A single prime lens for walkaround?

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>yes, just imagine how far better would HCB turn out to be if he had a tamron 18-250....</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

<br>

 

<p>

<p dir="ltr">Jumping from a prime to a hyperzoom sounds a bit weird move, at least as I see it, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him choosing a short range fast zoom like the 24-70/2.8, if they have existed in his time. <br>

 

<p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

 

<p>

<p></p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

<br>

 

 

</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>yes, just imagine how far better would HCB turn out to be if he had a tamron 18-250....</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>If your suggestion is that a "real photographer" like HCB would not consider modern and versatile equipment such as that which has been developed since his time... you don't understand HCB.</p>

<p>His use of a small handheld 35mm film cameras was a defiance of photographic tradition which was normally done with much larger cameras (have you seen photos of Dorothea Lange at work?) and it was thought that small cameras like the 35mm rangefinders were not worthy of serious photography. However, as we well know, HCB was able to make the photographs that he did <em>because</em> he chose to use this more modern (state of the art, actually) gear that allowed him to work quickly and without being encumbered by a larger camera.</p>

<p>And why did he use a prime? If zooms were so great, why didn't he use them. Because the small primes were the only option he had!</p>

<p>You don't emulate anything about HCB's photography other than the equipment he used a few decades ago if you choose to only use primes "because they were good enough for HCB." Using radical and very modern equipment he did brilliant work. Yet today, eschewing modern equipment seems to be roughly opposite of the approach of HCB.</p>

<p>Yes, you can - like HCB - work quickly and effectively do street photography using a body with a 50mm prime. (I shoot this way sometimes.) But you can also work quickly and effectively in the "street" using a well-chosen zoom. I'm not convinced that if HCB were selecting his equipment today that he would necessarily limit himself in a retro way.</p>

<p>And, of course, none of this has much of anything to do with the OP's question. Again... go back and look at the list of subjects that he mentions. This most certainly does not line up with the "classic" street approach.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Two prime lens combo in 1mm-99mm I'd say a Cosina 20/3.5 and a Tamron 90/2.8 Macro.</p>

<p>Why not Canon? Because the Cosina is tiny -which is nice- and the Tamron is the longest Macro I could fit in the focal length limit.</p>

<p>My personal Canon version might be 24/2.8 (or 24L) and 100L macro.</p>

 

[Uhooru]

<p>Well it depends if you like wide angle or short tele, or normal. It really doesn't matter. Just understand when using a prime, it takes some time and use of a lens to get used to the particular focal length. You have to just realize that you are the zoom and not the lens. You need to learn what to expect from the focal length. You need to get use to the foreshortening traits on wider lenses, the compression traits on teles and get a feel for what they do to the pics. These are one of those questions that has no good or bad answer. Why don't you try some out via borrowing or renting yourself instead of depending on people whose experience may not jive with yours. Do your job and try some out, opinions are worthless as you have to do the shooting yourself. Given all that, I prefer 35mm and the old adage is the most versatile lens is the normal 50mm.</p>

[james_symington1]

<p>Strictly in my opinion the whole prime versus zoom debate boils down to what you are trying to achieve photographically when you step out of your front door.</p>

<p>If you want to capture everything that you see that takes your fancy you will fall into having zooms that cover everything from 14mm to 200mm or whatever. You will come back home with shots of street scenes, landscapes, people, birds and bugs. They will be good photos but they will be an incoherent jumble of different things.</p>

<p>If you know what kind of photograph you want you will be able to do it better with one or two primes. The result of knowing what you want is a <em>portfolio</em> of consistent images with a distinctive style that is recognisably yours. The 'got everything covered' photographer comes back with shots that could have been taken by any number of people. But both will come home feeling good about what they have done.</p>

