Photographing with one prime lens only

<p>I visit a number of photo sharing and gearhead sites. The most popular fixed focal length (full frame reference) I see is 28mm, especially for street work. Fifty years ago when I started, it was 50mm on 35mm film bodies, or 80mm on medium format 6 X 6cm. Recently I bought a Nikon APS-C advanced compact with an 18.5 (28mm equivalent) fixed lens. Though it was a really high quality shooter and easy to carry, there were many subjects too far away for a decent frame-filling shot, and it was often impossible to "zoom with my feet". So I decided to stop shooting those subjects in order to be able to carry a camera with one focal length lens. That was just dumb for me, anyway. I'm back with a nice bridge camera having a 1" sensor and fixed f/2.8 24-200 zoom. The old prime lens days are over for me. And I wish you the best on that quest, truly.</p>

<p>Photographing using just one lens is a good exercise. It helps you to concentrate on figuring out where to position yourself and your camera in relation to the subject, what you want to include in (and leave out of) the image, whether to move closer to or father away from the subject to accomplish that, how to frame the shot, what to slecect as your primary point of focus, and so on. It also helps you to figure out what the strengths and weaknesses of a particular focal length are -- what it does best, whether it has any particular characteristics which can be used intentionally for visual effect, what situations it is most useful in, and what subjects or situations it is less useful for.</p>

<p>Which lens you choose for your "one lens" project depends primarily on what type of subjects and what style of photography your prefer for a majority of your work.</p>

<p>If you like street photography, environmental portraits (i.e. those showing people in the context of their lives), landscape photography or travel photography, for example, you might choose a wide-angle lens. On a Leica, 35mm lenses offer a good combination of compact size, large maximum aperture, good depth of field, a moderately wide field of view, and a relatively natural-looking perspective -- among the reasons why a Leica with a 35 is a classic combination. If you want a somewhat wider field of view and a bit more depth of field, you might choose a 28mm. If you want to explore an exaggerated sense of perspective and depth, with close-up objects looking olarger and far-away objects looking smaller than normal, you might consider a 21mm.</p>

<p>If you like doing available-light photography early in the morning, at dusk, or at night, you might want to try a 50mm f/1.4 for its large maximum aperture, to give you as much margin for error as possible in terms of shutter speed.</p>

<p>If you mostly shoot portraits, or like to focus in on details in landscape or travel photos rather than going for the big picture, you might want to try a 90mm. With Leica 90s, at least the more or less affordable used ones, you have a choice between small and light but not really fast enough for available light; and fast enough for available light, and shallow depth of field at maximum aperture to isolate subject from background, but large and heavy. (Not as large and heavy as the 300mm f/2.8 monsters that sports photographers use on monopod-supported DSLRs to shoot football games, mind you, but rather large and heavy as Leica lenses go. The 1950s-vintage 90mm f/2 Summicron, which I rather like, used to have a tongue-in-cheek reputation as "a burden too great for one man to bear alone.")</p>

<p>Choose which style of shooting you like best, pick one lens to suit, and stick with it for a while. The specifics of what you learn will depend on your choices and personality, but it's very likely that you'll learn something worthwhile.</p>

<em>“</em><em>If your photographs aren't good enough, you're not close enough.”</em> Robert Cappa. Works for me with, say, an Elmar on a Leica 111 or a 20mm on a MFT camera, especially when I want to explore a subject more. A bit more 'legwork' can often give more interesting results than standing still and using a zoom lens: it helps <em>develop new perspectives</em> - in all senses of the term. That said, all lenses can help to cultivate new techniques - zooms or primes: imagination and visualization are the key.<br />

<p>35mm is probably my favorite, but I've used 50 and on a 4/3 the 35 and 50's become 70 and 100. I don't think its the lens you just work with what you've gone. I like using just 1. Pic one and go.</p>

<p>The problem with using a single lens is not the lens, but the inaccuracy of the viewfinders.</p>

<p>Bill, you probably know that those using zooms on RF cameras (like the multifocal Leica optics) or on SLRs or DSLRs are faced with viewfinders that are not usually 100% view</p>

<p>Interesting thread, and so is the avalanche of elaborated posts!<br /> Sandy, neg diagonal of 24x36 is 43mm or thereabouts, so a 50 feels a little longish, for many. To tell the truth, most old nominal 50mm Summicrons are even a wee bit tighter, at 51.9mm (Read 52mm).</p>

