If you could only use one lens for the rest of your life what would it be?

[Mmmbeats]

32 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

 
?

An EF version will never happen.

 

Why's that? Is it possible to adapt the lens at all? Say to MFT?

[IronFilm]

40 minutes ago, Mmmbeats said:

Why's that? Is it possible to adapt the lens at all? Say to MFT?

Can you adapt a mirrorless lens to EF? Physics say no. 

But to MFT? Without even looking the specs to check if it is possible, I can say this is very very very unlikely to be done with the electronic connections you'd need to fully control the lens. 

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

Nothing. 

So many many many lenses are available across many mounts, all mounts have great choices. We're spoiled for choices. 

(although of course these new mounts lack many needed lenses, but what I mean is that there is no new lens which alone could drive me towards them)

[Bioskop.Inc]

I really love my Super-Takumar 55mm f1.8 & I don't care what sensor it's on.

For me, it's never about focal length, it's how the lens always seems to deliver something special no mater what. The exclamation "it's not wide enough" is never something that enters my mind - I just move about & frame with what I've got.

Go take a look at the original version of Point Blank (1967) - they just used a 50mm lens & diopters.

[fuzzynormal]

A good and fast 50mm is enough.  I think I might actually shoot better if that's all I had.

[webrunner5]

Each division of lenses has a Look whether you like it or not. You can not make a 105mm lens look like a 24mm lens and vice versa no matter if you move forward or backwards. Crazy talk. And a 50mm really has no Look to it that is different than what We see. So it is pretty plain looking in reality. It has nothing unexpected to it, good or bad.

Wide angles un compress the back ground, and telephoto lenses compress them. Simple as that.

[Rinad Amir]

I love the look of the 25mm 1.2 Olympus ?

[webrunner5]

2 minutes ago, Rinad Amir said:

I love the look of the 25mm 1.2 Olympus ?

That has more to do with F stop than focal length. That lens ends up being a 50mm on a m4/3. So the magic is the f stop.

[heart0less]

@webrunner5, I tend to disagree. 

Just like Bioskop.Inc said:

3 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

For me, it's never about focal length, it's how the lens always seems to deliver something special no mater what. 

There is so much more that lens gives apart from perspective. 

Color renderition, micro contrast (or lack of it), flares, etc. 

[webrunner5]

2 minutes ago, heart0less said:

@webrunner5, I tend to disagree. 

Just like Bioskop.Inc said:

There is so much more that lens gives apart from perspective. 

Color renderition, micro contrast (or lack of it), flares, etc. 

What the hell does that have to do with focal length?? Any lens, regardless of length can have all of those attributes.

[fuzzynormal]

20 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

That has more to do with F stop than focal length. That lens ends up being a 50mm on a m4/3. So the magic is the f stop.

Different lenses all have certain qualities aside from stop and FOV.  

I shot a short film a few years back on an Pentax A110 24mm 2.8.  You can see the IQ shortcomings over modern lenses when you look for them, but the choice with the old Pentax lens was artistic.  It fit the story.  Even though most viewers won't pick up on my lens choice, it affects their perception of the story.  Sometimes you want tack sharp, contrasty, and clinical, sometimes you want the flaws.

These are considerations that are all part of the mix.

That said, unless one's being extremely discriminating, I find it kind of hard to differentiate substantial lens quality between modern lenses at similar price points. 

[webrunner5]

8 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

Different lenses all have certain qualities aside from stop and FOV.  

That said, unless one's being extremely discriminating, I find it kind of hard to differentiate substantial lens quality between modern lenses at similar price points. 

I agree with your last statement. Newer lenses from the Big Three has no soul. They are All clinical as hell with all the corrections they have built into the software. You can't tell them apart other than a small different in the total color output, and that is easily replicated in post.

Old lenses do add character, good and bad. I would suggest more to the good side. But it is nice to have a choice to be sharp as hell and not. So I would rather have a camera I can tone down than have to try to tone up sharpness wise. And yes it can be done with lenses and filters more easily than in post. But it will be baked in, so you have to watch yourself by not going too far off the deep edge LoL. ?