<p>Neither approach is right or wrong - just the objective that is different. I used to have 'everything covered' but now I let those once irresistible opportunities to shoot everything go and concentrate much more single-mindedly on developing my style.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>HCB was able to make the photographs that he did because he chose to use this more modern (state of the art, actually) gear that allowed him to work quickly and without being encumbered by a larger camera.</em></p>

<p>Right, but even today, primes are much smaller than zooms of comparable quality and maximum aperture. If you look at Cartier-Bresson's work, many images were made indoors in available light. Cartier Bresson didn't emphasize technical quality of the images but that's because with the film and cameras available at that time he had to choose between a) an elaborate, large setup for high technical quality and b) a small camera for being able to work inconspicuously. Today you can get both high quality and a small camera, e.g. Panasonic GF1+20/1.7 is more compact and in some ways easier to work with than a Leica M and 50mm lens. Today, the "standard" way of working for a pro PJ is the f/2.8 zooms - if you want to be inconspicuous then you'd choose something else (no, the answer is not a 18-200). IMO there's nothing retro about using fixed focal length lenses unless you do it with "I want to do something retro in my photography" in mind rather than effectiveness.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>i guess the 'zoom' mentality goes hand in hand with slr small format cameras. other formats are mostly not inflicted with these over sized monstrosities.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>For the DX format I use a 10-20 zoom. Over the years (and I've been taking photographs for over 50 of them), my view has gotten wider and wider. With the high megapixel count and the ability to crop and hold value, the wider the image the better it is for me. I also do a lot of panorama stitching of images and using a wide format with lots of overlap produces better panorama images. But it all comes down to the vision of the person behind the camera. 99.9% of images are just pictures of places, people, animals or objects. It is that rare 0.1% that are actually photographs that show some insight by the photographer. Other than that most are just "I was there" images.<br>

I would keep the lens on the camera that best expresses your point of view and captures your creativity. I was fortunate to spend a summer with Ansel Adams many years ago. Ansel always had the image complete in his mind long before he picked up a camera and went to the location to take the picture. He may have had that image in mind for years before he actually opened the shutter. <br>

Great photographs are created between your ears, not in your camera, darkroom or computer.</p>

[robert_thommes1]

<p>Well said, John. Thanks for that.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>For me, if I had to have only one prime to walk around with, it would probably end up being a 28 mm (in 35 mm camera equivalent terms). I just find that it gives the most interesting perspectives for me, with the possibility of interplay between foreground objects and the wider background. When used skillfully, a 28 mm wide angle can tell a story more than a standard lens can. That's not to say I wouldn't use the 35, 50, 85 and 105 lenses whenever appropriate.</p>

<p>There's nothing wrong with having a zoom lens, but I think there are advantages to learning to use prime focal lengths well first, even if it's on the zoom. It's hard to describe, but you develop a certain intuition about where to be in relation to the subject... and in my humble opinion, this is a much better skill to have than the ability to move a big zoom in and out. Plus, as I've said in another thread, the average person can easily buy a fast prime. Getting close with a fast lens beats being farther away with a slow one any day of the week, as far as I'm concerned.</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>You already see that the answer depends on many things and mostly on you (the photographer) and where you walk. But it's not difficult to figure out the answer. Just do an experiment: Put on the 18-250mm lens and walk around. It's better to do that for many days like a week or two. After collecting all the pictures and throw away the bad ones, you do a statistics and find out what focal length you use the most. Your answer will be the prime lens that has a closest focal length to your statistics</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>50mm or 35mm</p>

[ukhov]

<p>35 till you see no difference with 50-for real human been</p>

[jeff_drew4]

<p>As i get older and curmudgeonly, I'm carrying less gear. Mark me down for a G2 Zeiss 45mm f/2 Planar in 35mm format, 80mm Planar in 6x6cm, or better yet, a 15mm f/3.5 Complan for 8x11mm!</p>

[Komatsu]

<p>I always liked 50mm on a full frame camera. Walked around for many a year with a 50mm 1.2L on a F1.</p>

[petrana_batik]

