Buying one prime lens and 35mm Body: advice please

[mikepeters]

<p>Hey Randy, you are right on the money. I don't know about anyone else here, but I actually shoot on the street in NYC with fixed lenses and film. To up the ante, I use medium format, a hand held meter and manual focus. Doing street photography with a manual camera is actually possible and even better than attempting to rely on technology to set your exposure and and focal point. Prime lenses will make you work harder to find the right composition, you will be forced to use your feet instead of relying on a zoom control. It is a discipline, and a damn fine one at that. <br>

A 50 mm lens is a very versatile focal length and a great way to start. In the end, you will probably wind up with something wider and longer to compliment it, and the 28 1.8 and 100 2.0 would be a good combo. However, as a single lens, it is the one that I would opt for now. The eos 1n or 3 body, without a booster is a nice compact package that has a great viewfinder and reliable AF if that is how you want to go, other bodies like an A2 or Elan, though smaller, have finders that are not as great. My experiences shooting with a 1Ds Mk2 on the street was that AF is not so reliable or predictable, my manual focus Hasselblad is much better, as is setting my own exposure.<br>

If you really want to do something, get a Nikon F or F2, they have wonderful viewfinders that are actually very easy to see and focus with. A 50 mm f2.0 Nikkor is one of the best ever made, and the 28 2.0 and an 85 or 105 1.8 will give you most of what you'll ever need and be of excellent quality. Also, no batteries to run out, and no motor to waste your film with. You're in charge! Also, Nikon lenses can fit on an adapter to EOS bodies. If and when you do go EOS digital, you will want L glass anyway, it really does make a difference.<br>

Now film. I like film. Film has a look, grain, a specific response to color and light, a signature if you will. It's not perfect like digital. I prefer it, even if it is a pain to work with. And, I like digital, but only for clients because they need a fast turn around and it's versatile for every situation. <br>

Film is different, and shooting it requires discipline, just like primes lenses. You will be more selective, you will shoot less, but learn more because you must learn to be patient and wait for the shot, not just spray a bunch of frames and hope the camera managed to get the right moment. You will of course blow frames, many many frames hopefully, but you will learn. <br>

Film also has more tonal information, if you expose it and process it properly. It is far less versatile than digital, but again, you will be forced to work within the limits of what you choose to shoot, and that is also a discipline. But, once you know those limitations and internalize them, you will be able to work more intuitively as there will be fewer decisions to make about technical stuff. You can concentrate on making images and less on which button to push. There is also a financial consideration with film, but again, it'll make you choose wisely before pressing the button. With my medium format film, it costs me almost a dollar every time I trip the shutter.<br>

What you do with the film, either scan or print in a chemical darkroom, it is a time consuming process. Either way, it will slow you down and make you choose which frames you care to work on, therefore you won't bore us to death with all 1000 frame you shoot in any one given day. Thank goodness for that! ;} <br>

Also, get yourself a good incident light meter and learn how to use it. In camera meters require that you look through it to set the camera. Incident meters allow you to have your camera set before you bring it up to your eye to shoot, saving time and allowing for moments of decisiveness. A sekonic 358 is a good long term investment, and using one gives me more consistent digital files too.<br>

If you have any further questions or want to bounce something off me in the future, feel free to email me.<br>

Mike</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>I think your lens choice is spot-on. That is <strong><em>the</em></strong> traditional combo. The only issues:</p>

<p>1. It will be limitting, particularly for shots needing wide angle, but still, the best compromise.</p>

<p>2. Canon's 50mm f1.4 is a bit "clunky", especially considering the price. I've got one, and would say it's the best 50mm option, but still...</p>

[jon_kobeck1]

<p>If you want only one lens for street and general use, the 35mm 1.4L is the best. 50 is too tight in this city. 24mm is also good but but it is a little too wide for me. 35 is the perfect number. </p>

[jon_kobeck1]

<p>If you want only one lens for street and general use, the 35mm 1.4L is the best. 50 is too tight in this city. 24mm is also good but but it is a little too wide for me. 35 is the perfect number. </p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<blockquote>

<p>I decided to go with film because I could get a top of the line product (body) for a couple hundred dollars as opposed to a mediocre digital slr for the same price.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I used to own the EOS 3 and as far as I'm concerned, my little cheapo 350D (Rebel XT) was every bit as good, sometimes even better. Even the cheapest DSLRs these days will give an EOS 3 or 1N a run for their money. I know other people will disagree but that's my opinion after using those two bodies a lot. The EOS 3 has a million AF points but they're a complete waste of time in my opinion, far better to have fewer but well placed AF points like the budget DSLRs. I also found the EOS 3 had poor AF in very low light. It, like many pro bodies, had no AF assist illuminator. Strangely, most cheap DSLRs have this facility. By the time you've run 40 or 50 films through your film camera and processed them all, you could have bought a decent DSLR.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I like the Nikon idea too. You can start out with cheap manual focus AIS lenses on an FE2 or FM2, or F3 and then use them on a higher end Nikon DSLR that provides metering with AIS lenses until you can afford some autofocus lenses. </p>

