If you could have just one lens...

**savoche** · 03-04-2015, 01:18 PM

One lens only?

GeneV · 03-04-2015, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by mille19

It would have to be DA 18-135mm, a great all rounder

FWIW, last summer when traveling with a group in Romania, I was the only one not shooting an 18-135 as a one lens solution. The main reason was that I did not own one until my fairly recent purchase of a second K3 body. If I have bright light, even the kit lens can do the job. However in alleys and narrow streets as well as indoors, I find I am using apertures which are either absent or not particularly pleasing on these lenses. I don't think I could do without a fast normal-ish lens in the mix.

**jpzk** · 03-04-2015, 04:35 PM

The Sigma 500/4.5 for me ... but that would be after winning the lottery !
Might as well wait and see what the 150-450 Pentax will be like.

**wtlwdwgn** · 03-04-2015, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by dadipentak

the Sigma 100--300/4. It's so versatile and I'm a long-lens shooter at heart. I'm assuming I could keep the TCs (legally or otherwise ;~) but even if not, that's the one

I agree. Out in the field where I am most often it's the perfect lens. As the 1.4x TC is always attached I consider it just one lens.

mecrox · 03-04-2015, 05:11 PM

These days, very likely the DA* 16-50mm simply because it is so adaptable, offers a quality images in most cases at f4 or over , and is WR which, where I live, is pretty important. Of course one lens is never enough, so I usually pack a prime as well - but unless there is a real need for it such as rather low light, very close-up or open-aperture/bokeh shots, it often stays in my backpack. Is there one lens I wouldn't sell? Probably the DA 35mm f2.8, but I don't use it as much as I do the 16-50mm.

wildman · 03-04-2015, 05:35 PM

Gene, Norm, dadipentak et al,

A good thread. It's got me to think about my photography a bit. My first serious camera was a Practica with a 2.8 Tessar and shortly after that I got a Rollei F with a 2.8 Zeiss Planar and a Nikon S2 rangefinder. This would be about 1955 so I've been serious about photography for 60 years. I think I was in the 10th grade when got the Practica. I say this not because it gives me any special wisdom to speak for others but only for myself and my experience with photography. So…..

1. I don't think lens price matters all that much anymore so far as raw optical quality is concerned. Back in the day yes but now, with modern lens' no. I would rather have the small light DA 50 than the 55mm f/1.4 DA* regardless of price. The DA 50 suits my needs better.

2. Given the above this leads me to my next conclusion - the body is more important than the lens. A good sensor with fast, responsive, intuitive controls and a good viewfinder is critical to my final image in way that the lens is not. I highly value gear that gets out of my way and allows me to concentrate on the intuitive creative process rather than being preoccupied with gear and technical issues.

3. A huge difference between now and then is post processing. Digital is simply a better, easier, more powerful way to get the final image you want from PP than anything you could do back in film days.

So given all that when I just want to go out for normal focal length photography and not for my tripod mounted long glass bird shots I just snap on the Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC Macro HSM. Note I might throw the small light DA 50 in my pocket as a low light backup if I think I might need it but not often.

Different strokes for different folks.

GeneV · 03-04-2015, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by wildman

Gene, Norm, dadipentak et al,

A good thread. It's got me to think about my photography a bit. My first serious camera was a Practica with a 2.8 Tessar and shortly after that I got a Rollei F with a 2.8 Zeiss Planar and a Nikon S2 rangefinder. This would be about 1955 so I've been serious about photography for 60 years. I think I was in the 10th grade when got the Practica. I say this not because it gives me any special wisdom to speak for others but only for myself and my experience with photography. So…...

Thanks for making me feel young. You have been serious about photography for as long as I've been on the planet, and that is getting on 6 decades.

However, I mark my getting serious about photography at just 12 years after yours, which was when I ordered my first darkroom from the Sears catalog. From the time I was 12 to the time I was 25, I used only cameras with one lens, and somehow I took photos I liked. I do like it better with the lenses, though.

normhead · 03-04-2015, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by wildman

Gene, Norm, dadipentak et al,

A good thread. It's got me to think about my photography a bit. My first serious camera was a Practica with a 2.8 Tessar and shortly after that I got a Rollei F with a 2.8 Zeiss Planar and a Nikon S2 rangefinder. This would be about 1955 so I've been serious about photography for 60 years. I think I was in the 10th grade when got the Practica. I say this not because it gives me any special wisdom to speak for others but only for myself and my experience with photography. So…..

1. I don't think lens price matters all that much anymore so far as raw optical quality is concerned. Back in the day yes but now, with modern lens' no. I would rather have the small light DA 50 than the 55mm f/1.4 DA* regardless of price. The DA 50 suits my needs better.