[Baz]

Easy....Nikon AiS 50mm f1.2. A truly special lens.

[Bioskop.Inc]

3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Each division of lenses has a Look whether you like it or not. You can not make a 105mm lens look like a 24mm lens and vice versa no matter if you move forward or backwards. Crazy talk. And a 50mm really has no Look to it that is different than what We see. So it is pretty plain looking in reality. It has nothing unexpected to it, good or bad.

Wide angles un compress the back ground, and telephoto lenses compress them. Simple as that.

 

3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

What the hell does that have to do with focal length?? Any lens, regardless of length can have all of those attributes.

Why are you always out for a fight & have to be right? All your statements here are just so obvious they're unimportant. See, I find wide angle lenses to be as boring & a waste of time. They're special effect lenses that have no use whatsoever, other than allowing people to capture everything simply because they can't make a decision. This whole "I've got to be able to see everything" is completely uninspiring, unnatural & reeks of amateur time.

You're wrong when you say a 50mm isn't a good focal length for precisely the reason you gave - it's how we see & what could be better than than? Perhaps if we walked around with our eyes shut or do you prefer bug eyes? It really boils down to the fact that you don't like it or perhaps you just can't shoot properly with one?

Stop being a grumpy fucking arsehole! It was funny for a while, but now you're just coming across as a stupid cunt!

[webrunner5]

54 minutes ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

 

Why are you always out for a fight & have to be right? All your statements here are just so obvious they're unimportant. See, I find wide angle lenses to be as boring & a waste of time. They're special effect lenses that have no use whatsoever, other than allowing people to capture everything simply because they can't make a decision. This whole "I've got to be able to see everything" is completely uninspiring, unnatural & reeks of amateur time.

You're wrong when you say a 50mm isn't a good focal length for precisely the reason you gave - it's how we see & what could be better than than? Perhaps if we walked around with our eyes shut or do you prefer bug eyes? It really boils down to the fact that you don't like it or perhaps you just can't shoot properly with one?

Stop being a grumpy fucking arsehole! It was funny for a while, but now you're just coming across as a stupid cunt!

Super wide angle lenses are the Thing, and have been for a few years. And a 50mm is what we see I said that. And guess what it is boring as shit to see in a movie. It is the, been there done that thing. You act like a 90 year old man. Get with it. Yeah I fight because there is some silly ass statements on here that are just not true. Basic stuff that most people Ought to know 2 years into photography.

Yeah and I am a asshole because I tell it like it is. Some people on here act like all this shit was just invented 4 years ago. You want to be great at your craft, or just jump from system to system hoping for a miracle. The miracle is somewhere between your ears, learn to use it instead of the latest toy. Go back to basics, learn lenses, not just a 50mm. That has been done already. Be different, that is what stands out, different.

I am not grumpy, I am trying to let you know it is a brave new world out there now. 50mm Is old hat. Everybody does that. You want to be like Everybody., That is pretty boring. I hardly ever used a 50mm equivalent on weddings I took, or even all the ENG work I did. It looks flat, no depth to it.  And no don't give me that oh I have a f1.2  50mm stuff. For weddings, ENG you Never want to be out OOF, never. So it is useless as tits on a boar hog in that circumstance.. Sure for static stuff on a tripod, yeah that works. But that is not what is in this month, this year. Run n Gun is the thing, and a 0.95 lens is pretty silly in that circumstance.

stupid cunt, that is pretty funny coming from a Prick. But I do like your footage on Vimeo. So there. ?

[Robin]

I actually just used a single lens on a short film (first time I have done that)

Nikon ais 35mm f1.4 

On a Fuji xh1 with speed booster (so around 40mm equiv with the small 4k crop this cam has)

If I had to I'm sure I could carry on shooting that way with little difficulty. Might get boring though !

[webrunner5]

There is nothing wrong with shooting with one lens. Heck if someone gave me a 50mm Cooke Anamorphic lens I would shoot that sucker for the rest of my life! But a heck of a lot of what i would shoot would look the same. That is the problem. When you walk back the field of view looks wrong, too narrow. When you walk in it looks to wide of a field of view. Un natural, and the point of focus is lost. It is limiting as hell.

