If you could Have only One

[peterborough_photography]

If you could only have one lens on your canon camera what would it be ???

[Brendan7]

the 800mm f/5.6L.

[neuroanatomist]

If you could only have one lens on your canon camera


...you'd have a Canon point-and-shoot! We use dSLRs so we can change lenses...


But, to answer your question, for a 1.6x crop body it would be the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. On a FF body it would be the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L.



<div>






the 800mm f/5.6L.



<div>Brendan, you'd have a camera on your lens, not the other way around, with that 18"/10-pound monster. Besides, aren't you always telling us to "get closer"? [:P]With a 20' MFD, you might need a bigger back yard!</div>
</div>

[Sean Setters]

But, to answer your question, for a 1.6x crop body it would be the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. On a FF body it would be the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L.


I think I'd have to agree with your selections, neuro.

[sirhc_1]

If I will have one lens that would be a LEICA NOCTILUX-M 50 mm f/0.95 ASPH or a Carl Zeiss 50mm f/0.7 converted for use with Canon EOS body ( if conversion is possible )[;)]





In the Canon lens line up, it will definitely be an EF 200mm f/1.8 L!

[Jon Ruyle]

If I could have only one, versatility would trump all. I'd go with the 24-105 f/4 IS. Not the sexiest lens out there, but if I could only have one, that would be it.

[Gian Luca]

sirhc_1 you cannot adapt the leica noctilux-M but you can adapt the Leica R f0.95, and yes you can adapt the Zeiss lens, however I am sure that this is not your choice if you could have only one lens. For me 24-105L f4 IS

[neuroanatomist]

Sheesh - 5 opinions so far, and not one vote for the EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye. C'mon people, get creative! [:P]

[Tabazan]

Peleng 8 mm


or, for Canon : 100mm f/2.8 L IS macro

[mpphoto12]

the 1200 5.6 or the sigma 200-500 2.8 :) very good walk around lenses :)

[Madison]

24-105 (On a full frame).


17-55 (On a crop).

[Keith B]

24-70 2.8

[Colin]

But, to answer your question, for a 1.6x crop body it would be the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. On a FF body it would be the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L.


I think I'd have to agree with your selections, neuro.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



I think so too... the 24-105 beats out the 24-70 in terms of IS and reach, and I think it has better control of CA outside of the focal plane, and I really like the 24-105, and don't want to give it up if I can keep it, but... the 24-70, even if it is a clunky bastard with less zoom range, just makes me happy in ways the 24-105 doesn't (as much). To be honest, I wouldn't bitch about having either.

[cxr]

24-105 f4 IS USM

[Brendan7]

Besides, aren't you always telling us to "get closer"? /emoticons/emotion-4.gifWith a 20' MFD, you might need a bigger back yard!


Yes I am, because getting closer doesn't cost $12,000!

[ddt0725]

Man, tough question! Debating between my Canon 100mm f/2.8 L IS macro and 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. I guess if I had to choose I'd go with the 17-55mm!

Denise

[bob williams]

Since most of what I do is outside---It's the 100-400L for me-----otherwise the 24-105, regardless of crop or not.

[neuroanatomist]

Besides, aren't you always telling us to "get closer"? /emoticons/emotion-4.gifWith a 20' MFD, you might need a bigger back yard!


Yes I am, because getting closer doesn't cost $12,000!






Well, for birds that may be true. But for shooting carnivorous animals in the wilds of Africa, 'getting closer' may well result in far more than $12K in medical bills.... [;)]

[Brendan7]

Well, for birds that may be true. But for shooting carnivorous animals in the wilds of Africa, 'getting closer' may well result in far more than $12K in medical bills.... /emoticons/emotion-5.gif


Meh. I could buy a closetfull of Ak47s for maybe $3k. Just Kidding.

[2slo]

I'm curious to your compelling reasons for preferring a 17-55 over the24-70mm on a crop body?

[Jon Ruyle]

I can think of three obvious ones: IS, better image quality (I guess- I never tested them), and wider angle.

[Sheiky]

I'm curious to your compelling reasons for preferring a 17-55 over the24-70mm on a crop body?






24mm on a crop isn't really wide and 70 isn't really long either, so your lens isn't as versatile as it would be on a fullframe camera. The 55-70mm difference isn't a big factor because when you need the 70mm field of view, often 1 step forward is enough. The 17-24mm difference though is HUGE! [:P]


And yes of course the other reasons mentioned above [:D]


My vote is for the 17-55 on crop and 24-105 on full frame.


