Photographing with one prime lens only

<p>I know you Leica folks do this all the time but I would like to reach the point where I felt confident enough to just go out with one fixed focal length lens. I've tried the XE1 with the 27mm (about 41mm equiv.) and had some success but I'm always missing my zooms. Maybe its the uninspiring focal length, not wide enough, not long enough. Whats the mind set? </p>

<p>If I go out with just a prime, film or digital, it is a fast 50. Suppose it is partly because that's the way I started a long time ago. But mostly if /when I go out late in the day the light is turning toward evening and I want the speed. 50 is a lens that will do a lot of things well. <br>

If I had a fast 35 I might use that, excellent street lens.<br>

Just a question of thinking in line with what the lens will do and zooming with your legs to get the shot you want. Some, you won't get exactly, but probably something usable. Good luck!</p>

<p>If I look at my past photos, most of the better ones were shot with a 50mm of some sort. I don't expect that you would bond with it immediately, but it's a good length, and if you force yourself to use it, you'll get better. . . . if that's what you want. I started, decades ago, with a 50 and then a 28, and when I go out that's what I still usually take, or a 24 instead of the 28. For me, that covers all possibilities.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if it doesn't suit the style of what you do, don't feel like you have to force yourself. Lots of people use, for instance, only a 35mm.</p>

<p>When I began in photography, I had a Japanese rangefinder - fixed 45/2.8 lens which I used for about 8 years - it did the job, but I really wanted the option of interchangeable lenses - so picked up a SLR. After 2 years a friend, who had been a Leica salesman in a previous life,lent me one of his and persuaded me into buying my first Leica...but being poor as a church mouse, I could only afford one lens - and it was a 35/2.8 which was my main lens for the next 10 years. I augmented it with a 135 when I got a once in a lifetime assignment with NASA, but after that it was back to the 35 for almost everything. It was finally another 5-6 years before I moved back toward a 50. In the 1990s I started doing a lot of work with SLRs, even had a few zooms...but only bought what was considered the very best. These days most of my time is back to the primes, and I rarely miss not having another lens with me or not having a zoom. I pretty much learned to zoom with my feet, and as a one lens with me type guy, that axiom still holds true. It is what you get used to. Most of my friends wouldn't think of going out without a zoom or at least 2-3 primes.</p>

<p>I only have a couple of zooms that I bought before I discovered primes (having spent a little fortune on the zooms, I am loath to get rid of them!).<br>

I usually carry 2 bodies (1 film and 1 digital), each with a prime on it. Quite often one will be a wide and the other a normal or a telephoto (between 85 and 135). If I can't make the image with one of these 2 options and zooming with feet, I don't make it, and look for other opportunities. I must say that this approach does challenge me to explore photographic opportunities that I might not have otherwise.</p>

<p>If you go out to make some photographs and find you always backing up to get more in the frame then you need a wider angle lens. If, on the other hand you find you are often moving closer to get less in the frame then you need a narrower angle lens. Basic but true.</p>

<p>I love photography with a single focal length. In the past, I've gone out with two 50mm lenses on two bodies, one with color film, the other with black and white. Now when I use a single focal length it's usually a 28mm, on full frame.<br>

For me, with one focal length, the important thing is knowing when not to shoot, and to let it go. When I see something that would work well with a lens that is longer or shorter than what's on my camera, then I've seen it, just not photographed it.</p>

<p>My favorite combo is a rangefinder camera M-3 Leica with DR Summicron 50 f2 or a Nikkor 35 f2 either on F-2 or Canon F-1 with Canon f2 35mm. My back_up is Sony digicam</p>

<p>As always, much good and useful advice here on what is, to me, a highly subjective matter.</p>

<p>I cut my teeth in photography in the 1960s with TLRs, first a Yashica, then a Rolleiflex, when 80mm standard lenses were the norm. The Rollei added a 35mm insert kit, and the option of +/-120mm altho' on a smaller format.</p>

<p>In the 1970s I went to a Mamiya 500 SLR with a 50mm Sekor and 28mm and 135mm Hanimex lenses. Trekked across Asia and shot thousands of good images. Sold a lot of stock. The good old days. Even B&W images of Bali. Unthinkable today you can't give away a Bali shot, however good. Then Nikkormats. For 20 years my walkabout lens was a 35mm f/2 on an FT2. I still have it, and I use it every year, to remind me how good it</p>

<p>I briefly returned to MF in the 1980s. A Mamiya C3 with three lenses. A pain to lug around, also changing lenses on windswept fields or high peaks. The Rollei outshot the Mamiya, but didn't have interchangeable lenses. A big plus.</p>

