A single prime lens for walkaround?

<p>My walkround lens is a Canon FD 35mm f2.</p>

<p>Pierre, I think most all the posters allready know that. I'd be very surprised if they didn't.</p>

<p>This whole issue has been wargamed before. Decades ago, there were several popular 35mm rangefinder film cameras like the Canonet QL 17 and Olympus SP. These were medium priced, probably about $400 plus in todays U.S. dollars. Almost without exception, these cameras came with ultra sharp 40 mm lenses. (No lens interchangeability.)<br />So that would be 27 mm for DX, and, of course, 40 mm for FX. Little more or a little less, no big deal. No need to reinvent the wheel.</p>

<p>Reinventing the wheel? Well, halftracks were fun in WW-II.</p>

<p>Meaning sometimes the wheel isn't the best solution.</p>

<p>Sometimes a sharp 40mm equivalent lens is not how a specific photographer sees the world.</p>

<p>But I'm probably preaching to the choir so I'll shut up now.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you want to capture everything that you see that takes your fancy you will fall into having zooms that cover everything from 14mm to 200mm or whatever. You will come back home with shots of street scenes, landscapes, people, birds and bugs. They will be good photos <em>but they will be an incoherent jumble of different things.</em><br>

<em>If you know what kind of photograph you want you will be able to do it better with one or two primes</em>. The result of knowing what you want is a <em>portfolio</em> of consistent images with a distinctive style that is recognisably yours. The 'got everything covered' photographer comes back with shots that could have been taken by any number of people...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Italics added for emphasis.<br>

Utter nonsense.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you want to capture everything that you see that takes your fancy you will fall into having zooms that cover everything from 14mm to 200mm or whatever. You will come back home with shots of street scenes, landscapes, people, birds and bugs. They will be good photos <em>but they will be an incoherent jumble of different things.</em><br>

<em>If you know what kind of photograph you want you will be able to do it better with one or two primes</em>. The result of knowing what you want is a <em>portfolio</em> of consistent images with a distinctive style that is recognisably yours. The 'got everything covered' photographer comes back with shots that could have been taken by any number of people...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>(Italics added for emphasis.)</p>

<p>Utter nonsense.</p>

<p>One of the other posts regarding HCB makes an interesting point. However, its fundamental point is not "use primes." Its real point is select the equipment that is right for the photography you are doing. Which leads us away from the primes v. zooms nonsense (I align with a "primes and zooms" approach) to the OP's question about what is best for the photography he is doing. <em>It is hard to argue for a single prime on the basis of his list of subjects</em> - whether or not you are primal or a zoomer yourself.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Isn't that primate?</p>

<p>(Me I zoom events and prime art...)</p>

<p>I would bet my right arm that while everyone knows about crop factors, many people still think there are inherent characteristics to any given focal length that persist despite the crop factor. Ever have anyone ask you what's a good portrait lens focal length for a given camera (compact or crop sensor) because they don't think their 22mm lens or whatever will give a good perspective, despite the fact that it's equivalent to a 35mm camera's 105mm lens?</p>

<p>Pierre, are you saying that a 50mm lens on a 1/2 sensor is going to do as good a job as an 'equivelant' 75mm lens on a 35mm camera, assuming that the 75mm lens is the best lens for the job?</p>

<p>a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens, no matter what camera you put it on, and the characteristics of said lens remain the same, no matter camera it is on. it will not have the same characteristics as a those that many photogs hold dear for portraits, as the 50mm lens on a 1/2 frame.</p>

<p>you may be making this point above, i just didn't fully understand your post.</p>

<p>On FF, 35mm 1.4L is probably the best walk-around lens.</p>

<p>It's quite silly how long this thread has gone on (not that I haven't contributed to the foolery!).</p>

<p>And, as I've said so often on p.net, listen to G Dan. His take on the prime vs zoom debate is bang on (even if he's long ago written me off as a complete hack).</p>

<p>I used the 28 f/1.8 on my 40D for a while and really enjoyed it. It gave a slightly wide/normal equivalent focal length on the 1.6x sensor. It really forced me to move around more and think about composition through the viewfinder. Some of my best shots were taken with that combo. That said, the 28 1.8 is quite soft and hazy wide open but stopped down to 2.8 it is very sharp. And I mean noticeably sharper than the kit zoom lens at standard view without magnifying. I like IS and I wish there was a fast prime that had it. If you're shooting nature/landscapes handheld you'll want to stop down for more depth of field, and IS would allow you to more handheld of that sort. </p>

<p>I shoot digital with Canon but like to use 24/2 and 85/2 Nikkors (on adapters) for intimate stuff on APS-C. I've owned the Canon 24/1.4 but found it too big and expensive and the 85/1.8 is also a lot bigger than the Nikkor. With the 5DII (when I feel like packing a big camera) I often use a Nikkor 35/2 AIS. The Canon 35/2 has that pentagonal aperture that messes with the bokeh. It takes discipline though because the zooms are always handy and too easy to grab.</p>

<p>I also have a Russian 58/2 that I rather like on an APS-C camera. I really like the look it gives when wide open.</p>

<p>IMHO Walkaround lens=flexible=zoom lens(from "wide" up to mid telephoto range) and not too heavy or bulky.</p>

<p>Hmmmm... Please describe the perfect pot or pan (but not both) to be used for all cooking. It must capable of tackling these situations: unknown(in advance ) circumstances, boiling spaghetti, frying eggs, making waffles, baking cakes, etc., etc.</p>

<p>I suppose I pick a deep, 4 qt pot, but it's going to make some pretty awful waffles. Short of going on a camping trip, this seems like a pretty silly question to me.</p>