Jan

[Micktheexbiker]

I have that lens, the 180 macro. Awsome lens, worth every penny.





Mick

[Colin]

Besides, aren't you always telling us to "get closer"? /emoticons/emotion-4.gifWith a 20' MFD, you might need a bigger back yard!


Yes I am, because getting closer doesn't cost $12,000!
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>





Well, for birds that may be true. But for shooting carnivorous animals in the wilds of Africa, 'getting closer' may well result in far more than $12K in medical bills.... /emoticons/emotion-5.gif
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>






Even the vegetarians over there are scary...

[Jeff]

Zoom - 70-200 Mk II


Prime - 35L

[Dan Fleming]

It would probably be a versatile macro lens. maybe the 100L on a full frame body (as long as we're dreaming about what lens, why not dream about a body too...)

[Brendan7]

If I could have only one lens, it would be a compact, sharp 10-900mm f/1.4 lens that came with a 4x TC. mwahahahaha

[Jon Ruyle]

If I could have only one lens, it would be a compact, sharp 10-900mm f/1.4 lens that came with a 4x TC. mwahahahaha


Suppose you had to restrict yourself to existing lenses. Then what?

[Brendan7]

As I said earlier in this thread, the 800mm f/5.6L. [C]

[btaylor]

70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. Looks like a blood ripper!

[Jarhead5811]

Even the vegetarians (in the wilds of Africa)are scary...
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>





Yep, theysay that hippos kill more people than lions and a charging elephant is no joke!


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)a little long but I'm really loving my Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)and can only imagine how cool the "IS II" ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx) would be!

[Colin]

And don't forget the cape buffalo, or the rhinos...


Given the opportunity, i'd still want to shoot them, but...


If you're not scared, you're just that much closer to being dead [:)]

[LoneSierra]

Simple.


A 10-500mm f/1 IS, with an MFD of 11".


Isn't that what everyone would want??


[:D]

[neuroanatomist]

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)a little long but I'm really loving my Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)and can only imagine how cool the "IS II" ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx) would be!


My EF 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]L IS II came today. [:D] Although I've only taken a few shots with it, already I'm convinced that it's an amazing lens...

[Dallasphotog]

the 800mm f/5.6L.



<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



You didn't even give the EF 1200mm a thought, did you? [:D]

[Sheiky]

Simple.


A 10-500mm f/1 IS, with an MFD of 11".


Isn't that what everyone would want??


/emoticons/emotion-2.gif






Nope, not me[:P] virtually there wouldn't be any challenge left to shoot and probably made it very boring wouldn't it? I like to be limited by my gear for at least a tiny bit [;)]


A 10-500 with IS sounds a lot like the newest digital point and shoot cameras doesn't it? Also they probably even offer "macro"capabilties with MFD of less then 11" [:P]

[LoneSierra]

haha Yes, I like the excitement of maybe not getting the lens changed in time for the shot!


But, what you say is true. The Power Shot's with their 20x zooms are like 28ish-600ish, and their super macro has MFD of 0". Literally. I have the S5IS and you can touch the lens and focus. Of course, their macro doesn't have much of a magnification rating, since you have to be fully zoomed out to use it. So, it's cool, but not really what a 100mm macro lens could do.


PS: I can only imagine what size my "dream" lens would be? maybe 70 or 80 lbs?3 feet long? lol

[Fast Glass]

What, only a 50X zoom? Canon makes a 100X zoom and weighs in at only 52 lbs! It has a focal length of 9.3mm to 930mm!!!![:O] And with an apeture of f/1.7 to f/3.4.


Here is a link toit http://www.canon.com/bctv/products/digi100xs.html ("http://www.canon.com/bctv/products/digi100xs.html).


And another link http://www.canon.com/bctv/faq/100x_zoomlens.html ("http://www.canon.com/bctv/faq/100x_zoomlens.html).


John.

[Sheiky]

Haha John and it even has IS!! And a MFD of 3m [:O] And it's got that grayish color [:P]

[Brendan7]

OK John...I guess we set our sights too low with a 50x zoom. How about an 5.6-1,560mm f/1.2 IS DO USM lens that weighs...fourteen ounces.


=$$$$$$$$$$$$