Your desert island lens..

[Afasoas]

You aren't literally on a desert island, because that might influence your choice, e.g. wide angle for all those scenic sunsets with silhouetted palm trees in the near distance. But you can only take one lens with you. What would it be?

[Polar Bear]

I love my Sigma 17-70.  Jack of all trades...

[Jaded]

It has to be the 18-300

No good in low light. Impressive chromatic aberration. More distortion than Boris. But if you want something done, it will do it.

[clarion]

G.Zuiko 42mm f1.7

Because it's stuck to the front of my Olympus 35SP, which is, in my humble opinion, the Greatest Camera Evah In The Whole Wide Wewd!

If it has to be digital, it'd be the 17mm f1.8 for a Pen E-P5 (neither of which I own, as I make do with a 17/2.8 on an EPL-1 ).

[mike]

easy one - sigma 35 1.4. 

[Tewdric]

Summilux 35 1.4, although the new fujinon 23 runs it damn close.

[Pedal Castro]

Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, if fact I am rarely bothering to take the other lenses out with me unless I know I will need them.

[Charlotte]

The 35mm f/2 on my x100s.  In fact, if I can have an old manual flash on a stand with a grid, a brolly and a pair of triggers to go with it, I'll go with an abbreviated version of the same desert island rig as Zack Arias.  I love what I can do with one light and that little camera.

[Exit Stage Left]

If we are talking about 35mm equivalent, I'm assuming that we already have a 50mm 1.8. The question is then what other lens we might want. If just the one lens, then the 50mm or crop factor equivalent.

[Pickled Onion]

If we are talking about 35mm equivalent, I'm assuming that we already have a 50mm 1.8. The question is then what other lens we might want. If just the one lens, then the 50mm or crop factor equivalent.

On a 35 mm I would want something a bit longer than 50mm, but on a DSLR then a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 would be perfect. I would definitely not want a zoom, useful as they are, but this is a desert island you have all the time in the world to get the perfect composition, don't spoil it with a compromise lens!

On this desert island do we have limitless film and chemicals? Cos a miniature camera wouldn't be enough.

[clarion]

One lens, ESL!

[Tewdric]

The Super Symmar 110 XL is also very special.



I had the pleasure of one of these on loan while staffing a large format workshop too:



Cooke Portrait lens with dialable soft focus effect.  Very niche, but produces some lovely pictures - sharp yet glowingly diffuse. 

[Exit Stage Left]

One lens, ESL!

For someone my age an interchangeable lens camera comes with a 50mm attached as standard, there's a lot of good reasons for that. These days we have sweep panorama, and a 50mm will give little distortion, so that's the wide angle covered. Lots of mega-pixels means we can crop, so that's some of the tele covered. An APS-C sensor will get the same from a 35mm lens of course. 35mm compact cameras tended to have wider angle lenses to make them pocketable.
A lot of the ability of zooms come from image stabilisation, is that something we should consider? We should probably be thinking about prime lenses without image stabilisation. I can't think of any compelling reason why I wouldn't have a 50mm, as fast as I can afford.

[clarion]

So have your 50mm.  There are some cracking ones out there.

[perpetual dan]

I basically only use two lenses anyway. They are 20 and 45mm (on 2* crop factor micro four thirds, so 40 and 90mm in 35mm). A quick filter on Lightroom says I've taken more with the 45mm (1548 vs 1314) but it becomes pretty much even (207 vs 196) once I reduce it to those that I've rated (which I use to indicate "worth doing something with"). I think I'd go for the 45mm as I can stitch pictures together and it is rather nice.

[darkpoint]

Out of the lens that I own,  I would pick the f2.8 100mm macro,  it is also the lens I use the most. (I think)

[clarion]

I'm interested in those who choose, like darkpoint and perpetual dan, a prime longer than 50mm, or, like Oranj, a tele zoom.  I'd personally find that more limiting than a wide prime.  Perhaps I need to experiment more to develop my technique.  I noticed that, for the 'One Lens' photoday, Mike chose an 85mm or similar, and produced some very good results.

[clarion]

The 35mm f/2 on my x100s.  In fact, if I can have an old manual flash on a stand with a grid, a brolly and a pair of triggers to go with it, I'll go with an abbreviated version of the same desert island rig as Zack Arias.  I love what I can do with one light and that little camera.