<p>So, basically, a 35mm lens gives you a perfectly natural view with a little bit of crop margin to put lines straight...</p>

<p>Industrial standards of a "standard" lens were much more accurate in most other formats than 135, like 75mm in square MF. A 40mm in 24x36 might be the perfect all-around-one-lens option, if there is such.<br /> Hope that helped! Cheers, Knut</p>

<p>I think the mindset behind single focal length outings is "shoot what you have (brought) as good as you can" with a big helping of "f8 & be there" mixed in. They don't make me happy, I don't count them as serious photography but they are a compromise better than no camera at all at hand. Also surely a nice way to spice up everyday life.<br>

The "right" focal length can be discussed to death. - My own preference is in the portrait range, like 50mm on APS. I usually run into people or details that catch my interest. - I guess wider than normal might be handy for vacation snaps and became fashionable when focusing was a big issue.<br>

Are you really missing zooms? or just the 2nd camera with a complimentary prime on your other shoulder (in case you grabbed your prime for IQ not just compact size)?</p>

<p>After all that has been said here, maybe just go over your own best photos, noting the focal length that comes up most often. There you have it! </p>

<p>"I felt confident enough to just go out with one fixed focal length lens"</p>

<p>Tough call.. I usually wet my pants having to make such a tough call. </p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Uh huh, Allen. For me this is kind of like, "I felt confident enough to just go out and drive in traffic with one gear."</p>

<p>Howard's analogy can be developed to say: I know I'm going to drive 30 miles per hour, therefore I only need third gear. An autofocus zoom would be like an automatic transmission.</p>

<p><br>

<em>I am an advanced amateur photographer. At the present I have a lot o different old film câmeras: Rollei SLX with normal 80mm, Koni Omega Rapid 200, with normal and wide angle lenses, Linhof 6x9, with several lenses, Kiev 60, with 50, 80, 180 and a ...30mm, Graflex 4x5, Nikon N80, Contax...etc. I started, many years ago, with a japanese Neoca with fixed 50mm. However, I believe that my best photos (just a few) were made when I owned just an old Contax IIIa with just one lens, the Sonnar 1:1.5 50mm. (leg zoom) . </em></p>

<p>"Uh huh, Allen. For me this is kind of like, "I felt confident enough to just go out and drive in traffic with one gear."</p>

<p>Actually, in the real world I would agree...because that's what I do...not sure about first gear But I struggle with the missionary statements " I can wipe my arse with one sheet of bog paper...so, there...how special am I.</p>

<p>Sorry, just in that sort of mood. Please forgive.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't count them as serious photography but they are a compromise better than no camera at all at hand.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really? Says who and based on what?</p>

<p>I disagree that the 35mm is a normal view.<br>

It already allows distortion..<br>

A hand towards one say at even 6', becomes threatening.<br>

Normal is 50mm.<br>

The preference for 35mm on Leica M4,6,240 etc., viewfinders is the large frame!<br>

The M3 was for 50mm.<br>

One lens is plenty sufficient.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I don't count them as serious photography but they are a compromise better than no camera at all at hand."</em></p>

Hahahahaha! How do people come up with this stuff? There are pro photographers who have used the same focal length for their entire careers. Get over it.

 

For me normal view is 35mm btw.

</blockquote>

<p>I use a variety of focal lengths but my favorite is around 35....but then its just a favorite...nothing else.</p>

<p>Not a holy mantra.</p>

<p>I see shooting with a single focal length lens as a good form of discipline. It forces me to think more about composition, which is always a good thing for me. As to which focal length is best, well, honestly, that depends entirely on the situation. Now, I realize this is the Rangefinder forum, but I'm just thinking about what's best for me -- regardless of the camera type. So, if I'm at the motorcycle or auto races, or at an airshow, then just about the only lens I'll use is a 300mm. But that's hardly the best choice for other situations, and not really much of a choice for a rangefinder unless I'm using a reflex housing. If I'm walking down the street with an eye toward street photography, then I find that usually the best focal length for me is 35mm, especially after I've dialed in some depth of field. For general close-ups, I like 85mm or 100mm. But for just about everything else, and for that I mean most general purpose photography, I find that a nice, sharp 50mm is the best choice. It's really hard to go wrong with a good 50mm lens.</p>

