If You Could Only Shoot With One Lens, What Would It Be?

If You Could Only Shoot With One Lens, What Would It Be?

Photographers love gear. After all, playing with advanced cameras and lenses can be a lot of fun. But if you could only shoot with one lens, what would it be?

Personally, I really don't see anything wrong with obsessing a bit about camera gear, so long as that obsession comes from a place of being passionate about technology and doesn't cause financial stress, instead of being used as a justification for inadequate photography skills. Lately, however, I've been trying to downsize and streamline my kit a bit. I love playing with all sorts of cameras and lenses, from 80-year-old TLR cameras to the latest and greatest bodies and lenses. However, I'm someone who is easily paralyzed by choice, and I've found myself staring at my collection of gear and wondering what I should actually take out to shoot with a little too much lately. And as much as I enjoy my collection, if it's getting the way of my creative process, then it's time to reevaluate things a bit. 

So, I laid out all my gear on the floor recently and got really serious about evaluating it, divorcing my fondness for the novelty of any specific piece from the evaluation so I could have the objectivity needed to be pragmatic about what I actually needed. That brought me to some decisions that might have surprised me before I made the pointed effort to be really practical about this process. My Canon 85mm f/1.2L II USM lens? I love it. It was my first professional lens, and it has an inimitably unique look that I've always been very partial to. But the truth is that ever since I switched to Sony for my portraiture, the Canon lens has languished in my Pelican case, its place taken by the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art lens. It's sharper, autofocuses much more quickly, and lets me take advantage of Eye AF. Much as I've enjoyed the Canon, it's time to move on from it. I came to the same conclusion about a lot of other gear, vicious pragmatism overriding any "what if I need it later?" questions generated by any fondness. It feels good to downsize, to pare away to only essential tools, refocusing yourself on what really matters: the images. 

I love my Canon 85mm, but I just don't use it anymore.

In the process of this downsizing, I thought of a question: if I had to get rid of all my lenses except one, which would I keep? It was a tougher question than I thought. I tend to find that there's a bit of an inverse relationship between lens utility and how inspirational it is, though it's not strict. My 24-70mm f/2.8? It's an exceedingly practical lens that has never failed me in the multitude of situations in which I've placed it, yet I find it aggressively boring and uninspiring. On the other hand, there's something like my Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8 tilt-shift lens. Is it something I'd have any use at all for in 99% of situations? Nope. But the uniqueness of the lens makes me excited to pull it out of my bag and create things. Could I spend the rest of my career only shooting with it? Not if I want to make any money or have any sort of versatility. 

My 24-70mm has never let me down.

So, as I sat there, surveying my lenses, I thought long and hard about which one I would keep if I could only hang on to one. It would have to be a lens that had the versatility to cover everything I shoot (mostly landscapes, events, and portraits) or at least be able to get by in those situations. While not necessary, it would be nice if it could inspire a bit of creativity too. 

At first, I figured I would choose a zoom lens just because it gave me options. But after a while, I finally chose my Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM lens (or really, any wide aperture 50mm). It's a weird choice because I don't particularly like that focal length and don't really shoot with it very often, but the lens has a lot of character, which is important to me. It has a wide aperture, which makes it useful for low-light events and creative work. It's sharp when you stop it down for studio work. And my disdain for the focal length actually works to my advantage sometimes, as it forces me to work extra hard to find a composition I like. It's a bit long for landscapes, but not so much I couldn't work with it. I surprised myself a bit with that choice, and it made me realize that maybe I should put that lens on my camera when I go out a bit more often, as it's a little more versatile than I gave it credit for.

That 50mm is pretty alright after all.

So, what's the point of this exercise anyway? No one is forcing any of us to shoot with only one lens. I think it's a good thing to think through, because it can give you a bit more insight into the relationship you have with your equipment and what gear most readily enables you to explore and grow as a creative. Had I not taken the time to go through this thought experiment, I would have left the 50mm to continue sitting unused in my bag, missing out on the creative opportunities it affords. 

It's also made me reconsider what I take for a walkaround lens. I used to take the 24-70mm, thinking it gave me a reasonable zoom range to take in whatever I happened upon and not miss shots. But switching to something like the 50mm has made me come home with more keepers, even if I miss some extra shots due to not having the extra focal length range. That's because it's a lens that inspires creativity. I think there's something to be said there: perhaps it's worth sometimes sacrificing a bit of utility for something you're excited to shoot with. I know it has certainly streamlined and reinvigorated my shooting patterns a bit.

