>On FX, the 50mm f/1.8G. On DX, the 35mm f/1.8G. > >Rocky
http://egozarolho.blogspot.com 1. Good content, good aesthetics and good tecnique. On that order. 2. Light is more important than glass and pixels. 3. In the digital photography process, software is as important as gear.
I do so many types of photography that just one would be pretty much an arbitrary choice. Half of my frames by count are motorsport, so if it were just one lens, it would be the 400/f2.8. But that wouldn't do so well for so many other things. If I had to pick one lens for macro, it would be the 200/f4. If I had to pick one for street, I'd have to think carefully but it would be between a 35/f1.4 and the 135/f2.
On the other hand, I detect some weasel room in your wording, so perhaps I'd pick some zooms - and for my one prime, I might choose the 8/f4 circular fisheye, which I can't get in any kind of zoom at all!
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
Mark -- I'd have to chose the so-called "normal" focal length -- 50mm for and FX body and 35mm for a DX. When I started photography shortly after glass plates (my kids say), many cameras were sold with fixed lenses in the 45-55mm range. That was supposed to be analogous to what the eye saw. I got along for hundreds of rolls of film (remember that stuff) with a 50mm lens, so I guess I could go back to that if I absolutely had to! But please, don't make me do so.
>Mark -- I'd have to chose the so-called "normal" >focal length -- 50mm for and FX body and 35mm for a DX. When >I started photography shortly after glass plates (my kids >say), many cameras were sold with fixed lenses in the 45-55mm >range. That was supposed to be analogous to what the eye saw. > I got along for hundreds of rolls of film (remember that >stuff) with a 50mm lens, so I guess I could go back to that if >I absolutely had to! But please, don't make me do so.
Interestingly, the Canon Surshot 35 mm camera I had for years was fitted with a 38/2.8 lens. This is probably why I like the 35/1.4G, which I would love to own.
Shoot nature with respect and don't trample it or startle its inhabitants. :)
Several months ago I wrestled with this similar decision. After careful consideration and monitoring decades of usage I decided to add a 35mm f/1.4 AFS Nikkor to my FX kit. It was going to be my go-to prime. At that time it was the right decision and likely still is. But for me that was a lot of money to put in one place and a somewhat teeth-gnashing decision.
That focal length covers much of my street, family, environment portrait and travel needs. However, like all things, stuff changes. As my grandchildren get a bit older, I'd like to concentrate on some more intimate portraits. I could do that with an 85mm but that's a pretty dedicated optic by my usage. Plus the focal length is a bit long given my history of environmental portraiture. I'm now looking at a 55mm f/1.4 Voigtlander. Still just looking.
The belabored point is that "stuff changes" and IMO it's pretty tough to make photographic decisions that span the ages and stages of life and the changing demands of others needs that eventually infiltrate your craft.
I have no regrets in my decision to buy the 35mm f/1.4 AFS Nikkor. It's a very fine optic and with it I've produced some memorable images. However like many of my lens purchases, it's very likely not the one to end all. It may eventually become part of a set of my "only one prime" lenses. The nice thing about having two "only ones", is that now you don't really have to anguish about the restriction of "only one".
Roger It's still, ISO, aperture and shutter-speed, right?
I guess it would be a 60mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor ! As I've already lived with only one prime lens at a given time, mostly the 50/1.8,, I would really hesitate between it and a 85mm. The 60mm would be a fair compromise...
Now, you're asking about 1 prime lens and the rest of the kit are zooms, right?
My first camera was a Konica rangefinder, the model name/# I never knew (my mother gave it to me when she got her first SLR--a Canon AE-1). I also have no idea what focal length the lens was--and I couldn't even tell you if the lens was removable or not! (I know that my impression at the time was that the lens was permanently attached to the camera, but I have to admit that I knew nothing about cameras in those days--Canon who? Nikon what?--though I was developing my own film.)
My guess based on my current knowledge of lens' angles of view is that the lens on that Konica was a 30-40mm focal length. And though I had to spend years in denial--as SLR "kits" in those days came with 50mm lenses, as Alan mentioned, so that's all a person really needed, right?--to this day the 35mm focal length is still my favorite and my one lens travel kit when I want to keep it simple.
I suppose it'd be whatever hunk of plastic that's stuck in my phone du jour. I can't imagine having such a limited kit, even if I had a bag full of zooms. I think I'd get bored to death with all the post work to simulate the Bokeh from my faster lenses or by all the sharpening when I'd inevitably attempt to print something from a lens that's just too short. And there we are... shooting phone snaps and remembering the past, I think that I might even have to take up an new hobby, perhaps drinking, after all I have to drown all my sorrows...
Will shoot for fame...fun...food... a heck I'll shoot anytime anywhere.