If you could only bring one lens?

Fajitas! · 09-12-2008 10:15pm

challengemaster wrote: »

he's dead serious, tried to convince me to get it instead of the 24-70L back when.

Can't understand why people buy the 24-70 2.8 when they can get that if they're on a crop body tbh.

Kbeg3 · 09-12-2008 10:18pm

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

18-200mm VR

+1:D

ThOnda · 09-12-2008 10:23pm

Fajitas! wrote: »

Can't understand why people buy the 24-70 2.8 when they can get that if they're on a crop body tbh.

Did you mean "...canNOT get that..."?

Because it is lovely lens and the 70mm end on a crop body would be more suitable for portraits? :-)

Fajitas! · 09-12-2008 10:26pm

But you're losing your whole wide angle!

murpho999 · 09-12-2008 11:18pm

Fajitas! wrote: »

But you're losing your whole wide angle!

But the 24-70mm is one of the best 'L' lenses out there and is way better quality then the 18-55.

It's the quality of the lens that counts not the zoom.

thebaz · 09-12-2008 11:20pm

How do others feal about lugging an SLR on long trips with lots of walking .. even with one lens its bulky when you have the rest of you baggage ?
something compact would be so much easier !!

Mycroft H · 09-12-2008 11:32pm

Id bring my inherited 70-210 f4 minolta beercan. Though it may weigh a pound and a half and seems lik its made of pig iron and quite big its still tack sharp even at 210mm. Far better then modren sony/tammy/sigma 70-300. Did i mention its twenty years old next year too?

i love that lens

bren2002 · 09-12-2008 11:40pm

I went around the world with a Sigma 24-70 f2.8, cracking lens.

ThOnda · 09-12-2008 11:54pm

Get a G10 - small and good focal range ;-)

oshead · 10-12-2008 12:42am

murpho999 wrote: »

But the 24-70mm is one of the best 'L' lenses out there and is way better quality then the 18-55.

It's the quality of the lens that counts not the zoom.

I'd say its a good lense. But it takes a while to get used to. The IQ is probably on a par with the 17-55 IS. But the 17-55 is lighter and on the 40D it has a more suitable focal range for traveling than the 24-70.

Dave OS

gandalf · 10-12-2008 12:47am

These days my 40D tends to have the Sigma 30mm f1.4 on it most times so if I was pushed to have only one lens with me that would be the one for me.

(Unless Fajitas! wants to give me that Canon 135mm I tried on Paddy's Day!)

AnimalRights · 10-12-2008 1:57am

Daddio wrote: »

Afaik you can get both, the 17-55 2.8 is the best part of €800. Looks fantastic though! Wanted to treat myself to something for christmas and unfortunately €800 is above and beyond my budget at the moment.

No you can get the efs 17-55 2.8 IS or the 18-55 IS, totally diff lenses are they not?

Fajitas! · 10-12-2008 8:03am

Whoops, meant 17, not 18 at the shorter end. Either way, I meant the 2.8 IS model

murpho999 wrote: »

But the 24-70mm is one of the best 'L' lenses out there and is way better quality then the 18-55.

It's the quality of the lens that counts not the zoom.

Lens quality is on par with the 24-70, it's smaller and lighter but....

oshead wrote: »

I'd say its a good lense. But it takes a while to get used to. The IQ is probably on a par with the 17-55 IS. But the 17-55 is lighter and on the 40D it has a more suitable focal range for traveling than the 24-70.

Dave OS

Dave hit the nail on the head as regards that!

challengemaster · 10-12-2008 8:44am

Fajitas! wrote: »

Can't understand why people buy the 24-70 2.8 when they can get that if they're on a crop body tbh.

Well, if I did, I'd have one more thing to sell when my 5D arrives, wouldn't I?

jackdaw · 10-12-2008 9:51am

Rhodney wrote: »

24-70...

yep ... that would be my choice ...

Anouilh · 10-12-2008 12:42pm

murpho999 wrote: »

But the 24-70mm is one of the best 'L' lenses out there and is way better quality then the 18-55.

It's the quality of the lens that counts not the zoom.

This is a useful review:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-70-review.shtml

I am in the same boat when it comes to travelling with one versatile lens. I use the Canon EOS 400D (Digital Rebel) and have the kit lens and a Sigma 70-300 apo macro.

Now I need to get an inexpensive lens to take indoor portraits at a wedding. While the 50mm f1.8 is often recommended, I think something with a bit of zoom, but still with the possibility of not using flash, would be the best option.

Canon lenses are not really within my budget.
Is there another Sigma or a Tamron that would fit the bill?

duffarama · 10-12-2008 2:40pm

My choice would be the 12-60mm lens I have for my camera, check this glowing review

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/olympus_12-60_2p8-4_o20/

sheesh · 10-12-2008 2:59pm

the best answer is your fastest one
or maybe your fastest widest one 50mm on a cropped sensor might not be wide enough. I would be thinking of a 30 mm f1.4 lens would be the most adaptable.

if you can afford an f 2.8 zoom go for that just make sure you can go wide.

you can crop out stuff afterwards if you are too wide.

pippatee · 11-12-2008 12:41am

+1 for the 24-105mm canon "L" lens ...never really off my camera ...

Angelo Mercone · 11-12-2008 8:02am

17 to 55 F2.8 nikon

Angelo

Morrisseeee · 11-12-2008 10:42am

Only ONE lens: that I currently own: would be my 50mm f1.7.
Only ONE lens: that I don't own: maybe a small FAST zoom or a 24mm prime.

Simplicius · 11-12-2008 8:11pm

No thinking to it, Nikkor 50mm/f1.4 D............. it's just borderline perfect

Simplicius

Defying Gravity since 1878.

This Human carcass was taken over by the Rodinal Chapter Of the Fifth Church of Analogue in 2008 and shall remain if at all possible hidden in darkrooms with chemicals under red lights until it ceases to function.

Welcome to the planet Analogue, we mean you no harm..

My Photos

http://www.flickr.com/photos/13111789@N00/

If you could only bring one lens?

Comments