Jump to content

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


WM

Recommended Posts

<p>Hi folks,<br>

I am one of those 17-35, 24-70, 70-200, two flashes two SLR person who up to 9 months ago, sold everything and got myself a D700 and 50/1.4G.............my photos have now evolved to have a different look, I am running around harder and is shooting in 'stranger' positions, just to get the shot. In short, I am suffering for my art.....but while I am not able to get certain kinds of shots, some of the shots I get are well worth the effort.<br>

I want to know if there are any of you out there who only has a 50mm in your kit and a body, and have shot with that for quite a while.<br>

What are your experiences ?<br>

How long did you persist before you bought another lens ? Or are you considering getting another one now and why ?<br>

Did your photos get better ?<br>

Cheers, WM</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Some love the 50, others don't. It is not my only lens(50 1.4 AF-D) but I use it 95% of the time. I can focus pretty close, use it in low light, and it is small. I can't shoot things far away and expect them to fill up my frame but everything has some kind of limitations.<br>

Keep using it for awhile to make certain you know what it can do and if you are unhappy with the shooting style just change to something else. Have fun.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I started with the 50mm f'1.4 and kept with it for about 2 years, then got the 105mm and<br>

a year later the 35mm. Now have 8 lenses from 24mm to 500mm and know how to<br>

use them all. Nothing wrong with that 50mm you have. Get your next lens when you need it.<br>

Best regards,<br>

/Clay</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I wouldn't call what you did suffering. You just unloaded a bunch of unnecessary stuff and consolidated it with one lens. From there, you can concentrate on what really counts, and that is composition. The great Henri Cartier-Bresson used just one lens; a 5cm. </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>When I first started out, I had a N65 with the 28-80 and 70-300 kit lenses. Then I got buffaloed into thinking that if I bought some primes, somehow my pictures would magically get better. Bought the 50mm 1.8 D and used that exclusively for about 6 months. Then I bought a 24mm 2.8 D and used them both. Not surprisingly, my pictures still basically sucked. Now I have several more primes and 3 zooms (including the kit lenses) and I use them all depending on my mood and how lazy I'm feeling. I find that, now that I've gone digital, I don't use the 50 nearly as much as I used to because of the crop factor of my camera. 75mm (equivalent) is just not a good focal length for what I find myself shooting these days, although I do still use it sometimes.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think my images got better when I switched to just a couple of primes.</p>

<p>Funny thing is that most arguments here are about whether this is because the primes are of better technical quality. To me that is almost irrelevent. What it is, in my humble opinion, is that the 'suffering' to which you refer is just a forced consciousness of the decisions you have to make for each shot based on the restriction to one focal length.</p>

<p>Also, if this makes sense, you get used to what works best for a focal length. I use mainly a 35 and 85 (on DX) and have done so for over 2 years now, so in a strange way my eyes have trained themselves to know how a scene would work at those focal lengths. As a little anecdote my wife recently got a Canon S90 P&S and one option for the control ring at the front is to switch between 'traditional' FLs (from memory 24,35,50,85,135) rather than continuous zoom. I think if I used that little beauty of a camera I would enjoy that feature for the reason I have just described.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I would say that I shoot differently when I use prime lenses, but I wouldn't restrict myself to a 50 mm (to begin with, I like the look of 45mm and 55mm better).</p>

<p>"Selling everything" seems a bit extreme, but hey, if it's satisfying your creative urges, best wishes! Where can we see your work? (specifically your 50 mm experiments)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I want to know if there are any of you out there who only has a 50mm in your kit and a body, and have shot with that for quite a while.<br /> What are your experiences ?<br /> How long did you persist before you bought another lens ? Or are you considering getting another one now and why ?<br /> Did your photos get better ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When I got serious about (street) photography. I shot a 35mm on a leica for awhile in the film days (3 or 4 years, I think). Then, I added a 50mm and a 28mm only. Soon after that, I figured out I rarely use 50mm...For another couple years, I use only the 35mm and 28mm. But 3-4 film years equal, I think, 1-2 digital years. That's my experience.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For now, it is the 50mm/F1.4G on my D3, I feel much better than 50mm on DX body. I like it at most time, but for some special case, 50mm is nightmare, such as a small room where no place to stand to get the whole picture, or some sports photography.</p>

<p>Anyway, 50mm is very similar your vision so it can inspire you in common situation.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>In the real life, I use to need up to three focals (note that I prefer to say "focals" instead of "lenses"):</p>

<ul>

<li>Wide: for indoor shots.</li>

<li>Normal: for everything outdoors.</li>

<li>Long: for portraits.</li>

</ul>

<p>As you can see, it is not new. As it was, or as it has always been, "serious" photographers like to cover -at least- this scenarios.</p>