<p>If you really want to go back to basics you can do what I did and mount Nikon lenses via cheap adapters on a Canon EOS film body and Canon EOS DSLR until you can afford Canon autofocus lenses. You get metering but need to use stop-down method. </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Randy, if you're set on getting an EOS film body (and I'm certainly not going to be presumptuous and try to dissuade you from doing so), then you should get a 3 over a 1N. I routinely switch between my FD and EOS bodies, some of which have 97% viewfinder coverage and some which have 100%, and it doesn't make a demonstrable difference in how I frame my shots, or in how they turn out.</p>

<p>I have always found my 3's and 1V's AF systems to be superbly responsive, even in very low light. They're much than my 5D II's.</p>

<p>As far as the Elans go, they lack spot metering. So if that's a feature you use, I'd pass on them.</p>

<p>And as for prime lenses, while the EF 50/1.4 would be an excellent start, I agree with Jon that the 35/1.4 L would be even better for street photography. It is a very special lens, one of Canon's very best, but is accordingly dearly priced.</p>

<p> </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>I don't know about anyone else here, but I actually shoot on the street in NYC with fixed lenses and film. To up the ante, I use medium format, a hand held meter and manual focus. Doing street photography with a manual camera is actually possible and even better than attempting to rely on technology to set your exposure and and focal point. Prime lenses will make you work harder to find the right composition, you will be forced to use your feet instead of relying on a zoom control.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Explain to me <em>why</em> these are good things, please.</p>

<ul>

<li>not using "technology to set exposure and focal point."</li>

<li>working harder to find the right composition.</li>

<li>using your feet instead of zooming to get the composition.</li>

</ul>

<p>And then these:</p>

<ul>

<li>How is using a film camera "not using technology?"</li>

<li>Why do you (or do you?) assume that serious photographers who use zooms don't work just as hard to find the right composition?</li>

<li>What makes you think that photographers using zooms can't also use their feet <em>and</em> use the zoom?</li>

</ul>

<p>Has anyone thought about the fact that HCB used the small format 35mm Leica and manual focus lenses because, ahem, <em>this new technology was more advanced and effective than the older technology for working quickly and spontaneously? </em> After all, he could have used a Graphlex Speed Graphic or perhaps a view camera. That would have made him <em>work a lot harder</em> and not rely on <em>running around with a lightweight camera instead of moving his tripod</em> and he could have <em>avoided using technology</em> that made his sort of shooting more possible.</p>

<p>Just sayin'</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>(Who will now leave the house and wander about for a few hours with - tada! - a prime lens or two... :-)</p>

[frank.schifano]

<p>I think Mike's response is right on the money. If you want to use film, then by all means do so. Film does have a character all its own, and it is very different from digital capture. If that's what you like, then that's what you should use. I have no particular quarrel with digital capture. I don't prefer it is all. I use B&W film almost exclusively, then process and print what I like in my home darkroom. I buy film in bulk, and I'm not wedded to any particular brand. I buy what's cheap and available, and of reasonably good quality. Strangely, I have no problem with this for a couple of reasons. First, I do not ever expect to even attempt to emulate the quality I get from medium format cameras with 35 mm gear. Try as you might, and you might think you're getting close, that's not happening. Second, I've used so much film that none of it is strange any more. After a couple of rolls of something new, I can pretty much nail down what it's going to do 95% of the time.</p>

<p>Almost all of my photographs are made with a 50 mm lens, and I've never really found this to be terribly limiting. Street shooting in tight quarters like NYC often calls for something a little wider, and for that I find a 35 mm lens to be almost perfect. My standard walking around kit consists of 24, 50, and 85 or 105 mm focal lengths, with a definite strong preference for the 85 as my long lens when working out on the street. I am not generally looking to pick out a specific detail on a building from 200 ft away. I am often interested in picking out interesting characters going about their daily routines, and you don't do that from 1/2 a block away. Interiors are something else again, and you will want something wider than a 50 for that more often than you'd think. Still, you can do wonderful things indoors with a fast 50 that you'll never do with a zoom unless you spend big dollars for a constant aperture pro model. Even then you're saddled with f/2.8 at best. They're too slow for film cameras unless you use flash or push the crap out of your film. They're easier to use with digital capture because of the insanely high exposure indices that you can use. </p>

<p>I can't offer any advise as to which body you should choose, except that you should choose the one that feels good in your hand, and is easy for you to operate. Smaller and lighter is better on the street, but even the Canon F1 without motor drive isn't so big as to be obnoxiously intrusive like some of these more modern wunderkameras. Using prime lenses makes it even less noticeable.</p>