<p>In the 1990s, back to SLRs. The 35mm lost out to a 28mm, a marvelous street lens and even (with a lot of TLC) for architecture. 2000s, definitely digital. Nikons, D90, now D700. Ten lenses, including two zooms. I'll replace the now 7 year old D700 later this year, with... ??? Still considering. Another Nikon, definitely</p>

<p>My most often used lens is the 28mm, then 50mm, then 24mm, then 85mm. A 20mm and 180mm see little use now. For years I used a 28-85mm zoom which produced fine images with (almost) everything but architecture, too much distortion of verticals at the 'wide' end. This lens now mostly stays on the D90, used a few times a year by my partner. It's a good lens, and served its purpose well, but it's old tech and its use by time has passed.</p>

<p>For B&W it's film, a Fuji GA645wi, one lens, 45mm (28mm equivalent). In future, what? A lighter Nikon DSLR, for sure. I have two Contax G1s and five lenses from 21mm to 90mm. Am very tempted to carry a G1 with the 35mm Planar for B&W, with the 28mm and 90mm in my bag. The 45mm Planar, a wonderful lens, is as new. I've used it maybe five times.</p>

<p>That's how my photographic 'eye has evolved over six decades. All this has been a personal life journey. I've been a 28mm man all along. If limited to one camera and one lens for whatever time remains, I'll stay 28mm, but heyn, that 35mm f/2 Nikkor is a superb piece of glass.</p>

<p>In reading the other posts, I feel safe in saying we are mostly all the same in the long run. We start our with a modestly priced camera and one lens, and end our wandering with the same in high quality gear. To me, there is something innately satisfying about this. It seems natural. Less is... whatever. In the end, it's about the images anyway, not the gear.</p>

<p>JD in Kuching, Sarawak</p>

<p>PS I have way too much gear, of course. (Don't we all?) I intend keeping it all. Further down the track, my executor can decide how to deal with all those storage boxes, also the darkroom. For now, I'll just go on using and enjoying it. </p>

<p>On a 24x36mm image area, lenses shorter than 35mm start to "look wide angle". Shots with lenses longer than 70mm "look" like they are telephoto lenses - compression and all.</p>

<p>If you want those effects, fine. I personally like either 35mm or ~60mm lenses best for single-lens shooting, but it really is a matter of taste rather than some "truth".</p>

<p>Somewhere between 40 to 50mm is thought by many to best approximate the view of the human eye, however, FWTW.</p>

<p>I always like 35mm. <br>

When I bought my FM, I bought it with the AI 35/2.0, and for some time that was the only lens for it.</p>

<p>Before that, I used my father's Canon VI, which has 35mm, 50mm, and 135mm LTM lenses. The 35mm was my favorite for indoor flash shooting (especially as the Vivitar 283 covers 35mm). Also good for outdoor scenery, such as mountains, lakes, and trees. </p>

<p>I used to use medium telephotos or long focus lenses a lot, but less now. I keep a wide angle zoom (16 to 35) for certain images where necessary but am shooting mainly these days with a 50mm f2 lens and using my feet as a zoom. I think multi lenses or heavy zooms are overkill for most of my subject matter and ways of perceiving it. </p>

<p>Going out with one lens is a mission of sorts. What can I do with this lens? It doesn't matter if it's wide angle, normal or telephoto. Each has an application. The trick is to find a subject that can be captured in some unique way with that lens. I suppose my most likely choice would be a medium wide angle, 35 mm. I have gone out recently with a 25 mm lens, partly because it was new, and partly because it is wider than my customary "walk-about" lens with new possibilities. On other occasions, I've carried only a 90 mm lens, for similar reasons. A longer lens is useful in isolating details and blurring the background. It's not necessarily practical, it's just the rules I set for myself. A 50 mm lens is just about right for shooting out the window of a moving car, even if I have an aversion to going out solo with it.</p>

<p>If your mission is less restricted (gear oriented), like something you're being paid to do (even if you are a volunteer) or a vacation, you need more flexibility. However if you train yourself to explore the possibilities of one lens, it opens your mind in a creative sense. How do I best cover this subject? Which lens (lenses) should I try? It would be foolish to go unprepared for surprises when you're not the only one who needs to be satisfied with the results.</p>

