Suffering for your art: 50/1.4 only, and how long you persisted ?

<p>I recently had the choice to get a D700 to couple with my 50mm 1.4G and shoot like you. I ended up getting a D300 with Tamron 17-50 2.8 and don't get much use from my 50 any more. I still wish I had have gone with the D700 and stuck to the prime...</p>

<p>I really like going out and shooting with one lens. I usually take everything along when I am driving around in the car. When I go walking I usually have the 24-70 on my D90. But when I want to feel the like I did years back I put on the nifty 50 and just walk around and have a completely different approach for the day.<br>

No I can't get that tiny bird up in the tree, but you can force yourself to focus on what's in front of you. It is fun and that is what I shoot strictly for the fun of it. I like that challenge and I will sometimes take and put my Sigma 30 1.4 on and do the same thing.<br>

Actually I think that the art part of it gets better.<br>

phil b<br>

benton, ky</p>

<p>There is absolutely no way I'd limit myself to just one fixed lens. Makes no sense to me at all. What's the point of that? I'd rather have a D3000 with 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm VR kit lenses than a D700 with just 50mm. I don't like artificial limitations that keep me from making the kind of shots I want to take. It's not challenge, it's frustration.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

I took a trip to Russia in 1994. I carried around a Bronica ETRSi with a single 75mm 2.8 lens(equal to 50mm full frame digital lens) by myself, rode the train, and took a lot of pictures. I still have some of those pictures done originally on Velvia hanging in my home. The color is gorgeous. I also did a couple of weddings with that combination only using 35 mm for dancing and toasting. It made me think more about each picture. Usually, however, I did the formal parts of my weddings with also a 50 mm 2.8 for groups rather than backup with the 75mm. Those PE lenses were exceptional. Also, with film, I did not fire off near as many pictures to try and get a per centage of good ones.

<p>@kent: I'll buy you anytime you want a d3000 with 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm VR kit lenses if you buy me a d700 "body only".....</p>

<p>Kent,<br>

In my opinion the beauty of using one lens is that it imposes a consistency of style on your photography. If you went to an exhibition by a photographer that only uses one prime you would immediately identify all the photos as being his/hers. If that same photographer uses a jumble of all focal lengths the pictures would be equally good but nevertheless be less obviously taken by one person. Jumping around on focal lengths usually obliterates cohesion (even though the individual photos are fine of course). <br>

It really depends on how single-minded you are prepared to be in what you photograph. Being ready for anything means coming away with photos of landscapes, bazaars, birds and insects. Knowing what you want means coming away with just landscapes. Neither is wrong - just the intent that differs. I used to be ready to photograph anything but now I know what I want and will let those other, once irresistible, opportunities pass me by.<br>

That's how I see it anyway! :-)</p>

 

<p>I've owned the 50 1.8 II on my Canon system for about 3 months less than I've been taking pictures as a whole. <br>

I've got a 100mm, 200mm, and I've owned the 17-40 for wide angles... but the 50 just feels right. It's great for portraits, low light, and the optics are about as great as they come. <br>

Here, have some film. ; ) Shot with a Canon 1N and the 50 1.8 II. </p>

<p>I'm seriously considering just dropping for the 1.4 USM. </p><div></div>

Wee-Ming, I used a 50mm/1.4 on Minolta, then Nikon, camera for over 10 years and loved it! I liked the discipline of using

one lens, of learning what it can do. It's still the only lens I have for my 35mm, which I seldom use since I purchased a

Hasselblad. <br><br>I used the Hasselblad's 80mm "standard" lens for a couple of years, then 110mm ("portrait" lens) for a

couple of years, and just purchased a wide-angle which I plan to use only as needed but am having fun playing with it.