2. Given the above this leads me to my next conclusion - the body is more important than the lens. A good sensor with fast, responsive, intuitive controls and a good viewfinder is critical to my final image in way that the lens is not. I highly value gear that gets out of my way and allows me to concentrate on the intuitive creative process rather than being preoccupied with gear and technical issues.

3. A huge difference between now and then is post processing. Digital is simply a better, easier, more powerful way to get the final image you want from PP than anything you could do back in film days.

So given all that when I just want to go out for normal focal length photography and not for my tripod mounted long glass bird shots I just snap on the Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC Macro HSM. Note I might throw the small light DA 50 in my pocket as a low light backup if I think I might need it but not often.

Different strokes for different folks.

Good choice, when we go on canoe trips, and we're going to be gone for a week or two, sometimes we just go with the Sigma 18-250. Landscape or wildlife it does it all. So we are familiar with the one lens experience. And you get some inspiring images with it, it's not like you're going "oh, no I should have had the _____ (fill in the blank)."

---------- Post added 03-04-15 at 08:25 PM ----------

Originally posted by jpzk

The Sigma 500/4.5 for me ... but that would be after winning the lottery !
Might as well wait and see what the 150-450 Pentax will be like.

You need the lottery for that one too...

GeneV · 03-04-2015, 06:42 PM

BTW, looking back on my photos from this year, I have noticed that more and more, my "one lens' solution has been the DA 55-300. Two lenses are that zoom plus the FA 35/2. Three lenses adds the DA 15 or 21. That was certainly true in Romania. In Spain, it was a combination of the DA primes. For the studio, I can live on just the FA77. Different strokes for different locations, too. Thankfully, we don't have to live with one lens (any more).

This is amusing. Here, I capture three Romanian friends taking photos with their Canons, two with an 18-135. I am shooting the DAL 55-300. In the bottom shot, we are comparing manly "size." With mine (right) fully extended to 300, I win.

wildman · 03-04-2015, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by normhead

Good choice, when we go on canoe trips, and we're going to be gone for a week or two, sometimes we just go with the Sigma 18-250.

Yep it does the job.

Sigma indoors low light shot at ISO 3200 at 250mm. RAW with some PP to get it to do what I want.
Yea I know yet another cat shot but this time of year that's about all there is at least up here on the tundra.

GeneV · 03-05-2015, 08:19 PM

Nice. Cats seem to be some of the most photogenic household members.

03-04-2015, 05:35 PM	#81
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	Gene, Norm, dadipentak et al, A good thread. It's got me to think about my photography a bit. My first serious camera was a Practica with a 2.8 Tessar and shortly after that I got a Rollei F with a 2.8 Zeiss Planar and a Nikon S2 rangefinder. This would be about 1955 so I've been serious about photography for 60 years. I think I was in the 10th grade when got the Practica. I say this not because it gives me any special wisdom to speak for others but only for myself and my experience with photography. So….. 1. I don't think lens price matters all that much anymore so far as raw optical quality is concerned. Back in the day yes but now, with modern lens' no. I would rather have the small light DA 50 than the 55mm f/1.4 DA* regardless of price. The DA 50 suits my needs better. 2. Given the above this leads me to my next conclusion - the body is more important than the lens. A good sensor with fast, responsive, intuitive controls and a good viewfinder is critical to my final image in way that the lens is not. I highly value gear that gets out of my way and allows me to concentrate on the intuitive creative process rather than being preoccupied with gear and technical issues. 3. A huge difference between now and then is post processing. Digital is simply a better, easier, more powerful way to get the final image you want from PP than anything you could do back in film days. So given all that when I just want to go out for normal focal length photography and not for my tripod mounted long glass bird shots I just snap on the Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC Macro HSM. Note I might throw the small light DA 50 in my pocket as a low light backup if I think I might need it but not often. Different strokes for different folks. Last edited by wildman; 03-04-2015 at 06:05 PM.

03-04-2015, 07:26 PM	#85
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	Originally posted by normhead Good choice, when we go on canoe trips, and we're going to be gone for a week or two, sometimes we just go with the Sigma 18-250. Yep it does the job. Sigma indoors low light shot at ISO 3200 at 250mm. RAW with some PP to get it to do what I want. Yea I know yet another cat shot but this time of year that's about all there is at least up here on the tundra. Last edited by wildman; 03-18-2015 at 08:18 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
If you could only have 1 lens...	curlednoodles	Pentax DSLR Discussion	55	04-07-2013 02:58 AM
If you could only have one lens	amorificus	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	66	03-20-2012 05:57 PM
If you could only have one TTL flash..	geekette	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	2	05-02-2011 07:13 AM
if you could only have one lens....	Andrzej	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	48	03-19-2010 09:41 AM
If you could only have one prime Pentax lens…	rams	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	41	07-23-2009 10:41 AM

03-04-2015, 01:18 PM	#76
savoche Master of the obvious Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Lowlands of Norway Posts: 18,311	One lens only?

