A single prime lens for walkaround?

[William Michael]

<p >Jim Krupnik:</p>

<p >Now I have seen a small glimpse of your cooking utensils - I like you even more.</p>

<p >I assume you can also hold and use a fountain pen correctly: and appreciate the use of same?</p>

<p >WW</p>

 

[davidmaniacal]

<p>Use what feels comfortable to you, whether that is a prime or a zoom.<br>

Most of the "experts" on this forum know crap about art and are just pushing their overvalued opinions on a public forum much like streakers and flashers get their perverse kicks from showing their undersized equipment to an unsuspecting crowd just so they can compensate for their obvious lacks.<br>

Which is why I normally stay off these kind of forums... bye now.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>Use what feels comfortable to you, whether that is a prime or a zoom.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very simple. Very true.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Most of the "experts" on this forum know crap about art and are just pushing their overvalued opinions on a public forum much like streakers and flashers get their perverse kicks from showing their undersized equipment to an unsuspecting crowd just so they can compensate for their obvious lacks.<br />Which is why I normally stay off these kind of forums... bye now.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>

<p dir="ltr">I respectfully disagree. Also, writing this stuff in this forum is very much like spitting to the well you are drinking from.</p>

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

<br>

Yakim.</p>

[david_shirley2]

<p>The most creative aspect of focal length is the perspective that various lengths provide. Perspective is actually dependent on viewpoint and different focal lengths allow for different viewpoints - dramatic receding with wide angles to compressed power with long lenses. There is no ideal - The best focal length is the one that realizes your vision best</p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em> </em></strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Most of the "experts" on this forum know crap about art and are just pushing their overvalued opinions on a public forum much like streakers and flashers get their perverse kicks from showing their undersized equipment to an unsuspecting crowd just so they can compensate for their obvious lacks.<br />Which is why I normally stay off these kind of forums... bye now.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong><em> </em></strong></p>

<p>I also disagree with the above, I add:<br>

<br /><strong><em> </em></strong><br /><strong><em>Honi soit qui mal y pense</em></strong><br /><strong><em></em></strong><br>

WW</p>

[oscar_van_der_velde]

<p>The best walkaround prime is the one you feel most comfortable (least annoyed) with. Carrying around one focal length makes your mind see compositions for that field of view, but with different level of ease for a given field of view. You can be an 'immersive' person who likes to walk around, enjoying the whole scene, and then a wide angle is a more convenient choice. If you are very socially-oriented, focal lengths around standard (slightly wide to slightly tele) are probably more convenient for you. Somebody who naturally sees small details, or has a more developed hunting instinct may prefer the longer focal lengths. It depends on how frustrated you will be missing a shot that cannot be taken with that lens.<br>

I prefer 28mm on full frame and usually pixel peep for details in it. 35mm is quite nice too. 50mm is just about the least-inspiring to me, 70-135mm range (with macro) becomes more interesting again for many subjects.</p>

[joe_taylor5]

<p>My go to lens is a 100mm portrait lens I keep it on my SLR all the time. I think if I were to buy a new lens it would be a 100mm macro. The 100mm lets me get some close shots with out being in someones face. A little less intrusive. <br>

I have never really fell in love with zoom lens for some reason.<br>

Kind of backwards for the all the wide angle trend these days. But then I'm kind of backwards I still shoot film. <br>

If I were to build a walk-a-round system I wold get a Leica M4 or M3 with a standard lens. And shoot Tri-X.<br>

Joe</p>

[john_jennings2]

<p>Jim Krupnik,<br />I agree that the Canonet was a natural match for those stunning slide films. Kodachrome was so pretty a lot of folks didn't really notice if the actual picture was pretty lame. <br />I also remember, back in those antediluvian days, that there was a rough consensus among some top Life Magazine photographers that the 35mm perspective (for DX use 24 mm) was the best match for the human eye plus a little extra to get more background for context.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Jim, I'm humbled before your cookware! :-) I *am* currently camping, and I have a 4 qt pot, 2 qt and 1 qt sauce pans, and a large, stainless skillet. That's about as little cookware as I could stand to use. We're eating fairly well, though. It's amazing just what one can cook on a propane stove with only a few square feet of counter space. I haven't attempted my lavender duck, as we have no baking pan! ;-) (Our oven is too tiny.)</p>

<p>--------------------------------</p>

<p>Addressing the OP's question, I'm currently in Yosemite, so I have to take this walkaround lens concept rather seriously, depending on what I'm doing. We went to Hetch Hetchy yesterday. That was about a 6 mi hike for us. It might be a piece of cake if we were young, but we're not, and the hike was mildly challenging. I resolved to carry ONE lens and a lightweight tripod. Based on prior experiences in Yosemite Valley, I only carried my 24-105. I ordinarily throw my little Zenitar fisheye in the bottom of my holster bag, in case I need to photograph some extreme foreground object against a distant background. It's so tiny and light that it's one of those "why not?" sort of lenses. However, I decided I should leave it behind too.</p>