<p>About lenses, it doesn`t matter; the ones who work for you (and your budget)... if you focus on your subject/motivation/creativity rather than in your gear, any tool will serve you.<br /> <br /> Personally, on FX my most used lens -by far- could be the 50AFS, for portraits a 105VR, and I get the wide angle from either a 24mm prime or any zoom. I must say that I have tons of cameras, lenses and accesories, in all formats and imaginable variations that are mostly beautifully stored inside a closet.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've always had other lenses usually I would just grab either a Canonet or an SLR with a 50mm. Now the Canonet is broken and I tend to grab my FM2 with a 35mm. At the moment I like the 35mm view point a bit better but that could be because it is a recent purchase and is maybe closer to the 40mm on the Canonet. I don't like carrying around a lot of gear so I am quite happy to take one body with one lens. With my DSLRs I tend to take my Tamron 28-75. I should try the 35mm 1.8 Nikkor or the Sigma 30mm 1.4 but I have not got round to it yet.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Suffering is when you wait 4 hours in the cold, cold rain waiting for a shot that only gives you a minute or two of shooting possibilities while your extremeties are going painfully numb.... or crawling amongst deer droppings in order to get the shot..... a 50mm on a D700 is nothing new - we've all had that on SLRs for years (X700 + 50/1.4, Dynax 5 + 50/1.7) or Rangefinders (Ql17 40mm/1.7, Contax G1 with 45/2 etc)</p>

<p>I think shooting with a prime forces you to understand two things<br>

a) How perspective really works<br>

b) How to crop using a long/wide lens in-camera</p>

<p>The only thing I miss from a prime would be the lack of DOF, else if I'm stopped down, the only differences for me between a zoom and a prime would technical issues like bokeh chracteristics - ignoring focal length of course.</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Alvin</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm that kind of guy, I stopped zooming and took a simple 50mm, this changed the way I see in that way that I'm not calculating different length while out for shooting, just what I simply see...<br>

You may have less - zoom-paparazzi like shoots, but the 50mm are then the right shots - at least for me.<br>

Meanwhile 35mm is also in my collection, and it looks like replacing the 50mm.<br>

But all that probably depends on what you like to shoot. Landscape & wildlife etc pp is for sure a different task.<br>

Regards Axel</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Most of us of a certain age, experienced the days when film cameras came packed with 50mm lenses. So in my case my 1st SLR was my Petri FT at age 15. This and it's 50mm/F1.8 were my only camera and lens until age 17, when I got a Nikkormat with it's 50mm/F2.</p>

<p>As I recall, I didn't own another piece of glass until age 18, when I got a 200mm/F4. So for over 3 years, I shot nothing but a 50mm lens. And since I had never looked through a wider or longer lens. I was perfectly happy.</p>

<p>In later years, I worked for a few wedding shooters that only owned normal lenses for their medium format cameras. (They used heir feet.)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Although brought up on a diet of 50mm only I eventually went down the route of festooning myself with the most expensive zooms available.</p>

<p>Then, on a trip to Morocco, owing to a logistical mishap I found myself separated from my zooms and was just left with an F6 and a 50mm to use for a few days. It was a photographic epiphany for me. I had so much fun with that most plain vanilla, basic combination that it was the beginning of the end for my use of zooms and as of about a month ago I no longer own a single zoom lens and I try to use one prime only for almost all my shooting now - a 35mm. So although I haven't become a complete hermit by selling everything and living a bare bones photographic lifestyle I have simplified it a lot.</p>

<p>Sure it makes you work harder but my photography has improved as a result of this and I firmly believe that if you are not suffering for your art then you are not really trying. Convenience is not a word that should come up in this context because it is too close to laziness. Note that I am not saying that zooms are for the lazy - there are plenty of circumstances where they are the best tool by far (weddings/events/sport) - but for travel photography and landscapes, for example, using a prime makes you get physically closer and that is always good.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I found that after shooting with mostly primes for a while, now i'm using zooms like primes .... ; if you park yourself zooming in and out, you are not physically involved in your pic... (although sometimes you are force to do so). Zooms are great for tele... you point at your subject, zoom in and you get the pic, quickly....</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>When I first started shooting, I had only a Pentax MX and a 50mm f1.4 (real men bought 1.4 lenses) for about 2 or 3 years if I recall. I think I took better pictures then... I think I added a total of 4 or 5 lenses and one 1.5X teleconverter to the kit over the years.</p>

<p>Seriously, though, lately, my super zoom stays at home (not today, I'm going to a baseball game) and my 35 stays on the camera.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I do well with one prime fitted. It helps me pre-visualise the photo before I take it (this is especially so with portraits) and I walk with a 'mental viewfinder' way of thinking so I have to be prepared to stop and make the most of the moment. I love really filling the frame with 50mm lenses - you can make some powerful shots with no wasted space. I do find 45mm a little easier for my applications though as it works better for landscapes than 50mm.</p>

<p>I may start a 50mm thread on 'No Words' if one is not already running.</p>

<p>Ian</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Many of us of a certain age started out with simple cameras, or maybe a Yashica TLR and had no choice in the matter of lenses. Once I had an SLR I still tended to use the 50mm. Only several years later did I pick up more lenses, but it was a long time after that when I learned to really use different focal lengths to advantage. I still like an SLR/50mm combo.</p>

<p>Oddly, when I shoot film, which is very rare these days, I use only primes. I've never liked zooms or a lot of features on a film camera and that works well for me. When I shoot digital it's all about taking advantage of the available technology. I have no use for primes at all, well, other than macro, and insist on VR for longer focal lengths and AF for everything. It's a strange dichotomy, as both are means to an image yet they have almost nothing in common for me in practice.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...