<p>But I tell you what. Sometime I grab by big old clunky Mamiya C220 TLR and no one, NO ONE notices. Yes, it only gets 12 shots to the roll of 120 film, so you need to carefully consider what you want before you shoot. Yes, it is slow to operate by comparison, forcing you to think about the shot before you make it. Do I recommend this sort of thing for a beginner still learning about exposure and composition? No. It's too expensive for that unless you have very deep pockets.</p>

[david_wu6]

<p>"... Just sayin' " Just making sense.</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>Randy, of the bodies you've mentioned-the A2, EOS 7, 7N-the 7N is the most recent. I started my EOS life on the A2 and absolutely loved it. It was a superb camera, ahead of its time IMHO. Its AF is older than that on the 7N and it's a bit larger and louder. As far as lenses go, the 35/1.4L is an outstanding lens I'm sure, but for that price you could get a 1vHS <em>and</em> a nice lens.</p>

[douglas_vitello]

<p>Randy,<br>

All the Elans are super quiet.Elans prior to the ElanII have some quality issues due to the shutter bumper degrading over time.My favorite is the ElanIIe because the focus assist light is very discreet (a deep ruby red color).Something often forgotten is that these models have a built in flash that comes in handy ever so often.They go for less than $60US these days so the extra few hundred bucks saved over a pro model can go towards the faster glass for low light work.I own a 3 and as some of the others have said it is a tremendous machine but it is big,heavy,loud,lacks a focus assist light,and built in flash.Not a low key package in my book for 'street' work.It does make a good weapon nonetheless when attached to a neckstrap if someone decides they want your camera!</p>

[mikepeters]

<blockquote></blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Explain to me why these are good things, please.</em></p>

<ul>

<li><em>not using "technology to set exposure and focal point."</em></li>

<li><em>working harder to find the right composition.</em></li>

<li><em>using your feet instead of zooming to get the composition.</em></li>

</ul>

<p><em>And then these:</em></p>

<ul>

<li><em>How is using a film camera "not using technology?"</em></li>

<li><em>Why do you (or do you?) assume that serious photographers who use zooms don't work just as hard to find the right composition?</em></li>

<li><em>What makes you think that photographers using zooms can't also use their feet and use the zoom?</em></li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>I know many very serious professional street photographers and none that I have ever met feel the need to rely on auto exposure, auto focus, auto wind or zoom lenses. I need not explain myself further than what is already in my response above. What I say is my opinion based on personal experience doing what Mr. Rubin was asking about, and first hand observation of some of the finest street photographers on the planet, Jeff Mermelstein, Bruce Gilden, Joel Meyrowitz, Matt Weber, Harvey Stein and others. Manual cameras, Leica's mostly, prime lenses and film predominate the genre. I'm not saying it's the only way to go, but it's a good way to go. However it requires mastery of technique and control of yourself and your equipment.<br>

I never said that photographers using zooms don't work as hard or don't use their feet finding a good composition. I only said that using a prime will make you work harder, and I've never heard anyone argue against working harder to make better photos. And I didn't say don't use technology, just don't give up all of your control to it as it is quite often far from perfect and not always reliable. That comes from years of experience. I believe it's always better to be in control and make one's own decisions and let the image live or die by ones own hand and not by an inability of automation to do the right thing.<br>

I'm not saying I'm right, just that it's how I see it. Now, I didn't mention this in my original post, but just to start a fire, I'll tell Mr. Rubin to do all his cropping in camera, or at least try to. I don't crop after exposure, but then, I do realize that's a practice that's not wildly popular or often advocated, so I'll just let it be.<br>

And yes, eos 3 is a fine camera with better af than a 1n. The 35 L is also a fine lens, but beyond what Mr. Rubin is looking to spend.</p>

[link]

<p>Hi Randy,</p>

<p>I have 4 of these small primes and no zoom:)</p>

<p>I often go out with just one lens. I've tried the 35 f2.0, and have been happy with the lens. But, now it seems when I choose just one lens...It's the 50mm f1.4. I'm using it on a full frame digital, and just love shooting in the DARK with it. I mean really dark. It's also very good for stitching panoramic photos, but I'm not sure you'll do that with your film camera, but I have with my FTb.</p>

<p>Just one opinion. But I almost never feel I can't make a good image with this lens.</p>

[lorenzo_ward1]

<p>one lens is not enough. I like prime lenses, so my camera (film) has a 35mm on it 90% of the time. in my pocket i have a 90mm lens. i use it for portraits and whenever i wish to compress perspective in landscape. this combination covers 99% of my needs. The advantage of prime lenses is that these 2 lenses combined weigh less than a serious zoom. but 2 lenses is the minimum for this snapper.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<blockquote>