<p>After about 1/2 mi from the car, there was a waterfall on the distant shore of the reservoir that was just begging to be photographed. I was only good to 105mm and probably needed more like 200mm to photograph it. However, my 70-200 was in the truck. I resolved to press forward and to try to grab the shot later when exiting the park.</p>

<p>Much farther up the path, we were crossing some beautiful granite plateaus, with pristine snow-melt gently coarsing across them in little pools and rivulets, and with impressive granite formations in the distance. I framed up the snow melt in the foreground and the granite formations in the background as best I could with my 24mm capabilities, but I was really cursing that I hadn't brought my fisheye, because it ordinarily goes wherever my 24-105 goes. I could have gotten some awsome shots of those snow-melt pools with the granite mountains in the background!</p>

<p>As we left, we passed by the vantage again where I could have shot the waterfall with my 70-200, and enough parking had freed up that I could have parked a few hundred feet from that vantage on the way out. Unfortunately the light was completely wrong (about 5 hr after we first passed that point), and the photo was no longer worth taking.</p>

<p>Yes, I got some nice shots with my 24-105, but I missed my very best photographic opportunity because I didn't have a "why not" lens I routinely carry just for that slightly unusual shooting situation. I got just a bit too tight with my equipment budget. I don't think my knees would afford me a return with my fisheye, and that would take another precious day from our trip, so I will realistically never have that opportunity again.</p>

<p>THANK GAWD I DIDN'T ATTEMPT THIS WITH <strong>ONE</strong> PRIME LENS! 8-\</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Priorities are wrong Sarah:<br>

"Camping" = One frying pan + One Knife + Zero Plates + one Mug each + lots of camera gear.<br>

Easier on the knees, too.<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

[petrana_batik]

<blockquote>

<p>The most creative aspect of focal length is the perspective that various lengths provide. Perspective is actually dependent on viewpoint and different focal lengths allow for different viewpoints - dramatic receding with wide angles to compressed power with long lenses. There is no ideal - The best focal length is the one that realizes your vision best.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perspective has nothing to do with focal length. It is dictated by subject distance. Take your zoom, open it to its widest and focus at a nearby subject (say, 30' away). Take multiple shots as you constantly zoom in on your target but do not move. All your shots will share the same perspective because neither you nor the subject moved. Zooming is equivalent to cropping (in an ideal lens anyway).</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Sarah wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Hmmmm... Please describe the perfect pot or pan (but not both) to be used for all cooking. It must capable of tackling these situations: unknown(in advance ) circumstances, boiling spaghetti, frying eggs, making waffles, baking cakes, etc., etc.</em><br /> <em>I suppose I pick a deep, 4 qt pot, but it's going to make some pretty awful waffles. Short of going on a camping trip, this seems like a pretty silly question to me.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>GREAT post Sarah. I've tried to make a similar point before by substituting a question like "what is the best vehicle to use for all trips?" - but your analogy is so much better.</p>

<p>Me? I think I'll go use my waffle maker to whip up some fondue.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Oh, and I won't reply to the "find one photographer who uses multiple lenses" silliness since someone else beat me to it. :-)</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>But what if you <em>were</em> restricted to just one prime, G Dan? I'd be very interested to hear which lens it might be. (And my question, in case it isn't obvious, <em>is </em>hypothetical).</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>But what if you were restricted to just one prime, G Dan? I'd be very interested to hear which lens it might be. (And my question, in case it isn't obvious, is hypothetical).</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mark, to my way of thinking the original question is not just hypothetical. It is nonsensical.</p>

<p>There <em>is</em> no "best" answer to the question. I suppose if I accidentally found myself with one prime I'd shoot with whatever I had on my camera and hope for the best. But given the incredibly wide range of subjects and situations described in the original post there is no prime that can cover them all satisfactorily. For example, "landscape near and far" with one lens? And a lens that is great for landscapes to also cover "interiors?"</p>

<p>Is there any real world photographic reason for asking this question?</p>

<p>Dan</p>

 

[mark_pierlot]

<p>There is no good "real world photographic reason" for asking the question, Dan. Think of it, rather, as a thought experiment.</p>

<p>How about this question: Do you <em>ever</em> leave the house with just one prime, and, if so, which one? And, please, anyone is free to answer.</p>

[tdigi]

<blockquote>

<p>How about this question: Do you <em >ever</em> leave the house with just one prime, and, if so, which one? And, please, anyone is free to answer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mark that would have been a better question for this post. I would probably go with 50 on full frame, when I had a 40D it would be 28 1.8. I really liked the look of 28 on APS-C, just slightly wide and pretty much perfect for what I usually shoot. Hopefully someday soon it will be a 35L on my 5D2.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"How about this question: Do you ever leave the house with just one prime, and, if so, which one? And, please, anyone is free to answer."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is a sensible question. Yes, I do sometimes go out with only a single prime. I sometimes do street photography with a single prime - though more often I may bring along more than one, and I just as often shoot "street" using a zoom. In a few situations when I want a camera "just in case" but want to keep bulk and weight of gear minimal I might bring a body with one prime.</p>

