Notable Photographers who only use a normal lens

A few weeks ago, one of the members on line mentioned a photographer who only used a normal lens for almost all of his work. As I recall, this photographer had a hypenated name. Well, I've misplaced that piece of e-mail and I'd like to find out more about photographers who mainly use on the normal 80mm lens on their 6x6 Hassie or similar equipment.

 

<p>

 

Can anyone help?

I can't comment on medium format photographers, but Henri Cartier-Bresson was reknowned for only using a normal (i.e 50mm) lens in 35mm photography.

Helmut Newton was also a big user of normal lenses. Any photographer who used the old TLR's more than likely used a normal lens. Who else?

I am not a famous photographer, but I did spend a year in college working for the Yearbook with only a 50mm lens on my 35mm. I shot everything from large groups to individual portraits to sporting events. I believe I became a better photographer because I was forced to be more creative with the limitation of one lens. I would never go back to that situation but the experience was valuable to me.

Richard Misrach, one of the great photographers of the American West

uses a 8x10 field camera with a 300 mm Fujinon lens, exclusively.

This is equivalent to 80 mm for 6x6 format or 42 mm for the 35 mm

format. Some of his work can be view at a Kodak features site:

http://www.kodak.com/ppiHome/kodakProfessional/features/rMisrachIndex.shtml

I have a book entitled "Land," black and white photographs by the English photographer Fay Godwin. I'm not sure, but I think all of these shots were taken with a normal lens on a square format camera.

I read that Richard Avedon's favors his 80 mm planar for almost all of his photography. It, the 80 mm Planar, happens to sit on a Rolleiflex though (a whole bunch of preloaded Rolleiflexes, to be more accurate). For us ambivalent creatures who cannot decide which film to use for the next 12 frames it's a blessing with the H-Blad film backs. Avedon uses his Hasselblad only with the 150 Sonnar.

I'm surely not notable, but I've been shooting ALL of my "personal pictures" with an 80 on my Hasselblad. Not only that, I shoot only one lens at only one fstop. Wide open at 2.8. I just set it there and move the shutter speeds.

 

<p>

 

It started as a fluke, because I wanted no depth, but then I began to enjoy "not even thinking about the exposure" that much. Just read the shutter speed off the Minolta meter and shoot! You can concentrate on the IMAGE so much more then. Try it, it's fun.

 

<p>

 

You can see a whole series of these images at:

 

<p>

 

http://www.nashville.net/~mtucker/nashvilletour.html

 

<p>

 

I also shoot with a Fuji 680, and I only OWN one lens, the 100 f4 normal. Everything I shoot is with that lens.

 

<p>

 

Sometimes, a LACK of choice is a good thing.

 

<p>

 

-Mark Tucker

Although not done with medium format, 4x5 photographer John Sexton's beautiful book Quiet Light was over 50% with a 210MM lens. Medium format equivlant would be about 110. I did a study on it a while back and I believe 26 of 45 were 210. The closest runner up was the 120 with 5 Other lenses did 4 or less images in the book.

 

<p>

 

His next book Listen to the Trees was about 70% done with 210MM.

 

<p>

 

Interesting question isn't it. It really addresses the question of what is the primary important information in a photograph.

 

<p>

 

Some of my most recent favorite images were made on a trip to New Mexico where I took only one camera, blad, and one lens 80-2.8MM. and two A-12 backs.

 

<p>

 

Good question. Good web site. Glad I found it.

Thanks

In regard to this question; what exactly is a normal lens? And hasn't our definition of normal lens changed over time?

As I understand the history of the technology, when 35mm cameras were first developed the designers chose to give them 50mm lenses not only because that was considered a useful, all around focal legnth but there were also design problems with wider angles. As technology has progressed, wide angle lenses have become cheaper, better and more common. Of all cameras made for purchase by the general public today, I would guess that the majority sold to the consumer market are with a wide lens (35mm or so on most point and shoots). So would something a little wider than Henri Cartier-Bresson's 50mm now be considered closer to normal?

I'm thinking of Lee Freidlander who uses a 21 or 28 mm on his leica or a Hasselblad SWC or Garry Winogrand. Look in magazines and everywhere else --- wide angle lenses seem to be very popular.

I wonder how we get used to seeing something; now that we are getting used to thre look of the wide angle will the avant garde return to the 50mm?

"What is normal?"

 

<p>

 

There are various ways in which it has been defined. By custom, 50-55mm on 35mm film (24x36), 80mm on 6x6, 90mm on 6x7, etc. This is what has been supplied as the "normal" lens by most manufacturers, and what most people seem to refer to as "normal."

 

<p>

 

I am aware of two definitions: the diagonal of the film which is exposed and "what the normal human eye sees."

 

<p>

 

If we take the diagonal, the 35mm normal should be about 43mm, the 6x6 is indeed about 80mm, etc.

 

<p>

 

If we take the definition of what the normal human eye sees, it becomes more complicated by the fact that peoples area of sharp focus and peripheral vision are different (our eyes do not function as typical photographic lenses, a bit more like the Diana :-).

 

<p>

 

Derick

During the golden age of TLR, many photographers have used only TLRs.

A few photographers I know are: Fritz Henle, Robert Doisneau, Peter

Keetman(Volkswagen: A week at the factory), and Yousuf Karsh.

