If you could only have one

[ordnance1]

If you could have only one high quality general purpose lens, what would it be?

[aam1234]

24-70 L

[rebel61021]

70-200 f/2.8L IS USM. I have the f/4L and love it but would really love the 2.8 probally would not even take it off if I had one.

[karusel]

It really depends on what your primary targets are, but anyway, the 24-70L is also in my opinion the one lens if you only wanted one. The 70-200 easily gets much too long at the 70mm end... the 16-35 is too short for a lot of uses and it's only a 2x zoom, there is only 28-135 IS lens, but it's not L... and I wouldn't want my only lens to be of any lower than L quality... You could also survive pretty good with 100-400L or the 75-300 DO IS.provided your subjects are always somewhat far away.

[eosster]

24-70mm F/2.8L.

[davidwegs]

Sigma 18-125 on a 20d

24-70 on a 1Ds2

[DSMITH131]

24-70L

[ed2day]

24-70L

[Scottes]

100-400 L. If I didn't do so much long-range stuff it would be the 24-70 L though.

[Tom W]

24-70L - its about as versatile as one can get in a single lens.

[Mills]

24-70 f/2.8L.

[SkipD]

Ditto - 24-70 2.8L

[DocFrankenstein]

Drum roll.....

















24-70 L

It's dust/moisture resistant too. Great for beach portrait sessions.

[rfreschner]

Another vote for 24-70 f/2.8 L

[Belmondo]

I seem to recall this questions having been asked a time or two before, and my answer is the same....24-70L.

It's not the sexiest lens I own, but it probably accounts for 60-70% of my shots. Not surprising because it's the sens that stays on the body almost all the time.

[mtndew]

If Canon only made this lens i would be in love 28-135mm IS 2.8L
But when reality kicks in I must go with 24-70 2.8L

[timmyquest]

the 50mm f/1.8 is as high quality as i need in a medium zoom lens...thus ruleing out the 24-70. Wide angle lenses are tough to make, but if i had to chose between the 17-40/16-35 or the 70-200..i'd pick the 70-200

[defordphoto]

For what I shoot, the 100-400L is the only choice.

[Icecamp]

28-70 f/2.8L

[britt777]

I just bought both 24-70 and the 70-200 2.8L. I use my 24-70 for most shooting so I would have to say 24-70 if I could only have one. I do alot of nature photography too though and that is not real possible without a zoom lens. Just go by what you shoot more of. These two lenses are the best and I couldn't imagine needing any other lenses. Oh p.s.....lol. I did also purchase the 100mm macro 2.8. I feel I am set for life and all my shooting needs are met.

[MDJAK]

Having just got the 24-70 Canon, I love it. Great all purpose quality lens.


But, if I could only have one lens, it would be the 300 F2.8 IS, hands down.

I always want what I don't already have.

And I already have the 70-200 F2.8 IS.

[poogpost]

24-70 2.L or 28-70 2.8L

John

[Citizensmith]

28-90 f/4.5-5.6 Mk3.
No really. ;)

[DocFrankenstein]

Oh... wait...

I'd say EF 1200mm... or at least 600 f/4

Then I'd sell it and buy lots of other stuff :)

[Marshall]

Personally I would like a 10-400 2.8L IS !!! any other stupid answers ?

[Doom1701e]

I'd also have to say the 24-70 2.8L. Its been on the camera since I bought it and I don't foresee taking it off for a while.

[fatrat]

If i could only have one it would be a Tamron 28-300mm
Everything you want in a Lens really and its image quality is great and as good as anything in its price range, If i could have 2 and unlimited $$ then it is a differant story

[thomascanty]

The 24-70L would be my choice, too. The 17-40L would be a close second choice, with the 100-400L as my third.

[KennyG]

I think we are all trying to tell you - 24-70L.

[roanjohn]

17-40 f4 L

Ro1

[MDJAK]

Of those who picked the 17-40 (and I have one) why not the 16-35? That's the one I wish I had gotten instead.

[roanjohn]

Of those who picked the 17-40 (and I have one) why not the 16-35? That's the one I wish I had gotten instead.

Cuz its more expensive :(

Ro1

[eosster]

Personally I would like a 10-400 2.8L IS !!! any other stupid answers ?

Good choice, LMAO.:cool:

[fatrat]

I think its worth looking at the EF-S 10-22mm 1:3.5-4.5

[maderito]

The 24-70L would be my choice, too. The 17-40L would be a close second choice, with the 100-400L as my third.
If Canon dropped the price on the 24-70L to about $700-$800 (vs. $1100), more people would start their L lens purchase with this lens and then add the 17-40L or 16-35L, the 70-200L, and the 100-400L.

It should be a no brainer to add the 24-70L to your collection - but the price makes you pause given the alternative, lower cost fixed-length Canon primes and competing Tamron products.

[Belmondo]

If Canon dropped the price on the 24-70L to about $700-$800 (vs. $1100), more people would start their L lens purchase with this lens and then add the 17-40L or 16-35L, the 70-200L, and the 100-400L.

I think Canon already sees the 17-40 as their 'loss leader.' I doubt they'd do it with two lenses, especially when they have overlapping focal lengths. Still, it would be nice. Maybe we could convince them that it would be a smart thing to do with the EF 600 f/4.0L. :lol:

[cc10d]

Yeh! but it sure is nice. I am surprized how much of the time it is on my camera. Super results!

[cc10d]

But that said, It just isn't long enough to be the only lens for me. I vote 24-70 or 28-70 f2.8 The lower cost alternative and better range is the 28-135 IS not as good low light but nice range, especially on our 1.6 cameras. this lens is not quite "L" but is a good lens, especially it you use it at less than full arpeture.

[primoz]

I would probably go with 300/2.8. If I would really have to choose only one. It has to do with this what I'm shooting. Other chance would be 16-35/2.8 :) Next to 70-200/2.8 these two are lenses I use most. 28-70/2.8 is something I'm sorry I even bought because I use it maybe 5% of time.
But on other side someone said once "if your photos are not good enough you are not close enough" :) So 16-35 is lens of choice :)

[Ray.Petri]

It seems the 24-70 L and the 70-200L are the comon choice of versatility and quality - from what I've read I will probably go this way.

However, a previous comment sugested a 28-135 L if it existed - what an ideal lens that would be for most of us I'm sure - It certainly would fill 98% of my needs.

Someone mentioned the Sigma 18-125 How does this compare for L quality and sharpness?

[tbird]

Absolutely the Canon 24-70L f/2.8 USM. I couldn't imagine a better all-purpose lens IF you could only have one. Expensive, but worth every cent on my EOS 20D. Didn't know an AF could be so smooth and quick.

[slacker]

'New to photography, but if I had only one lens it'd be the 28-300L IS. I've never used it, but it's an L and has IS.

[Harry Settle]

When my wife tells me "you can only have one" I tell her sure. . . " one of those. . . one of those and one of those".

[fatrat]

what about the 28-300mm L IS
one lens for all but at like $4500 AUD gees its pricey
do you think it will be as good as the 24-70 L
at the focal lengths 28-70mm ??
does anyone have one?