If you could only keep one lens, what would it be and why? Let me know in the comments! 

Alex Cooke's picture

Alex Cooke is a Cleveland-based portrait, events, and landscape photographer. He holds an M.S. in Applied Mathematics and a doctorate in Music Composition. He is also an avid equestrian.

Log in or register to post comments
125 Comments

Sigma 35 1.4 Art lens is my favorite.

any ART lens is great. except that horrible 24-70

I like the sony 85mm 1.8 too but if I had to pick up just one it would be the sigma 35 ART.

I don't own a wide range of lenses, but I find my Sony 24-70 2.8 GM is what I want both for holiday / walkabout and my more intentional amateur photography.

Sigma 105mm 1.4 Art

Amazing lens.

So you would be cool with this as your one and only lens? Do you do manly portraits? I have heard great things about this lens :)

I shoot a lot of portraits as you can see in my portfolio on here but I also use this lens for landscapes as well.
I’d be completely fine with it as my only lens.

50mm f/1.4 of any brand that fits my Nikon cameras.

I’m boring, 23mm on the Fuji.

See I have neither of those and would love them:)

The 27 is a great cheap option and my personal opinion is every Fuji shooter should have it just to throw on the camera for a wander around, the X-M1 is a true pocket camera with it connected.

I wasn’t sure about the 23 at first but it’s one of my best lenses now, I use it all the time. I took this a few weeks ago with it, pretty much by accident as I had planned on some long exposure but decided on staying handheld when this sky presented itself.

I always have a hard time deciding between the 23mm f/1.4 and 16mm f/1.4. Both great lenses!!

That 16mm man, i really really want that lens.. ive got the Samyang 12 for the time being to satisfy the need though haha.

I thought it was the 56 1.2 I couldn't live without. Turns out it's the the 23 1.4 that's indispensible.

SONY 70-200 2.8 GM. I only take my family members including a dog. A 70-200 is most versatile.

I've been shooting almost exclusively on the Sigma 19mm f/2.8 for about a year now. I initially purchased it because it was small, light, and has decent IQ, while I made up my mind about Sony APS-C, but quickly found that I love it.

My SMC Pentax-DA Limited 2.4/70 on my K-5. The lens is 105 mm-e and produces gorgeous images: I can't fault it, and it's a focal length that I feel comfortable with. I'd feel uncomfortable without my other two Limiteds, the 4/15 and 2.8/35 Macro (the three give me a triad close to the 24-50-105 mm that I used to use on my OM-1), but the 70 is the one I use the most. And it's tiny.

Nifty fifty

600 F4 IS II, it already does 95% of my shooting. It's the perfect wildlife lens.

Nikon 35 f2 AF-D: compact, lightweight and great performance. I use it for everything from portraits to landscapes and it keeps the Nikon D750 nice and compact. But my favorite focal length if I had to choose just one is 40mm. Lately I've been leaving the Nikon at home and loving the ultra portable and versatile Panasonic 20mm 1.7 on a GX85. It costs less than $200 but the results never disappoint.

I’ve started discovering the magic of the 40mm focal length using the 27mm pancake lens on the Fuji:)

I just bought that lens and I'm waiting for it to come in the mail. I'm kinda excited to have a lens directly in between 35 and 50mm.

Paired with one of the smaller bodies its a fantastic setup.. and yeah its a great focal length once you get used to it. Im heading out on the street tonight with mine.

Sigma 35 f1.4 Art. Love the sharpness and detail; and just the 35mm wide-angle(ish) look. I like having subject + surroundings without needing a whole lof of space.

Hahaha if you could have only one lens it would be a low quality fisheye lens? That's ridiculous. Of course having everything in focus is an advantage for landscape photography-that is what landscape photographers are trying to do whenever they take a wide shot like this. The same goes for shooting in the sweet spot of the lens. Most landscape photographers don't shoot wide angle city scapes at f1. 4.

The photo you posted is cool but it's not really selling me on using fisheyes more. You used a fisheye exclusively for a year and this photo is your justification? This photo is kind of like a cautionary tale about going super wide angle. When you shoot this super wide angle you end up with a little foreground and a tiny little background with a ton of nothing in the middle.

I don't know how this photo was "changed to HDR" but it would probably be better if you didn't do whatever you did. Usually photos are best if they are just natural snapshots or if they are amazingly edited composites that are just flawless. In the digital age the photos that are in between just get lost in the sea of photographs posted on the web every day.

Not trying to put down your work. Like I said before, the photo is definitely cool. I think you should reconsider your heavy use of a fisheye lens. You should try shooting a less extreme wide angle lens and see how the more natural look it has makes your images stronger.

