if there could be only one...
 

If you could only have one lens, which would it be?
Say you were going on vacation to a small out of the way part of the world, where you couldn't rent any lenses, and you only had room to bring the lens attached to the camera body, which would you pick as the best all around piece of glass to have?

A 50mm prime lens, it is almost the only lens i ever use. They are small, cheap, very fast and sharp.

I picked up a canon eos mk1 50mm f1.8 for $110 AUD, which is around $70 USD and i love it.

Zac

Zac's suggestion of a 50mm (EFL 80mm on 10D) is a good one. However, if you want a little more versatility consider a modest zoom lens. The 28-135mm IS lens is nice. Canon used to make a 22-55mm lens that should be available on ebay for modest prices. It's performance was modest, but would work to get you started.

A huge part of the decision depends on what type of photography you like to do, and what type of photographer you are.

Wide angles are great for landscapes, or getting very cool and edgy closeup shots. Urban landscapes almost always require a wideangle to capture anything recognizable. But then if you're a shy photographer, a good zoom lens can be your best friend. Zoom lenses are also pretty much required if you want to capture animals in their natural habitat.

If you like to do a little bit of everything, then you've gotta shell out for a good, clear lens of varying zoom levels. But in reality, it's not that big of a deal to just have two lenses. For really fast, lightweight photography I have a compact hip bag for my camera that has two holsters attached. I can stick my SLR in the middle compartment with one wide lens attached, I can stick my trusty Tamron 75-300 zoom in one side holster, and some film and misc. stuff in the other holster. I have to do this because I don't have one style of photography I like. I'm sort of all over the place, always trying different things. For me, having the flexibility is a must.

Dylan,

Although I love my 50/1.4 if I was limited to only one lens and a budget I'd go for either the 28-135 that Jeff mentioned or the 28-200 for a little extra reach. The 28-135 would be first cab off the rank as it sports IS and your feet can get you to 200. However, the extra reach of the 28-200 means your lens can reach places your feet can't. The bottom line, especially if buying used is the best price, best condition as either lens will do you well.

If you want a serious lens and have a little extra cash to play with then have a look for a 35-350L. It's big, heavy and expensive but second hand versions can be had for a reasonable cost. It's a great lens and it is also a great match for your XL if you want to shoot wildlife.

I went back to Bic today for one last prepurchase look...and I checked out the 35-350 you mentioned. Amazing range on that lens...but it sho is heavy.

28mm AI-S 2.0

The 28-135 is a nice all around lens. It was the first one I bought, but I just got the 70-200 f2.8L last week, and it's quickly becoming my favorite :)

Kirk

Sigma 50-500 $890 and a great performer- 2000 Lens of the Year winner at Pop Photography Mag

Some interesting choices for sure!

How is Sigma as a lens manufacturer. I looked at that 50-500mm, is it decent quality?

Personally I like to stick with the camera manufacturers lenses as not all functions are supported with 3rd party lenses. On the EOS1n/v,3, and 5 and I imagine the 1D/Ds you can temporally disable autofocus by pressing a button on the body. This can only be done with USM lenses and not with 3rd party lenses.

However, if I was going to use a 3rd party lens then Sigma would be my choice. I've used some of their lenses on a number of occasions and found them to be 80-90% of the same Canon lens.

I guess I sort of misread this thread. The deserted island thing and all. If I could only have one lens (do they have birds on this island?) it would be the Canon 300mm F2.8 or 600mm F4. If there are no birds a good wide angle zoom like the 16-35mm.

I'm looking at buying a 50mm lens, partialy based on Zac's feedback (for starters, then I'll save for the 28-135mm IS). Anyway, I'll soon have a Digital Rebel, and selling my film SLR, should I skip the 50mm and just get a 35mm, which would translate into 56mm in the D-SLR?

I was looking at this 50mm lens on Ebay. If I should bother with it at all, what's a good price? On the D-SLR it will become an 80mm, but that may be good for portraits, as has been previously mentioned here.

Try and find a clean Mk I lens rather than the Mk II. Better build quality, optical quality would be about the same. The 35mm F2 is an OK lens. But more money. I'd go with the 50mm. The 80mm length is good for portraiture.

The Canon 35-350mm F3.5/5.6 L mentioned above is the 1 lens to have. Yes it is big, heavy and slow. It is also incredibly versatile. Canon makes this super zoom, as some people call them, with the same quality as their other L series lenses. If you buy an after market lens you know you are sacrificing quality for price. If you buy an after market super zoom the lens quality goes down again. My 35-350 is a workhorse.

Steve