<p>Dan,</p>

<p>Not nonsense at all, I challenge you to name one exhibition/collection of photography by anyone remotely well-known where one shot is taken with 17mm and the next with a 500mm. Photographers who wish to make coherent bodies of work don't do it - full stop.<br>

Again, I am NOT saying that somebody who jumps around massively with focal lengths is taking bad photos - it's just that they are assembling disparate things. If you have a zoom but use it with a particular object in mind then that's alright. But a lot of the 'got everything covered' brigade simply take a bit of everything. There's nothing wrong with it - but it isn't focused work.</p>

 

<p>Galen Rowell's Mountain Light exhibit includes shots from 20mm to 500mm. I'm sure it's not the only one.</p>

<p>From the original post,</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Thanks for playing along.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm amazed how many people have played along. Fun times.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Suggest one single prime lens to use as a walkaround lens.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Zeiss 50/2 Makro Planar (on a FF camera).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>But most importantly, I'm interested in why you suggested what you did.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think you want to have only long or only short lens. That's why 50mm.<br>

This lens has shorter minimal focusing distance than most other 50mm lenses I know, so you can go close to your subject. That gives more creative options than regular 50mm. It has well corrected distortions (can be useful if you want to create wide angle by stitching) and has more pleasant bokeh than most other 50mm lenses. Other interesting options for a single lens setup (with different compromises) would be Sigma 50 (nice bokeh), Voigtlander 40/2 (very small), Canon 50/1.2 (fast, nice bokeh). For APS I would get Canon 35L or Zeiss 35/2. Great lenses, but I think it is more fun to use primes on FF and I would upgrade to FF first.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I sort of hate to open up a new can of worms, but what might make a good 2-prime lens combo in the 1mm-99mm range?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This gives lots of interesting combinations, on FF for example:</p>

<ul>

<li>Zeiss 35/2 and Zeiss 100/2 Makro Planar (two of the best lenses in the Zeiss Z* line)</li>

<li>Zeiss 28/2 and Zeiss 100/2 Makro Planar (similar but wider)</li>

<li>Zeiss 21/2.8 and Voigtlander Apo Lanthar 90mm (great lenses with no CA, for landscape?)</li>

<li>Canon 35/1.4 and Canon 100L (some of the best lenses in Canon lineup, great for available light, nature, people, travel)</li>

<li>Canon 24/1.4 and Canon 85L (for people and events?)</li>

<li>Canon 35/1.5 and Canon 135/2 (for people and travel?)</li>

<li>Canon 28/1.8 and Canon 85/1.8 (lighter and less expensive variation of the above)</li>

<li>Any combination of the above</li>

</ul>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Please describe the perfect pot or pan (but not both) to be used for all cooking. It must capable of tackling these situations: unknown(in advance ) circumstances, boiling spaghetti, frying eggs, making waffles, baking cakes, etc., etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure, but with only one 4qt pot and one pan you can make lots of delicious meals.</p>

<p>Hi Alan,<br>

Of course for the occasional shot - but I think you would agree that the photographs that are <em>characteristicall</em>y Galen Rowell (rather than just great shots that he took) were pretty much all in the 24mm focal length. That was his walkabout lens and he would be as well known today if that was the only lens he ever used. </p>

<p>All this one prime talk has been back to thinking about finally breaking down and getting that 35L. Is it really that good on a 5d2?</p>

<p>I am sure it is great - it was my favourite lens when I was a Canon user on a 1Ds II. You should give the ZE 35mm serious consideration though if you can put up with manual focus. Optically it is unrivalled in the SLR world.</p>

<p>The best "walk around" primes would be in the 28mm to 50mm range for FX (full frame), or DX equivalent. (18mm to 35mm.)<br>

If you had a small backup point and shoot with a long range zoom to slip in your pocket for UFO flyovers, you would be dressed for all occasions. </p>

<p>John Jennings,</p>

<p>You mentioned my favorite rangefinder camera from Canon. It sports an amazingly sharp, and pretty fast 40 mm lens. I bought my first one brand new just prior to my first trip to Colorado back when the cameras were current in the Canon lineup. Pretty much everything I shot was in Kodachrome, or Ektachrome, and the resulting slides were stunning by any measure (for me at the time). Yes, the 40 mm f/1.7 lens was a tad wide for a FF normal lens, but it delivered image results in spades. The camera sporting it's back view below is the very same camera I bought prior to my Colorado trip back in the late 1970's. As you noted though, even that sightly wide view will require a 25 mm lens on a crop camera to match the same field of view.. It doesn't matter how close or wide a photographer likes to work, so long as the view is as was expected at order time...</p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4054/4667997039_a8641197a8.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></p>

<p>Sarah Fox,</p>

<p>This is a shot of one of three pot hangers in my kitchen. I understand your point, and I regard cooking utensils in the same way as photographic tools. They might even hold a higher place for me, as they deliver my best attempt at food preparation to my table every day. No food... no camera gear, and I really enjoy cooking food. This shot is just the tip of my culinary iceberg, and only gives a hint of my appreciation for copper, while ignoring knives, cast iron camping gear, griddles, etc.</p>

<p>I never thought of it in the terms you presented here, but it rings true. Lenses, like pots and pans are built for a purpose, and it is unlikely that any one can perform the job suited to another with the same degree of of success. If you like to cook, buy the right tools to suit your style over time. If you like to capture images, don't be afraid to buy the tools that support your photographic vision over time either....</p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4068/4673803242_c4f15185a6.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></p>