I think that image would have probably been a lot stronger if you shot it with a wide angle lens between 18-35mm instead of the fisheye. If you like shooting wide I think you would find that avoiding the fisheye in favor of a less extreme wide angle would give you better image quality and better compositions with less dead space. It's just some advice from someone who also loves wide angle lenses.

My manual Olympus 50mm 1.4 that is almost 50 years old. It produces just a beautiful bokeh

A coke bottle. Why because I can shoot through it and fill it up. Quite frankly these kinds of posts are beneath fstoppers and it is much like asking a carpenter what hammer would they choose if they only could have one? My favorite lens depends on whether I am shooting portraits, or landscapes, or wildlife, sports...

Where's the point of this article? Oh, I see it, there it is sailing a long way above your head.

They post these BS articles all the time now. Multiple posts a day that are just nonsense. I thought the author would at least try to make it interesting but nope, picked the 50mm lens, the most middle of the road choice and the answer 90% of people would give to this dumb question.

I don’t know if 50mm is the most middle of the road choice. The field of view of the human eye comes out around 40mm, so 50 is actually a short telephoto. You need a bit of space and distance to use it properly. I think a lot of people nowadays would go for a 35mm lens as their one lens. Some might even go for a 28. If you look at high-end fixed-lens cameras by Leica and Fuji they tend to have one of those two focal lengths

Sony 16-35GM (paired with the A7 III or with the a6000)

This is my second choice as I have this lens. Although I feel I could get more creative use with the 24mm f/1.4. I'll point out that I don't have this lens yet though or used it so my opinion could change. I did have the Canon 28mm f/1.8 and loved it though.

Tamron 35-150mm f2.8-4 on D850. Or two years later, same lens on R5 or TS-50 on R5. I'm wishing for a TS-35, but I think I will be waiting years. Maybe if the RF 35-135 is released. But really I pick a lens for my morning walk and much of the time it's either the TS-50 or RF 800mm or RF 15-35 or...

One lens hmmmm. Well let's see, I do have eyes and they see at a certain 'focal length' so, for 35mm it would be any lens which sees close to my eyes....like 45mm or 50mm, for the Hasselblad it's likely the 80mm, for the Fuji GX680 it might be the 115mm or 105mm. Yeah, that's what I'd use.

First person I see to say Canon 35L. Maybe I need to check out the Sigma 35mm Art!

Sigma 35Art is great but 40Art is even better.

They do appear to be sharper. But, they're about twice as big, heavy, and expensive. And, I thought the 35 was heavy enough.

Nikkor 35-200mm.

If we are talking about a prime lens, ideally a 35 mm lens. It seems to me that this is the most versatile choice.
If we are talking about a zoom lens, probably a 1 - 5000 mm f/2.8

Personally I'd go for the 10-600mm f/1.4. But I'd want a teleconverter too; I'm not sure if that's cheating!

Nikon 105mm DC f2, on my DF is like a dream :)

My gear collection is quite modest right now. Nikon D3200, and Nikkor lenses - 18-55, 55-200 and 35mm 1.8G. So in my situation, the choice is quite simple, I would keep the 35mm. It is anyway the lens I shoot the most with, and on my APS-C sensor it's pretty much like the 50mm on the full frame. However, I intend to add a macro lens to my collection soon (I just have to decide between Tokina 100mm and Sigma 105mm), and after that I might have a little harder time deciding what I would keep :)
Btw, if anyone here has any experiences with Sigma and Tokina, please do let me know. Thanks :)

It's a trick question. Only one lens? Can't be done...

11-300mm f/1.2
Go big or go home!

Zeiss 55 1.8 - but for most of the same reasons as described in the article, it ain't my favorite lens but it is the one I know I get most keepers with!

Normally I'd agree with the 50mm, although I then would use my trusty Zeiss Planar 50/1.4, versatile and perfectly sharp stopped down to f5.6. I do love the view of 85mm, so I could perfectly live with my old Zeiss Planar 85/1.4. But that's not what I'd use when travelling with my family, then the Canon 24-70/2.8ii would do the job.

Last year I'd have said 35mm when running around with the x100f, but this year after buying a second hand Leica Q I'd say I'm 28mm and done. Never thought that focal length would give me shivers, but apart from the downsides this camera has, the lens is awesome. On holidays I'll go back to my trusty 24-70 on the Canon, my family wants "normal" images.

Rodenstock 32mm f/4 HR Digaron-W

More comments