<blockquote>

<p>If your suggestion is that a "real photographer" like HCB would not consider modern and versatile equipment such as that which has been developed since his time... you don't understand HCB.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What Ilkka said.<br>

People forget very often that versatility can measured in many ways. Some people prefer faster lenses to ones which cover a broader range. Sometimes f/2.8 is not fast enough. All I'm saying that zooms are not always the answer-- very subjectively, I prefer a smaller, faster, sharper lens, than an expensive behemoth that is a jack of all trades but a king to none. It trains your mind better and allows for BETTER photography, BECAUSE of its (no pun intended) limited-focus applications. HCB knew that this is all that it takes for a good composition.</p>

[scott_paris4]

<p>If "all your photographs start to look the same", it's not the fault of your lens. </p>

[jim_krupnik]

<p>I have a question for Tommy DiGiovanni. You mentioned that you enjoy using a 28 mm, and an 85 mm prime pair on your FF camera, and think that the same pair of prime lenses would also be fine for someone using an APS-C camera. How did you arrive at that conclusion? Using that exact same pair of lenses on a crop camera would result in images nearly identical to what your FF camera would capture if you were using a 45 mm lens, and a 135 mm lens pair. That's a pretty huge difference. It's just a thought, and not meant to spark an argument....</p>

[tdigi]

<blockquote>

<p>I may not know "how I see things", but real wide is not it.<br>

<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jim the OP said he does not shoot like to shoot wide so I meant for him it would probably be a good combo. The 28 would give him about 44 which is just about normal to slightly wide. I also know from past posts he often mentioned using a 28 - XX zoom and had no need to go wider.</p>

[matthijs]

Oops. Where I wrote Cosina I meant:

 

Voightlander 20/3.5

 

(combined with Tamron 90/2.8 macro)

[Uhooru]

<p>It wouldn't be a matter of HCB being an equipment snob, but his methodology of shooting called for a small camara he could hide in his hands. He probably wouldn't use a large zoom, such as the 24-70, but I imagine he would love a camera like the Ricoh GRd3.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>Some posters don't seem to realize that this discussion is only relevant when using a common reference point - the most commonly understood one being 35 mm camera equivalent. Otherwise, you're talking total gibberish, and it suggests you know nothing about lenses except how to read open your wallet and zoom a zoom lens. For any meaningful discussion, you must translate the focal length you're talking about into its 35mm full-frame camera equivalent.</p>

 

[bob_king2]

<p>I own the following primes: EF 24mm f/2.8, EF 35mm f/2, EF 50mm f/1.8, EF 85mm f/1.8, a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro plus a number of OM Zuiko primes with an EOS adapter. If I could only choose one prime as a walkaround, I'd pick the EF 24mm f/2.8 for my 40D and 400D and the EF 35mm f/2 for my 5DII. In reality I'd choose a zoom as a general walkaround (on my EOS bodies) but 2 or maybe 3 primes for my OM film bodies, whatever floats my boat at the time... I tend to shoot more wide angle than telephoto, but when I need telephoto I need telephoto. A single prime would not cut it as my only lens.</p>

<p>Cheers, Bob</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Pierre, somewhere in this thread the OP mentioned a crop sensor.</p>

<p>Later he changed the one prime to two primes.</p>

<p>My advice was given on those presumptions.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>Hi Matthijs</p>

<p>It was just a general observation... not referring to any specific previous post.</p>

<p>Some people (not you) don't seem to realize that the perspective or composition characteristics of any focal length only apply in relation to the image size on the sensor or the film. My "walkaround lens" is usually the short zoom on my compact digicam, but when it's set at 6mm, it's the same as what it would be at 28mm if it was my Nikon film SLR. For those who don't know, it's not a matter of the focal length itself, but of how far you have to be from the subject when using it. The original post about a favourite walkaround prime lens can only really be discussed sensibly in that context... and when using a common language, ie. 35mm equivalent.</p>