<p>If I could make photos just as hobby my lens would be 20 mm. It is 50% photographer and 50% lens with 20 which means there is always something unexpected you get.</p>

<p>I started with a 50mm lens as that is what camera's came with back in the day. It seemed fine and I did not buy other focal lengths for quite some time. Eventually I built up a sizable collection of lenses and after a while I found it to be a lot of trouble switching the lenses, caps, different sized filters and most of all the insane weight of the bag. Currently I am down to a 50mm f1.8 and a 28mm f2.8 lens and that is all that I own. I carry them both around and shoot them in an 80/20 ratio with the 50mm on top. I take photos of my family, friends, and the things we do or places we go. I shoot B/W 35mm is all. No digital, no color. I do not try to be able to take a photo in any situation.</p>

<p>Here I am again. Came back to read all the posts. Some very interesting ones. A bit of relevant info to stimulate the old brain cells, and make me think about dusting off and polishing up the Nikkormats at home.</p>

<p>One camera one lens is fine if you are an amateur playing at photography. Superb results have been attained with the good old fifty. </p>

<p>If you have to produce and deliver the goods, however, a kit is essential. Three lenses will usually suffice - one wide, one close to standard (ideally macro), one reasonable tele. </p>

<p>In the 1960s when I first cut my teeth at commercial photography, as a callow youth in a Canadian country town, everybody used either Speed graphics (the pros) or Yashica TLRs (the amateur would-be's with a little money). I shot everything in sight for pay and eventually saved up enough to buy a Rolleiflex TLR - THE camera everybody wanted then. It served its purpose for 15 years til I eventually moved on to 35mm (Nikons). I still own it and I still use it, occasionally, to remind myself how limited we were in those days. </p>

<p>One lens work is good for Personal Expression work or snapshots. Pretty scenery. Kids frolicking in the wading pool. Lovely close-ups or orchids' tonsils. None of it saleable, and sadly yet inevitably, almost all of it (excepting the kids, who are usually family) quickly forgotten. But it does the work. It's just not very, well - exciting. And for me, too limiting. </p>

<p>I remember the day I had enough cash in hand (a new credit card, if truth be told) to go out and buy two new Nikkor lenses for my Nikkormat. 28mm and 85mm, to complement my 50mm f/2. The freedom I suddenly felt was incomparable to anything I had ever experienced before (well, almost anything, and in this I am sure you know what I mean, enough said). My photo imagery expanded by leaps and bounds, and suddenly I found I was shooting and selling more color photos than ever. I had crossed the bridge, so to say. </p>

<p>Another question, going by the many posts on this point, would be, which lens suits you best. I'm not a 50mm boy. 28mm is my eye. 85mm for better close ups of people and things. I still own the 50 f/2, but long ago bought a 55mm Micro Nikkor, which gets used 99 times out of 100. The 50 is almost pristine, but then it mostly stays safely snuggled with film and filters in my bag. </p>

<p>The bottom line to all this, I suppose, is that in photography as well as in life, we are fortunately free to do whatever rocks are boats. If the 50mm, 35mm or 28mm viewpoint suits your vision, so be it. Shoot and enjoy. <br>

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I started with two Nikkor lenses on an FM2n, a 24mm AIS and a 50mm AIS (both very fine lenses, by the way, probably better than the AF-S versions that I also have), and used them for a couple years. When I bought an F4s, I purchased the AF-S D Nikkor 20mm/2.8, 24mm/2.8, 50mm/1.8 and 85mm/1.4 lenses. I found myself using the 24mm and 85mm the most. I tend to prefer wide-angle, but never owned a 28mm lens. I'm surprised that there isn't more mention of 24mm here, but I guess that's due to this being a rangefinder forum, and 28mm is a very popular popular focal length in pretty much all systems, while I rarely see 24mm used with rangefinders. I rarely use a 50mm lens, and probably use the 20mm more. I find ways to use the Nikkor 85mm/1.4 due to it's amazing optical quality... what a lens. Not using it would be a crime.<br /> So, if I were to use a single lens with my Nikon system, I'd take the 24mm lens.<br /> My choice for a single lens on a Leica body would be a 28mm lens. <br /> BTW, I don't have strong enough curse words for zoom lenses on film cameras. I never use them.</p>