If you could only have one

[KreutzerPhotography]

If you had to chose one (REAL) lens for the REST of your photography career. Which would you chose? And Why?

[Tijn]

70-200 f/2.8L IS II probably, on a good full-frame body. Of all my photography I like portraits the most, in particular tight ones. This lens would make a nice versatile lens for that.

Alternatively the 28-300L might be the one, to just have all the range covered.

Hard question. I'm lucky that this is one choice I probably won't ever have to make in real life.

[peederj]

I would get a super zoom then because I have been forced into some hypothetical contortion. I don't have a super zoom and would only buy one if something was forcing me like this. But it's more important to get the right shot than get the absolute best quality.

But I have an even more clever answer. I would get the best Zeiss wide angle prime (e.g. 25 f/2) and just wait for sensor technology to improve so much I can zoom digitally without quality loss. 

[Bob Howland]

Why? Well, it was invented as the one lens to use when you could only use one.

[awinphoto]

Do i get to keep my current lenses or forfeit them all and use only one?  If i got to keep my lenses, I would upgrade the 70-200 to the 70-200 2.8 IS II or the 70-300L or if i had to choose only 1 lens, I guess it would be the trusty 24-105... Most general purpose range, ok low light, and IS plus great IQ... Not spectacular at any one facet but does a lot of facets very well. 

[lexonio]

24-105L

[prayharder]

28-300L
Why? Well, it was invented as the one lens to use when you could only use one.

+1

[aZhu]

24-105L

+1

[KurtStevens]

35 1.4L.  Hands down. 

[KreutzerPhotography]

35 1.4L.  Hands down.

Why?

[EYEONE]

35 1.4L.  Hands down.

Why?

Because it's a fantastic lens?

I'd go with the 85mm f1.2L II. I think. If you asked tomorrow it'd probably be a different lens. But with what I normally shoot I could do just about everything with an 85mm.

[Orion]

Maybe this . . . . . . but not sure yet. ( maybe all the above???  )

http://blog.photoshelter.com/2008/07/the-8-best-camera-lenses-ever/

Canon 24mm f/1.4



Ruby. Photo by Jason Burfield.
 
If you’re used to wide-angle zooms that max out at f/2.8, you’ll be thrilled to have more than a stop of extra light and a super shallow depth-of-field. Getting this level of isolation out of a wide angle almost gives the pictures a view camera-esque perspective. This is a lens that makes you wish you shot Canon.
 
$1170

or this,

Leica 35mm f/2 Summicron-M
 


Some people think 50mm is the ideal focal length. I respectfully disagree. When it comes to shooting “wide”, this lens is pretty close to photographic nirvana. Whether you’re shooting a war or a wedding, this lens has the field of view and lack of distortion to put all the “mmm’s” in Summicron.
 
$2595

[JR]

If I had only one prime, it would be a 50mm.

If I had only one zoom, it would be the 24-70 f2/8L II.

I do have a preference for a prime over a zoom though, even if I am loozing on flexibility, because I am addicted to the rasor sharpness of my prime lenses...maybe the new 24-70 will change that!

[Dianoda]

35 1.4L.  Hands down.

Why?

Assuming I'm shooting full-frame, I second the 35L, and here's why: f/1.4 means I'm good in low light and provides plenty of subject isolation.  Being a prime, it's relatively compact.  The angle of view is classic - you can make the 35mm focal length work for just about everything (the exceptions being wildlife and sport).

Coming from my current crop of lenses, I would miss weather sealing and IQ could be better from f/1.4-f/2 (the Samyang is the sharper lens), but yeah, if I could only have one lens, the 35L is it.

[lol]

100-400L. Who needs wide angle anyway?