[Sandy Hancock]

Of the lenses I actually own, I would opt for the FA31, for its versatile focal length, wonderful rendering, sublime bokeh, fast enough maximum aperture and the sensual delight it is to handle. I could put it on a film body if I want a wide angle, and on the Q if I want a telephoto macro
I would seriously miss the FA77 though....

If I were to purchase a single lens to replace everything I have, it would be a line-ball decision between the compact beauty of the new HD DA 20-40 and the speed of the Sigma 18-35/1.8, as long as IQ were within coo-ee of the FA31.

---

Last edited by Sandy Hancock; 11-18-2013 at 12:25 AM.

[chickenandavocado]

fa31 for sure

[johnha]

Depends on the format: APS-C - FA28/2.8, 135 film - M40/2.8 (could be persuaded by the 43/1.9 Ltd) and 6x7 75/3.5.

One K mount lens for APS-C & 135: FA20-35/4.

[bdery]

60-250. I love all my lenses but this one is the most useful.

[NZUnicorn]

One lens for me would be the new DA 20-40 limited - provided image quality was not too different to the DA 21 and 40 limiteds. Otherwise I would try to claim that the 21 and 40 were small enough to count as a single lens.

[Pioneer]

One lens for me would be the new DA 20-40 limited - provided image quality was not too different to the DA 21 and 40 limiteds. Otherwise I would try to claim that the 21 and 40 were small enough to count as a single lens.

Yes. That DA 40 is an awesome little lens, especially on the front of my K-01.

[twitch]

My FA31.

But the FA43, FA77 and DA*50-135 would be sorely missed.

[gofour3]

For 35mm film it would be the K28/2.

For 6x7 it would be the 75/2.8AL.

Phil.

[Raybo]

It would be MY copy of MY Tamron 28-75 f2.8.......... I don't think I could get any better than that.

[Mareket]

So 54 people or so would rather keep a camera lens than the ones in their eyes. Not surprising really :P

[bass3587]

Hmmmm out of my camera bag.......the A35-105 would stay with me. I know it's not UWA but I can make do without that.

[Doundounba]

Very tough question. Go with something that will let you take most of your shots, reasonably well (Sigma 17-70mm F/2.8-4.5), or go with the lens satisfying your most intense photo craving in the best possible way (Tamron 90mm F/2.8 Macro)? I think for me, if I had to keep only one, it would be the Tamron 90mm F/2.8 Macro, provided I also got to keep my homemade flash diffuser (at least), and, if possible, the tubes and the Raynox 250.

[TenZ.NL]

Just one out of your current collection.
Ofc you can dream and say the one you dream of.

If I was allowed only one lens, I would quit on photograpy...period!

[normhead]

I survived with an SV and a 50 1.8 for years. And that reminds me of something else, I needed a light meter, because I bought the SV not the Spotmatic, and I pretty much learned how to do all my exposures in my head. In tough situations I'd use a light meter to meter the highs and lows or maybe do an incident reading, but 90% of the time, I guesstimated the correct exposure, and so did most of my friends. Ah, the lost arts of photography.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

A great deal of my photography comprises portraits of my family and close-ups of flowers. The rest are landscapes and birds. My 100 mm Macro could easily do double duty as a portrait and close-up lens, and would have some use for landscape. But it would be hard to give up the wide-angle perspective. If I had to choose just one, for general purpose, it would have to be my Tammy 17-50 f2.8. But I couldn't live with just one lens, unless it was the 8-400mm f2 super-compact. Or did I dream that one?