<p>I used a 28mm prime on my crop body exclusively for a while and it was great. My best compositions came during that time. I'm sure it's different for everybody, but my favorite shots I've taken through the years have all been in the "normal" focal length range. My biggest gripe with primes is lack of VR. I like to shoot at low ISO handheld as much as possible. A fast aperture is great but shooting nature out on the trail I like to stop down to get some depth of field. </p>

<p>I think James has nailed it: it's "horses for courses".</p>

<p>If I want to be ready for anything, then I take all my lenses with me (I only have 5 and they are all fairly compact). If I anticipate I won't need the macro or whatever, I will leave that lens at home. I don't earn any money from photography, so if I <em>do </em>miss a shot, it's not the end of the world.</p>

<p>Sometimes, I just go out with the 50mm on the front and nothing else, to see what I can do with it. Experience suggests that these are often (but not always) the most rewarding sessions. The D700 and 50mm f1.4 G is an awesome combination, without a doubt, and one which I find myself using rather a lot (but not exclusively). I still have my F80 film body, mainly for chromes, and a C*n*n A-1, with nFD 50mm f1.8 (manual focus) which I usually use with b&w film in aperture priority or full manual mode. That <em>really</em> narrows down the options and focuses the mind.</p>

<p>I've been using a planar 50mm f1.7 coverted for uses with my Canon XSI and 50d for the past year. To be honest I do still have my Canon 17-40 and 70-200 2.8 lens and do use everything interchangably based on judging the shooting conditions.<br>

For 4 moths I did use the 50mm exclusively (but more for the reason to experiment and try to get a feel for when best to use it). Ulitimately I felt that when I was trying to fill the frame or shoot in low light conditions this is where I used it most. I also took some lessons on how to best use this focal length by review sites like Flickr and 500px and specifically looking for shots taken at 50mm.<br>

To summarize .... I don't think there is one lens to fit all conditions. You can try and crop a shot but you will always lose photo quality. Maybe having one lens is a good starting lesson to help focus on your craft before it gets all complicated with many pieces of equipment.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I just use whatever tool it takes to get the shot. Composition is everything from an audience's perspective (or at least mostly), which makes gear less relevant."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So carrying a bag full of tools (different focal-length lenses) somehow "makes gear less relevant"?</p>

<p>For what it's worth, HCB -- one of the all-time kings of composition -- used just one focal length the vast majority of the time.</p>

<p>"Using one prime lens" and "finding good compositions" are by no means mutually exclusive, and some would say they are quite compatible.</p>

<p>With my first Nikon (an F) I only had the 50 for quite a while, and later when I added a 28 and 135 to the mix, the 50 was still my most used lens. Everything has its purpose, if your main aim is photographing items far away, you will probably use a telephoto more; the same for wider lenses, if you need them, use them. But I imagine most of us could use a 50 more than we do (for full frame). But people usually use what's on the camera.</p>

<p>Thinking back even further, before the F, I had only used 50mm lens on other cameras as well. I didn't think I was suffering, I just walked back and forth more.</p>

<p>I use a Jupiter 8 just because I don't have any other Contax mount lenses (yet). Got a Jupiter 12 and Helios 103 that's due to come in a few weeks (35 2.8 & 50 1.8 respectively).</p>

<p>The 35mm will be to try something new; 50mm is very natural for me and fits most of my compositions.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To summarize .... I don't think there is one lens to fit all conditions</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely right but what I am trying to say is that attempting to make the conditions fit the lens is what often makes the shot more interesting - it forces you down a less obvious route. It does also mean that you will lose some shots too.<br />I am not saying that you should only ever use one prime - although I do it an awful lot. On Saturday I am off to the Dolomites and then Tuscany for 10 days. On my F6 I will have the 35mm most of the time but I will also have a 21mm and a 100mm - but I expect that 80% of what I will take will be on the 35mm.</p>

<p>Counting the minutes...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm in line with James. I always bring only one lens and see the world through that one only. My 50/1.4 is often my first choice in cities. Another choice is the best lens I have got, the 135/2 (both Canon), but the experience is the same of "making the situation fit to the lens". This approach has another important benefit for photographers: it is lighter and does not break your back.</p>

<p>hah! "suffering for one's art" is a running gag that comes up when i'm out shooting with friends. usually it involves tripping over a rock or ordering a burger w/o cheese.<br>

sure, i'll sometimes go out for a walk with just the camera and one lens. it's fun and gets the creative juices flowing, but i equate it with, say, going out and shooting for one predominant color or one overall composition (horizontal lines, s-curves, etc.).. also fun exercises. it's not something i'm intrested in doing day in and day out.<br>

to me, hiking out for a few miles, sometimes hot, sometimes cold, steep, muddy, pre-dawn, poison oak, you name it.. with a heavy pack with all your lenses, because there is usually just one right lens for the job (oh boy, here we go!) and your tripod on your shoulder.. that is suffering for ones art.</p>

