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

[brucecahn]

<p>I take an M6 when I want a camera on the street. I have only the 50, f2 for it. In fact I have an M3 for backup, but only that one lens for both. Once I bought a 28mm, years ago. I carried it on a body for a while, but it was more trouble than it was worth, so I sold it. I do have other cameras, some with many lenses, but I prefer the Leica and one lens for street.</p>

[MattB.Net]

<p>I like the simplicity of shooting with primes. I own a couple of zooms, but find the primes on the camera more often than not. I like my SMC A 1.7 MF for low light and portraits and I just recently got a 15mm f4 Limited which has been a joy to shoot with. I still use my 18-55 and 55-300 when they are the right tool for the job, but much of my day to day shooting is with a prime.<br>

I also like single speed bikes and cars with manual transmissions, but also own some geared bikes and an auto car (truck actually). I like the minimalist approach if it fits the job but I'm not opposed to using technology where appropriate. But I get the most pleasure from using simple, well designed things so that is what I try to do as much as possible.</p>

[jim_service]

<p>i am annoyed by the notion of "zooming with your feet". you move your shooting location to change perspective. you change perspective to arrange the position and relative size of the elements of the composition. you then choose the focal length that frames that composition with the least cropping in post. a zoom will often allow you to capture that image without any post cropping at all, thus sometimes making up for the difference in quality compared to a prime.<br>

using a zoom, or something other than a 50, is not lazy. you still need to take the (sometimes considerable) effort to get to the location of the best perspective.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Thats also one of the good things about shooting with just a prime when you move in closer the perspective changes and can make for a more interesting shot. The problem is that many beginners don't think about focal length or camera to subject distance and how it effect the images. As long as their zoom is long enough to zoom in on details and wide enough to get everything in when needed they tend to just stand at the same safe camera to subject distance and just zoom to fill the frame with their chosen subject. With a fixed focal lenght they would be forced to explore and would learn how camera to subject distance affects the images they make they would also learn when to move in close or when to pick a longer focal length.</p>

[williamchuttonjr]

<p>I also feel that using a limited number of primes makes me a better photographer.<br>

Get a 35 or an 85 prime – depending on the subjects you like to photograph – and shoot with it for a year. Use your 50 when circumstances tell you that focal length might be best suited for the subject. But don't carry both lenses (unless you want to).</p>

[dillan k]

<p>I once had a 28-105mm consumer zoom, but I've since (over the years) replaced it with a 24mm f/2.8, a 50mm f/1.8 and a 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens. I am very happy that I did. Now I have to think about each situation that I walk into. I love my primes. Now, I have to 'make' the photo with what I have on the camera. I become part of the situation. Like others have mentioned above, I have to be aware of how my chose focal length behaves when I use it. A 24mm lens is not the same as a 50mm lens, even if the subject is the same size in the frame. All in all, that's the way I like it. With primes I am more involved with the act of creating a photo. Yes, it takes more work, but it's more rewarding--in my humble opinion.</p>

[stp]

<p>I want to start with what my eyes see. I want to be guided by my experience of the landscape. I'll use a tool to try to capture whatever my eyes see and whatever it takes to capture the essence of my experience. If one lens will do that, fine, I'll use the one lens. If it takes more than one lens to capture what I see in the landscape, I'll use more than one lens. It starts with the experience, not with the equipment. I see nothing virtuous about a priori restricting myself to a single lens except that I will get to know that lens better, which is not a trivial accomplishment. Nevertheless, it's starting with the end and the means rather than with the inspiration and the goal.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<blockquote>

<p>I also feel that using a limited number of primes makes me a better photographer.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That seems to capture the essence of the discussion. The psychology thing. But the learning aspect has its logic too.<br>

Analogous to lighting with one light...When I took a workshop on studio, the first thing we did was to learn how to do a job with one light. And do it right too. Then add fill. Then maybe a hair light. Sometimes one light is the best choice even now.... It sure simplifies things.<br>

Today's little adventure. I needed to shoot the guts of a refrigerator compressor assembly with the access panel off. OK. Grabbed my E-1, which happened to be fitted with the f 2.0 50 mm. Oops. I could not get back far enough to capture the compressor and the tubes and the fans without a lot of fiddling and jockeying and, yes, some frustration as I had to see that the flash range was correct as well....<br>

Jut reinforces what the 'horses for courses' folk argue, is all.<br>

With one additional thought. Primes take time,do they not? I am not a patient shooter and never will be. Some are and argue that one must learn to go more with the flow and all that.Again psychology and a kind of quasi religion.</p>