Sorry to keep harping on this but think it is an interesting take on the normal question. The corner to corner measurement of the film gate method of determining a "normal" focal legnth sounds great; but I understand that when a camera manufacturer (I don't remember wh in the 1940s came out with a camera in which the standard lens was a 45mm (because it was closer to normal) the camera did not sell. People were asked why, they said the normal lens was too short -- the Leica and Contax had set the standard at 50mm for normal in their minds.

The reason why I want to bring this up is because I think too many people get locked into very rigid ideas about what lenses to use and when based on these conventions; i.e: this focal legnth is perfect for portraits, that one for landscapes, etc. It is, essentially, a form of bullshit that I think has been vastly helped along by manufacturers of camera lenses (can't have all those people using just one lens, can you? Gotta buy more!) and and the industries moronic lackies in the photo-writing biz who try to write guides and articles on how to take great (i.e.: boring) pictures.

This thread started off with Cartier Bresson and his use of one lens. I like the example of Bresson because I believe that the use of the single lens actually spurred his creativity. His lens, camera, film always stayed the same -- to him that was just technical stuff. Photography was being out in the street, taking the pictures.

I would like to make a correct in my previous post. I should say Philippe Halsman instead of Yousuf Karsh. Halsman was known for his

studio portraiture works using Rollei TLRs.

I have enjoyed this thread on single lens using photographers - quite neat;

very appropriate to Medium Format discussion, since so many of us are

limited to only a few lenses in our camera systems (e.g., Koni Omega RF)

or budget (e.g., my student budget ;-) so we have to make do with less ;-)

 

<p>

 

as a recovering lens-aholic (we're the _worst_ kind ;-) I have posted a

page titled "Curing Lens Envy" http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronlensenvy.html

a surprising 80% of contest winning photos were taken with the normal lens

and most of us realize the normal lens is often the best corrected,

fastest, and cheapest lens in our kit. So why are so many folks down on them?

 

<p>

 

Mr. Poag's point is well taken above; it is fairly amazing how much b*llsh*t

you have to forget in order to really start learning real photography again.

 

<p>

 

A good trick is to go on photo-safari trips with only one lens and make do.

For example, with a 24mm lens (on 35mm camera) I discovered I could do

portraits provided I worked hard at controlling distortion, and had a lot

of closeup capability I hadn't realized I had until forced to explore the

capabilities of the only lens I had with me, rather than reach in my bag

for the macrolens or the portrait 105mm or whatever ;-).

 

<p>

 

Many 35mm users are shocked to discover that a typical full-kit of med

fmt camera lenses equates to a 35mm, 55mm, and 135mm trio of lenses on

35mm; fisheyes and zooms probably aren't available, or affordable if they

even exist ;-). No zoom lenses!!! Now there's a case of culture shock! ;-)

 

<p>

 

On a number of medium format systems, I have opted or been forced (TLRs

;-) to adopt the 80% solution - namely, that you could get nearly 80% of

those contest winning photos by using just the normal lens.

 

<p>

 

Sometimes, I cheat by using closeup lenses, and my front-of-the-lens

adapters for fisheye and superwide effects at very low cost (under $50 each)

http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronfe.html and bronaux.html provide some

details ;-) These are really extensions of the normal lens, right ;-)???

 

<p>

 

In short, many folks can be happy and produce great photographs with just

the standard, under-rated normal lens - and these noted photographers cited

in this thread have helped prove it is the photographer, rather than the

lens or camera, that makes the picture ;-)

 

<p>

 

Too often, readers of MFD or similar lists would conclude that you can't

do good med fmt work unless you have the latest and most expensive lenses

and kits of accessories. I suspect that many of us would do even better

work photographically if we had fewer distractions and choices to make

-and in fact, this may be one of the features of medium format

photography that makes it so beneficial to newcomers as a new medium.

 

<p>

 

regards to all - bobm

Immogene Cunnigham. Dianne Arbus.

A lesser-known, but highly influental American photographer who only used a standard lens was Ralph Eugene Meatyard. He was an optician by trade and was fascinated by the abilities of the camera, more specifically the lens itself. I believe his tool of choice was a single Rolleiflex with an 80mm lens. He was notorious for his "bad" habits; i.e, not making proof sheets, test strips, not washing his prints long enough, printing about 80% of his frames (he shot about 2000 rolls in his brief career), no filters, etc. He just read the negative, stuck it in his enlarger and printed it. But his haunting work speaks for itself. He was also a firm believer in the fact that you don't have to travel to exotic locales or big cities to get fascinating subject matter. He created his own world in and around his home of Lexington, KY. He rarely left the state, yet exhibited around the world with the likes of Robt. Frank, Lee Freidlander, A.A, and others. Personally, I have found much inspiration in his work and philosophies about photography. Check him out, you'll be glad you did.

Dorothea Lange, Irving Penn, Cecil Beaton, Lissettel Model, Helmut Newton, Robert Doisneau, David Bailey & Fritz Henle. Some of whom I can think of.

Keith Carter uses a Hasselblad, with perhaps a standard lens, but he tilts the film plane, probably with an arcbody or flexbody, to create some interesting effects. Although these can be just as expensive as lenses or bodies, the point is, you can manipulate the camera to do what you want it to, without the use of fancy, expensive lenses created for certain situations. Cartier-Bresson is a prime example not only for his practice, but his philosophy. Remember, "the decisive moment". That about sums it all up. Limitation spawns freedom.

David Douglas Duncan

I believe that it was either Ansel Adams or Edward Weston who said " if you have more than one lens, you are guaranteed to always have the wrong lens mounted on the camera.