[Bioskop.Inc]

29 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Super wide angle lenses are the Thing, and have been for a few years. And a 50mm is what we see I said that. And guess what it is boring as shit to see in a movie. It is the, been there done that thing. You act like a 90 year old man. Get with it. Yeah I fight because there is some silly ass statements on here that are just not true. Basic stuff that most people Ought to know 2 years into photography.

Yeah and I am a asshole because I tell it like it is. Some people on here act like all this shit was just invented 4 years ago. You want to be great at your craft, or just jump from system to system hoping for a miracle. The miracle is somewhere between your ears, learn to use it instead of the latest toy. Go back to basics, learn lenses, not just a 50mm. That has been done already. Be different, that is what stands out, different.

I am not grumpy, I am trying to let you know it is a brave new world out there now. 50mm Is old hat. Everybody does that. You want to be like Everybody., That is pretty boring. I hardly ever used a 50mm equivalent on weddings I took, or even all the ENG work I did. It looks flat, no depth to it.  And no don't give me that oh I have a f1.2  50mm stuff. For weddings, ENG you Never want to be out OOF, never. So it is useless as tits on a boar hog in that circumstance.. Sure for static stuff on a tripod, yeah that works. But that is not what is in this month, this year. Run n Gun is the thing, and a 0.95 lens is pretty silly in that circumstance.

stupid cunt, that is pretty funny coming from a Prick.

Weddings! Ahhh! Now that explains a lot & you mentioned the unmentionable or at least the one thing no one ever comes out & admits.

The topic of the thread is about the one lens you'd like to use for the rest of your life & not what is the current craze so lets jump on a band wagon. It would be a sorry world if we all wanted the same thing or that we had to be pressured into saying or using a type of focal length because everyone else was - that's just plain stupid & pathetic. I've used loads of lenses throughout the years from super wide angle to near telescopic lenses - as you said, all these things have been around for years & it's not as if anyone is reinventing the wheel. And your ridiculous comment about a brave new world, it's the same one i've been in for decades - there's no new focal lengths & so nothing new to try.

So why shouldn't I like my Super Takumar 55mm f1.8? It's a lens that I personally like. It's not boring or unoriginal, it's a lens out of many that exist & one that I keep going back to. I don't really go back to many 50mm lenses, but this one I do. I also love my Meyer Orestor 100m f2.8 for it's colour & you could include the 30mm Lydith as well. And the Helios 40-2 (85mm) for it's crazy swirly bokeh when shot wide open. There's a plethora of lenses & no shame in my or anyone's choice.

You go on about how people should want to stand out & be different, but you also state that everyone nowadays shoots with wide angle lenses - so how is that being different. See being different is using a wide angle lens for a close up, but you don't really see that a lot? (For those of you that don't know what that looks like just watch Amelie, those weird close ups - bingo!)

And Run'n'Gun isn't a new thing, it's been around for ever. The new thing, kinda, is people using Photography cameras to shoot video with, getting disappointed that they look like video because they're using photography lenses to shoot with & not really understanding why a cinema camera (and what goes into making a film) looks the way it does when used by someone who knows what they're doing. We all should know that these DSLRs are basically cheap under par compromises. I really tried to get on board & they're good for certain things. But the OG Pocket was the closest I've come to liking the image coming out of one of these things & I loved using without trying to make it anything other than what it was - a S16 sized sensor.

[noone]

While I said the one lens I would have is my 17 tilt shift lens, there is no way I would ever want ONLY one lens.

Screen grab from a video using the 17 TS-E (not shifted or tilted here but just as a 17mm lens).

Second is a photo with the lens shifted (I always see shots from everyone else-  including the newspaper and council- of this building leaning back and I HATE that).

Third is photo with a 300 2.8 and no way I could do that with my 17 TS-E.

[webrunner5]

11 minutes ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

Weddings! Ahhh! Now that explains a lot & you mentioned the unmentionable or at least the one thing no one ever comes out & admits.