03-04-2015, 04:32 PM	#77
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by mille19 It would have to be DA 18-135mm, a great all rounder FWIW, last summer when traveling with a group in Romania, I was the only one not shooting an 18-135 as a one lens solution. The main reason was that I did not own one until my fairly recent purchase of a second K3 body. If I have bright light, even the kit lens can do the job. However in alleys and narrow streets as well as indoors, I find I am using apertures which are either absent or not particularly pleasing on these lenses. I don't think I could do without a fast normal-ish lens in the mix.

03-04-2015, 04:35 PM	#78
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	The Sigma 500/4.5 for me ... but that would be after winning the lottery ! Might as well wait and see what the 150-450 Pentax will be like.

03-04-2015, 04:49 PM	#79
wtlwdwgn Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Billings, MT Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,846	Originally posted by dadipentak the Sigma 100--300/4. It's so versatile and I'm a long-lens shooter at heart. I'm assuming I could keep the TCs (legally or otherwise ;~) but even if not, that's the one I agree. Out in the field where I am most often it's the perfect lens. As the 1.4x TC is always attached I consider it just one lens.

03-04-2015, 05:11 PM	#80
mecrox Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Oxford, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,375	These days, very likely the DA* 16-50mm simply because it is so adaptable, offers a quality images in most cases at f4 or over , and is WR which, where I live, is pretty important. Of course one lens is never enough, so I usually pack a prime as well - but unless there is a real need for it such as rather low light, very close-up or open-aperture/bokeh shots, it often stays in my backpack. Is there one lens I wouldn't sell? Probably the DA 35mm f2.8, but I don't use it as much as I do the 16-50mm.

03-04-2015, 06:20 PM	#82
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by wildman Gene, Norm, dadipentak et al, A good thread. It's got me to think about my photography a bit. My first serious camera was a Practica with a 2.8 Tessar and shortly after that I got a Rollei F with a 2.8 Zeiss Planar and a Nikon S2 rangefinder. This would be about 1955 so I've been serious about photography for 60 years. I think I was in the 10th grade when got the Practica. I say this not because it gives me any special wisdom to speak for others but only for myself and my experience with photography. So…... Thanks for making me feel young. You have been serious about photography for as long as I've been on the planet, and that is getting on 6 decades. However, I mark my getting serious about photography at just 12 years after yours, which was when I ordered my first darkroom from the Sears catalog. From the time I was 12 to the time I was 25, I used only cameras with one lens, and somehow I took photos I liked. I do like it better with the lenses, though.

03-04-2015, 06:25 PM	#83
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by wildman Gene, Norm, dadipentak et al, A good thread. It's got me to think about my photography a bit. My first serious camera was a Practica with a 2.8 Tessar and shortly after that I got a Rollei F with a 2.8 Zeiss Planar and a Nikon S2 rangefinder. This would be about 1955 so I've been serious about photography for 60 years. I think I was in the 10th grade when got the Practica. I say this not because it gives me any special wisdom to speak for others but only for myself and my experience with photography. So….. 1. I don't think lens price matters all that much anymore so far as raw optical quality is concerned. Back in the day yes but now, with modern lens' no. I would rather have the small light DA 50 than the 55mm f/1.4 DA* regardless of price. The DA 50 suits my needs better. 2. Given the above this leads me to my next conclusion - the body is more important than the lens. A good sensor with fast, responsive, intuitive controls and a good viewfinder is critical to my final image in way that the lens is not. I highly value gear that gets out of my way and allows me to concentrate on the intuitive creative process rather than being preoccupied with gear and technical issues. 3. A huge difference between now and then is post processing. Digital is simply a better, easier, more powerful way to get the final image you want from PP than anything you could do back in film days. So given all that when I just want to go out for normal focal length photography and not for my tripod mounted long glass bird shots I just snap on the Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC Macro HSM. Note I might throw the small light DA 50 in my pocket as a low light backup if I think I might need it but not often. Different strokes for different folks. Good choice, when we go on canoe trips, and we're going to be gone for a week or two, sometimes we just go with the Sigma 18-250. Landscape or wildlife it does it all. So we are familiar with the one lens experience. And you get some inspiring images with it, it's not like you're going "oh, no I should have had the _____ (fill in the blank)." ---------- Post added 03-04-15 at 08:25 PM ---------- Originally posted by jpzk The Sigma 500/4.5 for me ... but that would be after winning the lottery ! Might as well wait and see what the 150-450 Pentax will be like. You need the lottery for that one too...

03-05-2015, 08:19 PM	#86
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Nice. Cats seem to be some of the most photogenic household members.