<p>I shoot full frame. Depending upon which of the above limited situations I was dealing with I would most likely make the "primary prime" a 50mm or a 35mm.</p>

<p>I have other reasons for shooting with primes at times that are unrelated to this.</p>

[jim_krupnik]

<p>William W, I have always been fascinated by fountain pens. Not only are they mechanical works of art in their own right, but they represent the zenith of the basic inkwell technology that redefined persistent personal communication over time and space, as well as recording history for posterity a few thousand years ago after ink liberated writers from chisel and stone. The funny thing is that despite going to a parochial school from the third to eighth grades, and being drilled on the importance of penmanship by a series of Nuns for the entire time, my penmanship is just plain awful. Always has been, and always will be.</p>

<p>I can read and write in English and a couple of Cyrillic based alphabets, but even I have a tough time reading my cursive script a week after the fact. I print, and I type. Thank God for the keyboard.... Still, I love to read original text written by a master of penmanship with a fountain pen. It adds a level of expression that is a step above anything easily matched with a keyboard. I still have a few fountain pens hiding somewhere around here. I wonder if ink is still easy to come by....</p>

<p>Sarah Fox,<br>

I would gladly trade some of my very favorite copper cookware to be camping in Yosemite at this moment. Some of the most memorable times of my life were experienced on camping trips, and I wouldn't trade them for the world. I have old super 8 film reels of me at 2 years old bouncing off of my parents knees while seated around a campfire, and even though I don't directly recall those moments, I do recall countless others from the age of 5 or so to the present. One thing to keep in mind is that even cheap camping gear today weighs a fraction of what similar gear weighed in the 60's through the mid 90's. That means that I could pack a great deal more utility and comfort with far less mass today. I do have to bring along at least one 6" to 8" cast iron pan though, even with lightweight stoves and a nesting alloy pot set. I think it's a religious thing...</p>

<p>That being the case, there is no way that I would trim my camera gear to one, or even two lenses. After going to all the trouble to get to a soul-satisfying place for a week or two, I think I could make enough room to bring along a reasonable selection of photo gear. My parents, aunts, uncles, and family friends made a point of finding room for video and still gear on camping vacations that I was a part of over 50 years ago, and there was no such thing as "lightweight" camping gear back then. I enjoy those slides and movies to this day, and given the amazing gear we have now, I just can't get comfortable with the idea of bringing back images or video clips that need my live commentary to be complete. I vote for bringing and toting what you need, and being glad you did so years later (what you said)...</p>

 

[matthijs]

I'd open a new thread for that if I were you...

 

M.

[walismi]

<p>i just love a 50 mm on a 1.6x sensor,, the viewing angle feels just right with the weight and size.. However to expect it to excell at every situations: unknown(in advance ) circumstances, cityscapes, interiors, people, tours, landscapes(near and far), walks in the woods, etc, etc. would be somewhat unfair..</p>

 

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>How about this question: Do you <em>ever</em> leave the house with just one prime, and, if so, which one?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Very</strong> rarely do I do that but if so, it's the 60/2.8.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><em><strong>"I wonder if ink is still easy to come by...."</strong></em> to get the good stuff we have a couple of specialty shops in Sydney (AUS) - all the good ink is imported - I have some beautiful purple ink I use, it is from Italy.<br>

<br>

***<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Do you ever leave the house with just one prime, and, if so, which one? And, please, anyone is free to answer."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I spent about three months last year using only my 50mm lens on my 5D for my "personal shooting" (i.e. Photography for my business was excluded). <br>

<br>

There were many reasons, the major of which, was that I felt I was losing touch with my skill in framing and "seeing it" before I took the shot - maybe I felt I was getting lazy as I was using the 16 to 25 on my APS-C as my "walk about" and I also was using a Powershot quite often. <br>

<br>

The discipline of using only the 50mm was good for me. I understand that such a "restriction" might make others wince<br>

<br>

Anyway, at the time I was also instructing a class of high school kids doing their first year in Photography - and they were set a task of setting their zoom to 30mm (APS-C Digital Cameras) . . . and using it like that for one month . . . so I did the same: only I did it for three times as long - interesting how that attitude and the comparative results stops the debates in the classroom of “why should we”. <br>

</p>

<p >WW</p>

 

[swilson]

<p>

<p>What becomes clear is that people use photography differently, and what works for one person might not come close to working for another. Some people go out in the world and look to see what there is to photograph, others already know what they want to photograph and want the right tools to do so. I am in the group that goes out knowing what I want to photograph and more often then not this makes limiting myself to one prime lens a non-starter.</p>

<p>I have to add that I shot for years with a SLR and one 50mm lens, in looking at the photos I really wish I had a wider option along at the time. This was shot with a 50mm lens, I really wish I had a 35mm with me at the time, and no I could not simply step back, well not and live.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4313830268/sizes/l/in/set-72157623285264902/">Photo taken with 50mm lens</a><br>

<br />Given the same problem now I would have taken a few shots and stitched them, but in 1991 I was not thinking much about stitching photos.</p>

</p>