If you could only keep 1 lens...

which one would you keep ? I've been looking at pics on this site and the Canon 135 f2L lens just blows my mind...I'm seriously thinking of getting it. Just want to see if there is anything better out there.

It totally depends on what you like to shoot! I have the 135L, but my go to is my Sigma 35mm ART. It stays on my camera 95% of the time. Except for roadtrips, my 135L really shines when its shooting things out of my window!

I used to say my 500mm prime, but now it would be the 100-400mm MkII

Heya,

Totally dependent on what you shoot mostly. I shoot any where from 17mm to 600mm on full frame, and have APS-C. So it would be hard for me to just choose one focal length or one specific lens.

Ideally a zoom would likely be the best 1 lens to cover as much as possible, but I'm more fond of primes.

For me, it would be a stabilized Macro telephoto prime. Right now, it's the Tamron 90mm F2.8 VC. I pulls several duties for me on full frame & APS-C, as portrait, macro (insect, plant), landscape, astro. Easily my most useful universal lens. I'd probably give up my 17-40L and 150-600 and 200 F2.8L, etc, in favor of this one lens if I had to choose forever.

Luckily, we don't get SLR's for a 1 lens approach...

Very best,

The 135L is probably the best piece of glass I own. I've purchased it twice. However, if I could only keep one lens, it would be my EF 35mm f/2 IS USM. It gets used more.

Mine would undoubtedly be the 70-200mm f/2.8L II. Except I don't know how I'd carry it up the hills - would be a bit stuck for my hiking trips.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17996758
I used to say my 500mm prime, but now it would be the 100-400mm MkII

I don't have a 500mm but I think I'd love to own one. I use my 100-400ii every time I'm out... well, unless I'm at a non-wildlife venue.

anitaw2 wrote in post #17996731
which one would you keep ? I've been looking at pics on this site and the Canon 135 f2L lens just blows my mind...I'm seriously thinking of getting it. Just want to see if there is anything better out there.

135 is kinda no man's land as far as focal lengths go, I've owned the lens 5 different times, I liked the images but could never live with the focal length, If your tempted to get the 135L and can afford and desire images with that great bokeh then I highly recommend this lens I just hope you have other lenses

70-200 IS II.

There are so many other great lenses, but the versatility of the 70-200 is almost unbeatable. If your question was slightly different, as in "what is your favorite" or "what do you think is the best" it might be different. But the versatility of the 70-200 would allow me to get 90% of all shots I could need. Almost no other lens would allow that.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17996758
I used to say my 500mm prime, but now it would be the 100-400mm MkII

Yeah, same here. It'd hurt not to have a big lens anymore, but for overall utility and versatility nothing beats the new 100-400mm for the stuff I shoot.

However, if I was truly limited to just one lens, I would likely switch over to Sony DSLRs and get their 70-400mm. That extra 30mm on the short end of the range would be invaluable. If one lens has to fit the bill for everything one shoots, then it really is all about the "X factor"............ as in a 5.7x zoom is more useful than a 4x zoom.

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17997685
Yeah, same here. It'd hurt not to have a big lens anymore, but for overall utility and versatility nothing beats the new 100-400mm for the stuff I shoot.

.

If money was not an obstacle, would you like a 200-400 w/1.4X? From a few previous posts of yours, I know you find the 100mm a bit too long for some of your applications..... hence my question.

Same question to CyberDS: have you have a chance to use a 200-400 f/4 w/1.4X? and if so, would you consider having it instead of your 500 f/4?

Phoenixkh wrote in post #17997690
If money was not an obstacle, would you like a 200-400 w/1.4X? From a few previous posts of yours, I know you find the 100mm a bit too long for some of your applications..... hence my question.

I've used the 200-400/560, and it is truly an awesome lens. However, the range is really limiting. As you mentioned, 100mm is too long for some of what I shoot, so you can only imagine how frustrated I'd be if the shortest I could shoot would be 200mm.

The 200-400/560mm, even with the 1.4 employed, is only a 2.8x zoom, which is only half the range of the Sony 70-400mm that I would likely get if I really were limited to one lens.

I used to have a 70-200mm zoom, but the range - only 2.9x - was so stifling that the lens frustrated the heck out of me, and I sold it.

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17997713
I've used the 200-400/560, and it is truly an awesome lens. However, the range is really limiting. As you mentioned, 100mm is too long for some of what I shoot, so you can only imagine how frustrated I'd be if the shortest I could shoot would be 200mm.

The 200-400/560mm, even with the 1.4 employed, is only a 2.8x zoom, which is only half the range of the Sony 70-400mm that I would likely get if I really were limited to one lens.

I used to have a 70-200mm zoom, but the range - only 2.9x - was so stifling that the lens frustrated the heck out of me, and I sold it.

.

I'm daydreaming, of course. I have little prospect of owning my own dream gear kit. I think I'd want the 200-400/560mm and one of the super tele primes, not sure which one... for weight, probably the 500 2, though if Canon is really about to release a 600 DO, that would be the one, most likely. Add a 1D X ll and I'd be in birding heaven.

In the mean time, I'm having a blast with my 1D IV and 100-400 ii.

If I could only have one lens I'd dump Canon completely and just stick with my Fujifilm X100T (APS-C sized sensor with fixed 23mm lens) or my iPhone.

If I could keep two lenses, the lenses I would keep would be my 24-70 2.8 ii and my 70-200 2.8 ii. They're both really awesome lenses. They can easily cover everything I shoot and do it well (I would have to combine multiple exposures for some things, like expansive landscapes). I would not surrender either of them. Prime lenses are specialized toys to me (I do have some). They are not my workhorses.

If limited to one lens I'd get rid of my dslr altogether. And that's what I did almost 2 years ago. Sold everything and got the Sony RX1.