<p>but just to start a fire, I'll tell Mr. Rubin to do all his cropping in camera, or at least try to. I don't crop after exposure, but then, I do realize that's a practice that's not wildly popular or often advocated, so I'll just let it be.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>well, you won't start my fire over that because you're right. While I have nothing against cropping and do it post-exposure if I think it will make for a better endresult more often than not I find I don't have to because I was trained that way. Still, I don't think it's harder work, It's just a different approach. Therefore I actually think "limiting" isn't a appropiate description in this context.<br>

In the end however it's not gospel or anything. The most important is what gets you the best results possible and in that context gear is the least important.</p>

[swilson]

<p>

<p>I have three fixed focal length prime lenses, a 28/2.8 a 50/1.8 and a 300/4.0, I use these because of a combination of image quality and speed of the lens. I would never thing to use one because it would magically make me a better photographer somehow. Fixed focal length lenses are a compromise as are zoom lenses, I try to pick the right one for the conditions I am photographing.<br>

As for cropping I find a photo will often need to be cropped differently depending on how it is going to be viewed. If I am sending a photo off to the local newspaper I will crop as tightly on the subject as I can since the resolution of a newspaper print is low the subject needs to be as large as possible. If I am making a fairly large print say 8x12 then I like a bit more of what is going around the subject in the photo. Many times I am going to crop simply because the photo does not lend itself to a 3:2 aspect ratio. When I was taught photography, a long, long time ago, I was taught that cropping was an important part of it, I believe this for more now then I did back then, I find I crop much more now then I did 40 years ago.</p>

</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>35mm is a great all round focal length. i shoot weddings, and i use two primes to do so; a 35mm and a 75mm. However, the 35mm would be used 80% of the time. so i agree on you choice of fl, but i don't agree on your choice of camera (slr).</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>a 35mm lens is definitely my choice for street. I have the f/2 and like it a lot. However, with street I almost always shoot in manual "preset" focus mode.....set at 7 ft or 12 ft, depending on my choice of subject(s). So, I don't worry about the auto focus with that lens....which aint the greatest in my opinion. I do also own "L" zooms, and with street photography I also use them in manual preset focus.</p>

<p>Now, that is for street....the 35mm lens....but for the rest of the photography you mention other lenses would be more ideal. To be exact i own 5 primes (Canon and Sigma), and an adapter to allow my 4 mamiya 645 medium format lenses to be used on my Canon EOS body(s).</p>

<p>I have no problems with using SLRs or DSLRs for street, but I also use range finders and TLRs.....Street is more your attitude than it is camera equipment. So, I wouldn't worry about the comments that suggest otherwise.</p>

[ae_ingveld]

<p>If you can´t afford the 35mm 1.4 then I´d go for the 50mm 1.4 :)</p>

[rashed]

<p>My friend Happy New Year to you and yours.<br>

If you are into people street photograpy, I would sugest that you got for a 200MM prime lens, the 50 is of no much work on the street.</p>

[anisshah]

200 mm? If you mean 20 mm, wouldn't that be a bit too wide?

[dwmitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>I used to own the EOS 3 and as far as I'm concerned, my little cheapo 350D (Rebel XT) was every bit as good, sometimes even better.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I own both of these cameras, and can tell you that the EOS 3 is superior in every way to the Digital Rebel XT, the only "limitation" being that it requires film. The AF on the EOS 3 is incredible, as is the large viewfinder. It can be a bit slow to focus in very low light, but still nails focus very accurately if you are a bit patient.</p>

<p>The EOS 3 is the main reason I keep shooting 35mm film; where else can you get a "full frame", pro body for next to nothing that let's you use L lenses the way they were meant to be used?</p>

<p>I will admit that it is relatively large & loud and may not be the best tool for street photography.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<blockquote>

<p>I own both of these cameras, and can tell you that the EOS 3 is superior in every way to the Digital Rebel XT</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Every way? What about the silly two handed operation of the 3, the stupid on/off switch, the daft cable release/flash sync caps that you lose within 24 hours, the sprung loaded side door that was always flapping around at the most inconvenient moment, the lack of an AF assist light, the crazy method of changing the battery that requires a coin or a screwdriver and lots of fumbling around at the most awkward moment (usually in the dark)?</p>

[jtk]

<p>Do you print your own? </p>

<p>That question's relevant because 35 on full frame (or good APS) can be a fine portrait lens...no hint of wide angle distortion if you crop (and wide angle distortion isn't necessarily a bad thing, despite photo political correctness edicts). A friend followed a presidential candidate for months with Nikon F4s, taping the screen of one to a pano-like format, using 28mm only. Beautiful, dynamic images printed on 11X14...got him lots of assignments after his man lost :-) </p>

<p>IMO some are averse to cropping due to their personal inability to print...stuck with labs... that handicap or fear of the full-frame, black outline Taliban.</p>