The topic of the thread is about the one lens you'd like to use for the rest of your life & not what is the current craze so lets jump on a band wagon. It would be a sorry world if we all wanted the same thing or that we had to be pressured into saying or using a type of focal length because everyone else was - that's just plain stupid & pathetic. I've used loads of lenses throughout the years from super wide angle to near telescopic lenses - as you said, all these things have been around for years & it's not as if anyone is reinventing the wheel. And your ridiculous comment about a brave new world, it's the same one i've been in for decades - there's no new focal lengths & so nothing new to try.

So why shouldn't I like my Super Takumar 55mm f1.8? It's a lens that I personally like. It's not boring or unoriginal, it's a lens out of many that exist & one that I keep going back to. I don't really go back to many 50mm lenses, but this one I do. I also love my Meyer Orestor 100m f2.8 for it's colour & you could include the 30mm Lydith as well. And the Helios 40-2 (85mm) for it's crazy swirly bokeh when shot wide open. There's a plethora of lenses & no shame in my or anyone's choice.

You go on about how people should want to stand out & be different, but you also state that everyone nowadays shoots with wide angle lenses - so how is that being different. See being different is using a wide angle lens for a close up, but you don't really see that a lot? (For those of you that don't know what that looks like just watch Amelie, those weird close ups - bingo!)

And Run'n'Gun isn't a new thing, it's been around for ever. The new thing, kinda, is people using Photography cameras to shoot video with, getting disappointed that they look like video because they're using photography lenses to shoot with & not really understanding why a cinema camera (and what goes into making a film) looks the way it does when used by someone who knows what they're doing. We all should know that these DSLRs are basically cheap under par compromises. I really tried to get on board & they're good for certain things. But the OG Pocket was the closest I've come to liking the image coming out of one of these things & I loved using without trying to make it anything other than what it was - a S16 sized sensor.

I stated in the beginning of this thread, "I would have a 28mm f1.8 if it was the down to one prime. Sure a 24-70mm f2.8 would work as the only zoom. Any faster and they would be huge. "

And I will still stick to the 28mm. And the zoom is a one size do all thing, that I would guess would work for the vast majority of people on here except BiF people. And I would imagine 50mm  would be a very little used focal length on that zoom for most. It would be wider not longer on average unless you are into sports, or birding. I doubt many on here are..

The problem is we have a heck of a lot wider field of view with our eyes than a 50mm can shoot. So yeah the length looks familiar, but not the view. So we tend to shoot wider to sort of bridge the gap as they say.

And I don't think the camera has much to do with video. I am afraid a lot of us, me included, use that as a crutch. It is the editing, coloring and sure the somewhat the Codec, but with skill in shooting, lighting that can be overcome. I am sure a Wiz in Resolve can take a Canon T2i with the kit lens and knock your socks off with it.  We are Long past what is needed camera wise.

[Drew Allegre]

These questions are causing me existential grief.  I used to feel safe and happy in EF land, but now that I switched to Sony, the world is a big unknown place.

On 10/3/2018 at 9:56 AM, kye said:

What lens would you choose to use for the rest of your life?

What is your favorite lens?

What is the lens you would most like to own?

With the announcement of various new lens mounts what lenses would tempt you to change systems?

1) I really like the 24L II on Canon...hoping I'm going to love the 24 GM on Sony.  But a 24 as an only lens?  I don't think I could get by with just one, tbh.
2) As far as lenses that I've used extensively, I would say the 135L.  It's just effortless to get a good shot, renders nicely, AF is great, MF ring is nice.
3) I would really like to try the Batis 135.  Looks like a great lens.  I'm hoping to eventually have the 24 GM (pre-ordered), Sony 55 1.8 (own it), and Batis 135 (eventually)
4) I'm really happy with Sony and where they seem to be going with lenses for the E mount (even with the Sony "limitations").  I stayed with Canon for a long time, and I don't see myself switching again any time soon.  Also, there are so many things that can be adapted to E mount, it's a nice place to be.