they are fine for 90% of people but common sense needs to come into play. If that lens is on a 70D or 7D or one of the heavier crop bodies, you should always directly support the body with one hand and when ready shoot, support the lens with the other.

I think that particular lens is a fantastic value, esp for nature photographers. So much, as I said, that even as a Nikon guy, I'd steer someone towards a Canon body specifically to get the 55-250 IS or STM. The Nikon 55-200 is pretty good, but the Canon is definitely better and has more reach.

And like I said, on down the road if her fancy strikes, that first gen 100-400 IS is probably the best value in a peo telephoto lens for reach rather than blurred background.
 
I'm a LONG way from pro, and don't have any amazing lenses.

Right now, if I had to choose just one of my lenses, it would be the 50mm f/1.4

*I do have a 17-85mm f/4-5.6 lens, but the picture quality from the 50mm is just so much better. Knowing what I know now, I would have passed on that 17-85.

I never had a Canon 50 1.4 but still have my early AF Nikon 50 1.4. Great lens.

I had two 17-85s. One was my first medium range zoom for Canon autofocus. The first one was pretty bad from 60 to 85 but the second was ok. After I got a 28-80L, I still used the 17-85 on occasion when thought I might need something a bit wider.
 
My dad had a Canon AE-1 Program, and he always wanted to get the 50mm/f1.2L for it. He never did though, largely due to the price. Back then, we both used to shop at Adray Appliance (Dearborn MI) since they had a fantastic photo department. Bought all of my early stuff there.
 
A pro in the family has the current 50 1.2. Pretty neat lens. Pricey and heavy.

I've used it a couple times. It's easy to miss focus due to how short the depth of field is, but if you get the focus perfect, it's actually pretty sharp even at f1.2.

Definitely a niche lens though. It doesn't really do much at f1.2 that the 70-200 f2.8 doesn't do at 200mm and f2.8.

Edit: I'm sorry. He has the 50mm f1.0. The 1.2 is about 20 Oz whereas the 1.2 is 35 Oz. They are both chunky, but the 1.0 is the super heavy one. It actually weighs more than the 70-200 f4!
 
Last edited:
I've got an old Nikkor 50 f1.2 that I use on my Sony. It's OK if you want to get that picture that has that 'taken with an old lens' feel, but I much prefer the shots I get with my Micro Nikkor 55 2.8. I guess I like the 'crispiness' of that lens. It's a lot lighter in the carry dept. too.
 
I don't think I've ever used the Nikon 50 1.2 but the Canon 1.2 and 1.0 are pretty awesome. But heavy and pricey.
 
I think that particular lens is a fantastic value, esp for nature photographers. So much, as I said, that even as a Nikon guy, I'd steer someone towards a Canon body specifically to get the 55-250 IS or STM. The Nikon 55-200 is pretty good, but the Canon is definitely better and has more reach.

Nikon has the 70-300 VR AF-P which is pretty good. Not the sharpest lens ever made but eminently usable. And it has lightning fast AF.
 
Back
Top Bottom