<p>JDM's comment caught my attention and I'd like to comment. My first adjustable camera was an Instamatic 500 with the f2.8 Xenar 38 lens. I shot 100's of 126 test cartridges for EK in the 60's and got used to the square format. Testing 35 film, I was then given a Rollei 35S with the optional f2.8 Sonnar 40 lens and liked that focal length results even more. The 40 format seemed to fit what I wanted to photograph and I still feel 35 is wide and 50 a bit tight. But now I shoot mostly with 50 Summicrons as people seem more comfortable if I back away. I get weird comments shooting with a film camera as many young people have never seen professional film cameras up close. If really interested, I usually have a couple of B/W prints with me. Monochrome images are a whole new world to young people.<br>

A total of all the years of photograph experience and 35 rolls shot by the above forum commenters gives good insight to our varied outlooks on photography. One thread came through overall, the images you want to make will point you toward the setup that fits you best. This subject has generated some of the most thoughtful posts I've seen on this subject, I hope we've been of guidance and help. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm always missing my zooms... Whats the mind set?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For me, the point is accepting I am out and about with only that one single focal length, and whatever I want to frame has to work with that perspective. So, when I am working with one or two primes, I do not actively notice framing that would only work with wider angles or much more tele than what I carry. It's kind of refreshingly simple (no choice, so it's either do or don't), and much easier to pre-visualise, in my view (or mind) anyway.</p>

<p>For me personally, a 35 or a 50 is always part of the kit, and often both of them. Lately I've been enjoying a fixed-lens 40mm rangefinder, and that does work well. If I'd have to choose one focal length for the rest of time, it'd be 35mm, but I feel a 50mm is different enough too (somehow more intimate than a 35, though a kind of formal too). Ideally, the combination 35 with 90 (or 105), if that bit more flexibility is allowed ;-)<br>

But every now and then, taking only a 24mm or only a 105mm, and make it work, it can help sharpen the senses and study scenes with a different point of view.</p>

<p>I'm headed to NJ to visit my daughter at the end of the week and we are going many, many places while up there, including at least one day in Manhattan to make my first pilgrimage in person to B&H.</p>

<p>I'll wind up using the 35mm f2 Summicon ASPH at least 85-90% of the time on my M262, but I'll always carry the 21mm f2.8 Elmarit ASPH and the 75mm f2 APO Summicon ASPH for those times a wider or tighter view is the better option.</p>

<p>The other nice part about using this outfit rather than my Olympus E-M1 and f2.8 zoom outfit, the Leica set all fits easily in a tiny Think Tank Retrospective 5 bag. Easy carry.</p>

<p>One lens-only is an idealistic thought, but I own interchangeable lens cameras for a reason.</p>

There are an infinite number of good subjects and I am happy to just try and find the ones that suit the lens

I have on the camera that I'm using. I started with a fixed 50 mm and now tend to like wider angles, the

fixed 28mm on my digital or whatever the lens on my cell phone is. I can pass on all the other subjects

more suitable to focal lengths other than what is available at the moment.

<p>Hardly a coincidence that so many fixed lens 35mm cameras were made with lenses of 50mm focal length or a bit less.</p>

<p>Actually, in early days, the 50 was normal. Diagonal of 35mm film exposure, and purportedly close to what the human eye sees. Came across a Leica article a while back.</p>

<p>It depends on how you see -- or rather how you think about what you see.</p>

<p>I have a only a 28-90 kit zoom (35mm eq) and have gotten into the habit of always returning it to 35mm. Often that captures "everything" when I'm looking at something. Second most common is to go all the way up to 90m (and I think I would rather a little longer). My theory is that most of the time, whether I have a camera with me or not, I'm doing one of two things. Either I'm looking at a whole or the relationship between a part and the whole, or I'm looking at a detail that I want to understand to make sense of the whole. For me these two focal lengths have a field of view matching the two most common ways for me to use my eyes. </p>

 

A 50mm for the reasons exposed above, and a good one. put some money on it, it will help you forget the lazyness of

zooming. look at Zeiss lenses

<p>I could live with a 28mm equiv. </p>

<p>Sanford -- an interesting exercise is to analyze and quantify EXIF data for a few favorite jaunts and see the predominant focal lengths you used. Of course what you see in town will be different than out in the country, but it can be revealing as to the choices you made, and directional toward choosing your one lens.</p>

<p>Sandy, I have three zooms that start at the 28mm equiv. (Nikon, Panasonic, and Fuji) and favor the extremes, mostly the wide end. I used the 27mm today and placed eight photos in the "worth another look" folder and hope one or two make the final cut. A good day.</p>

<p>I have a similar situation, but all Nikon. At least with my cameras and windows, it shows the focal length used. Anyway, just a thought. I check periodically and find the results interesting. Helps me pack a travel kit to match the trip. </p>