UKC

One for the photographers

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
sam the man 03 Sep 2006
Ok, here is a really meaty topic for people to argue about. If you could only have one lens what would it be? The rules are: the camera is olympus OM1. It will be used for all different types of photos-like would be taken on a typical(?!) climbing trip, and the reason for only 1 lens is to save weight and pack size, so a massive huge one isnt allowed.
Two other things-no I dont want a digital or compact camera so dont even start-my thread my rules....
Sam
 Kenny 03 Sep 2006
In reply to sam the man:

a fast prime, f1.7 or so. focal length somewhere between 35mm and 55mm, according to your preference. I don't know Olympus lenses but if I were to have only lens, and weight were a real issue, it would be my 45mm f2 (on my Minolta).

Though my real personal favourite is my 58mm f1.4, but it is significantly heavier than the 45mm and just a little too much focal length for outdoorsy stuff.

I wouldn't use a zoom as my only lens; I have a very good 28-105mm zoom but again it's a bit big.
toiletduck 03 Sep 2006
In reply to sam the man:
I'd dump the olympus in a river, then pair up a Canon 5D with a EF 24-105 F4 L IS USM lens
 kevin stephens 03 Sep 2006
Removed User 03 Sep 2006
In reply to sam the man:

28mmm.

Used the Ricoh GR1v with it's 28mm with on several trips with no real "ill effects".

In fact fling the OM1 away and get a GR1v!!!!
 SouthernSteve 03 Sep 2006
In reply to sam the man:
I have used a 45mm F2.8 with great success on my film SLR. It is a tiny old fashioned design and so the whole SLR would fit into a pocket. Shame it is alittle long for my digital bodies (67mm equivalent. I use a 28mm F2.8 on my digital body (equivalent to 42mm on film) and that seems to do the job fairly well.

I would have thought a fast 35mm or a very fast 50mm would be good choices for the Olympus. Interestingly there isn't so much difference of opinion on this thread, so far!

 CJD 03 Sep 2006
In reply to sam the man:

The only lens I've got for my scabby old yashica is a 50mm f1.4 thing and it seems to be fine for most stuff.
prana 03 Sep 2006
In reply to Kenny: but you're biased towards fast primes with your dark clubs habit. the OP is going outdoors

Sam, i generally use a tamron 35-70 with my slr
 Dr Avid 03 Sep 2006
In reply to sam the man: Nikon ED 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 VR, dunno what Olympus lens that would equate to...
 Kenny 03 Sep 2006
In reply to prana:
> (In reply to Kenny) but you're biased towards fast primes with your dark clubs habit. the OP is going outdoors
>

Acknowledged.
But the OP also says " It will be used for all different types of photos" which everyone but me seems to be overlooking.

Ignore the "fast" bit then; after all, most "standard" primes will be around f1.8 anyway.

I just think primes will be compact and light and will avoid knobbing about with zoom. Maybe my suggestions of focal length are not wide enough for some peoples' tastes, but I personally never really got on with 28mm - and again, I kept in mind the "all different types of photos".

David Rainsbury 03 Sep 2006
In reply to sam the man: In the spirit of your thread I would think mega zooms are cheating a bit. I would go for a big aperture (minimum f2.8)zoom about 28mm - 70mm. If it had to be a prime lens a f1.2 28mm would be the choice. The big aperture would allow finer grain, slower films and then I could crop the shots I wanted to frame tighter to compensate for not having the long focal length. DR
PS I'd rather have Nikon though
 kevin stephens 03 Sep 2006
In reply to Kenny: you can always crop a 28mm photo to give same field of view as a 50mm lens with no real loss of resolution (unlike digital) - obviously can't go the other way
 sutty 03 Sep 2006
In reply to kevin stephens:

28mm lens will not give you selective depth of field though, depends on if you want it.
 SouthernSteve 03 Sep 2006
In reply to David Rainsbury:
This is not likely to be portable 'trip' type lens even if it was available. The Nikon one weighs 975g. Hardly the type of lens to throw into the back of a rucsac and definitely in the huge category.
hang 'em high 04 Sep 2006
In reply to sam the man:

How about the Ziuko 50mm f1.4? They go on ebay for about £40-50. Never owned/used one but the 50mm f1.8 is a great lens and a fairly versatile length - I can only assume the 1.4 will be even better.

I heard there is also a 1.2 but i've never seen one for sale.
O Mighty Tim 04 Sep 2006
In reply to sam the man: 40mm f2 pancake is the smallest and lightest lens Oly Zuiko made.
Otherwise, I love the 24 f2.

But then I'd cheat and include a 35mm as well...

TTG, Om1 owner, with Zuiko primes.
O Mighty Tim 04 Sep 2006
In reply to Dr Avid: About 10 Zuiko primes. That is a BIG and HEAVY option.
The joy of the OM system is it's SMALL and LIGHT...

TTG
 Dr Avid 04 Sep 2006
In reply to O Mighty Tim: I see....forget the 18-200 then
 sandywilson 04 Sep 2006
In reply to sam the man:

When I had Olympus cameras & zuiko lenses, my favourite lens was the 24mm f2.8. Small, light and an optical gem. I sometimes wonder why I switched from film to digital! I got about £75 for it when I sold it on e-bay.
 sandywilson 04 Sep 2006
In reply to sandywilson:

The Zuiko 85mm f2 is a miniature gem as well!
Rhoddy Stewart 04 Sep 2006
In reply to sam the man: I'd choose a 24mm. I think Galen Rowell used very little else.Or- maybe a 35mm- always feel a 35mm is a nicer "standard" lens.
David Rainsbury 04 Sep 2006
In reply to SouthernSteve: It's all relative. As a marine photographer my workhorse lens is a Nikkor 80mm to 200mm f2,8 zoom. It weighs in at 1.2kg and with a Nikon body hung on the back it needs its own lifejacket and gives me neckache. I don't take it climbing.

Sigma do some nice big aperture lenses and they're not so heavy as the Nikkors. I don't know what Olympus lenses are available.
David Rainsbury 04 Sep 2006
In reply to David Rainsbury: If I was going for one choice it would be a wide angle but it would have to be at least f2.8
 Kenny 04 Sep 2006
In reply to sam the man:

Sam would you be so kind as to revisit this thread and let us know what sort of photography you'll be doing aside from on climbing trips, cos the vast majority of responses are geared specifically toward climbing and the outdoors, and we don't know if you might also want to do (say) the occasional low-light portrait....or take photos of hummingbirds....or macro stills...
David Rainsbury 04 Sep 2006
In reply to sutty: Acceptable depth of field is dependent on the size of the final image. What looks in focus on an uncropped print from a wide angle lens would be greater depth of field if the same image was blown up and cropped to the same print size. The effect would be exactly the same in optical terms (not counting film grain etc) as using a telephoto to get the same coverage on a full frame.
David Rainsbury 04 Sep 2006
In reply to David Rainsbury:
What looks in focus on an uncropped print from a wide angle lens would be greater depth of field if the same image was blown up and cropped to the same print size.

That should read greater depth of field than the same imageblown up and cropped.
 Dr Avid 04 Sep 2006
In reply to David Rainsbury: you appear to be talking to yourself David

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...