Strictly speaking, if you're converting the focal length of the lens to 35mm equivalent, oughtn't you convert the f-stop too?  That'd make a 35mm f2.8, while my 17mm f2.8 for m43 would be about 35mm f4 (ish).

[darkpoint]

I'm interested in those who choose, like darkpoint and perpetual dan, a prime longer than 50mm, or, like Oranj, a tele zoom.  I'd personally find that more limiting than a wide prime.  Perhaps I need to experiment more to develop my technique.  I noticed that, for the 'One Lens' photoday, Mike chose an 85mm or similar, and produced some very good results.

I take quite a lot of macro photography, but that might just be because I have that lens on the camera a lot.  If I am taking portraits I like being a distance from my subject, in the hope to get a more natural look.

My second choice would be the 50mm f1.4
I have used the 70-200 F4 and that is a beautiful thing near perfect headshots portraits form a distance, if I had an f2.8 then it might edge out the 100 and the 50 as it is covering a similar range, except that I would be limited when it came to macro.

[Charlotte]

The 35mm f/2 on my x100s.  In fact, if I can have an old manual flash on a stand with a grid, a brolly and a pair of triggers to go with it, I'll go with an abbreviated version of the same desert island rig as Zack Arias.  I love what I can do with one light and that little camera.

Strictly speaking, if you're converting the focal length of the lens to 35mm equivalent, oughtn't you convert the f-stop too?  That'd make a 35mm f2.8, while my 17mm f2.8 for m43 would be about 35mm f4 (ish).

Strictly speaking, I should have described it as a Fujinon 23mm f/2 but life is just too short.  Whether you call it a twenty three or a thirty five and whether you argue about converting the f stop, does it really, actually matter if you know how to use the damned thing?  It makes good pictures is all I care about!

If you really want to get geeky (and despite the above, I am all about getting geeky) then we should be talking about the t-stop (for speed) and f-stop (for DOF).  A t-stop is an f-number adjusted to account for light transmission efficiency and it's mainly referred to for lenses that get used to make movies.  When you're 'converting' fields of view into 35mm equivalent then obviously the DOF would be different but the lens speed (and the exposure you need for any given conditions) will not.

[perpetual dan]

I'm interested in those who choose, like darkpoint and perpetual dan, a prime longer than 50mm, or, like Oranj, a tele zoom.  I'd personally find that more limiting than a wide prime.  Perhaps I need to experiment more to develop my technique.  I noticed that, for the 'One Lens' photoday, Mike chose an 85mm or similar, and produced some very good results.

When thinking about pictures I tend to "see" smaller bits of what is in front of me. I'm rarely trying to capture broad sweeps, or to have a "point in the general direction" street photography approach. The 45mm lens fits the way I see well and is a nice lens. Even the 20mm doesn't really push me into the "two rocks, one near and one far" school of landscape photography.

[clarion]

Interesting, thanks chaps.

[Pickled Onion]

I'm interested in those who choose, like darkpoint and perpetual dan, a prime longer than 50mm, or, like Oranj, a tele zoom.  I'd personally find that more limiting than a wide prime.  Perhaps I need to experiment more to develop my technique.  I noticed that, for the 'One Lens' photoday, Mike chose an 85mm or similar, and produced some very good results.

When thinking about pictures I tend to "see" smaller bits of what is in front of me. I'm rarely trying to capture broad sweeps, or to have a "point in the general direction" street photography approach. The 45mm lens fits the way I see well and is a nice lens. Even the 20mm doesn't really push me into the "two rocks, one near and one far" school of landscape photography.

I love that description, and can relate to it totally!

The "standard" length prime is based on some fairly arbitrary reasoning. But lens length == negative diagonal is an easy formula so has stuck.

[Mrs Pingu]

I actually quite like my 10-28mm. It has the advantage of being relatively light.

[LEE]

I'd have something equivalent to a 35mm  format 24-200mm F2.8 (maybe 28-200 if the 24 end made it prohibitive). Does someone make that?

F2.8 is usually OK to get bokeh at portait focal lengths and a modern DSLR has such high ISO sensitivity available that it should be fine in low light (I used to think that 800 ISO was pretty special and was almost always using Ilford FP4 125).

How things change.