<p>I shoot a lot with just a 50 1.4 on a 5D2 but for some shots its not ideal. What's wrong with owning a zoom too? I never understand the prime or zoom thing. If you can afford both get both. I find a 24-105 + 50 covers most everything in the Canon world. But when I want to go really light I often use just a 50 or 28. </p>

<p> I prefer zooms (for the ability to change perspective independently of framing), but over the years used primes extensively. I find the 50mm a little too narrow for me, preferring the 35mm or 28mm on FF/film bodies. On Dx, I prefer a 24mm. With rangefinders, the 35mm, but strangely, the 50mm seems easier for me to live with on an RF than an SLR.</p>

<p>I thought of getting and wearing a hair shirt too for a while, but it got so itchy and full of bugs and went back to hedonistic diversity... But good luck. I mean this. If it opens a door for <em>you</em>, walk through <em>proudly</em>. I do understand your decision even as I do not share the urge. I see I shoot I crop later... I <strong>see</strong> 'best' with an 85 mm actually.</p>

<p>Whoever came up with the expression "zooming with your feet' is really a <em>hair shirt </em>type personality, so I have decided. Sorry for that. Honest. Unenlightened I supposed. Lazy for sure.</p>

<p>Well, bringing only one lens, it is just like deer hunting. You go out into the woods with one gun and don't bring an arsenal in view of being able to kill anything that turns up.</p>

<p>The thing with zoom sometimes is you got infinite options and perspectives. With a prime, you focus on finding that one composition, perspective, vantage point. A zoom can takes less work but it can take more work also because of all the lens zooming, plus you can also "zoom with your feet." In another words, a fixed lens limit your options, some prefer it, some despite it. I think you win some and lose some, therefore, I have a few fixed lenses and a few zooms...</p>

 

<p>I really developed a strong dislike for the 50mm back in my film days shooting a Pentax k1000, then a Nikon F2. This is most likely because I was shooting full frame. For me the 50mm is a dull boring lens to work with people. I view it as weak wide angle. I tend to work with the more extreme in focal lengths. I tend to work mainly with zooms these days because fixed focal lengths tend to be bulky, heavy and cumbersome. I carry a lot less lenses on a shoot now.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The great Henri Cartier-Bresson used just one lens; a 5cm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which is of course not true. It appeared to strongly prefer the 50, but he used on occasions a 35 and a 85 or 90. He did in fact praise on occasion the "economy of means" of using mostly the same lens, same exposure time, even same distance from the subject, stating that it led to simplicity of expression, which he valued. But it is actually a myth that he used only the 50.</p>

<p>I'm a prime person myself, and doing mostly street, but I don't share the idea that using only a 50 per se leads to developing a vision or things like that. I think it is more subtle than that.<br>

In my experience, when shooting with zooms one sees things, decides how he wants to shoot them according to the three broad classes wide / normal / tele, then zooms to cut out what he does not want to be in (or to bring in what he wants to be in).<br>

When using primes, I tend to think backwards. I know I have my 35 on (or 50, or 85...) and I see the things around me as through a 35. I choose a way of seeing, and THEN I choose subjects and points of view accordingly. Something that cannot be shot through the 35 should be really outstanding for me to "see" it, when I have my 35 on. Same goes if I have a 24 or a 135.<br>

As a consequence, I need to become very familiar with a lens before I can use it effectively: I need to learn the look it produces. The only way is to use only that lens for a while when I buy it. But this holds for ANY lens, not only for the 50 (which by the way is one of the easiest). Once this necessary step is achieved, to use only ONE lens at all is for me a meaningless limitation.</p>

<p>I do on occasion go out with only one lens, in most cases a 35 or a 50. This happens when I just want to take a walk and perhaps take a photo or two. So my D700 and the 50 or 35 is light and easy to carry, and I don't care about the limitation because I'm not out for the purpose of taking photos.</p>

<p>L.</p>

I started out with a Minolta SRT 202, or was it a 201, or maybe a 102 and a Rokkor 50mm f1.7 lens Eons ago. That was the only lens I could afford back then, so I made do. These days I still get that itch to go around town with only my Nikon non-AF/non-Digital camera and my non-Zoom 50mm f1.4. I get some great shots ! You might even say the thrill is back.