If you could only use one lens for EVERYTHING you do for one year, what would it be?

Pro photographers, if you could only use one lens for EVERYTHING you do for one year, what would it be?

That's kinda like asking a mechanic or a carpenter which one tool he would use to do all his work.

Having one tool, or one lens, just restricts the work you can do and limits you to a narrow band of jobs. Unless working in a VERY specialized field, a pro cannot do the job with just one lens (and even then, they would really need a backup copy).

At the end of the day, you need the right tool for the right job and a professional needs a full tool kit.

What Sandpiper said. However, to answer the question anyways: 50 mm 1.2 L

Sandpiper, I agree for the most part, but you may be missing the spirit of the question. It is a ridiculous question strictly speaking on the basis of your articulation, BUT if you (pretend) you had no choice, but for one lens, what could you, with your skill and style make due with?

70-200

I did consider the thought of using a 50mm f/1.4 for a few months or even a year... but I just needed an UWA for landscape hahaha... was not able to control myself and bought 1.

I only lasted 1month with my 1 lens lineup hahaha

DanteCaspian wrote in post #10524323
Sandpiper, I agree for the most part, but you may be missing the spirit of the question. It is a ridiculous question strictly speaking on the basis of your articulation, BUT if you (pretend) you had no choice, but for one lens, what could you, with your skill and style make due with?

I'm not a pro, but have several lenses and getting rid of any one of them would mean that I would have to give up on some types of shots. The only lens that could manage to cover everything I might want to shoot in a month, never mind a year, would be a 10-600mm f/1.8-5.6 L IS with 1:1 macro capability. Sadly I don't think Canon currently make such a lens.

I assume that I can still have different bodies as they too have specific jobs and I wouldn't want to give one up.

I have tried to think about which single lens I would keep, if i had a sudden large bill to pay and had to sell the others off to pay it. I really can't decide which would stay.

I suppose my 100-400L is used most, so would be a candidate, but without it I can't do probably 60% of the shoots I would otherwise do. The same goes for the 10-22, 24-105L and the 300L f/2.8, all of which are also used a lot and none can do the pictures that the others take. I could maybe live without my shorter primes as the zooms would give me the focal lengths, but I would be losing the fast apertures I bought them for.

No matter how hard I try, I cannot pick one lens to shoot with for a year. I go for a long lens and I can't do landscapes, urban architecture, cars, any other ultra wides, most portraiture, macro etc.

I pick a shorter one and I am going to miss out with sports work, airshows, birding, wildlife, macro again, etc.

Sorry, I need ALL my lenses to shoot the subjects I will be shooting over the next year. If I had to make do with one I would have to do waaaay less photography.

I understand the spirit of the question, but I don't use an SLR to just stick one lens permanently on it.

I'd probably keep the 300/2.8, though there would definitely be a couple others I'd miss...

Dave

On a full frame camera it would be the 70-200.

EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L

sandpiper wrote in post #10524516
I'm not a pro, but have several lenses and getting rid of any one of them would mean that I would have to give up on some types of shots. The only lens that could manage to cover everything I might want to shoot in a month, never mind a year, would be a 10-600mm f/1.8-5.6 L IS with 1:1 macro capability. Sadly I don't think Canon currently make such a lens.

I assume that I can still have different bodies as they too have specific jobs and I wouldn't want to give one up.

I have tried to think about which single lens I would keep, if i had a sudden large bill to pay and had to sell the others off to pay it. I really can't decide which would stay.

I suppose my 100-400L is used most, so would be a candidate, but without it I can't do probably 60% of the shoots I would otherwise do. The same goes for the 10-22, 24-105L and the 300L f/2.8, all of which are also used a lot and none can do the pictures that the others take. I could maybe live without my shorter primes as the zooms would give me the focal lengths, but I would be losing the fast apertures I bought them for.

No matter how hard I try, I cannot pick one lens to shoot with for a year. I go for a long lens and I can't do landscapes, urban architecture, cars, any other ultra wides, most portraiture, macro etc.

I pick a shorter one and I am going to miss out with sports work, airshows, birding, wildlife, macro again, etc.

Sorry, I need ALL my lenses to shoot the subjects I will be shooting over the next year. If I had to make do with one I would have to do waaaay less photography.

I understand the spirit of the question, but I don't use an SLR to just stick one lens permanently on it.

I think you are taking the question way too seriously.

*Keanu Reeves voice, "There is a gun to your head. one lens. one year. what would you do? What would you do??"

My 70-200 2.8 is my go-to lens for most of my work. I could get by with just that lens. Thank goodness I don't have to.

Sigma 150mm macro. Perfect for bugs, long enough for other critters.

i actually did this for over a year

85L II

a great lens to learn about light, for me at least.

70-200 2.8 IS. Fullframe or not. I love the lens.