If you only had one prime lens for all occassions . . .

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>He shot with a Leica, and I recall reading that his standard setup included only a 28mm and 90mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmm, that's pretty close to <em>my</em> preference. Interesting.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>For years, I've pretty much shot all of my weddings with a 35mm and a 75mm, and the 35mm would account for 85% of my shots. But I tend to stick to the things I think I'm relatively good at - that is to say that I don't try to be a jack of all trades. I don't know of any really successful photographers that would try to shoot landscapes, fashion, wildlife, travel, still life and sport. They find their niche and gear up to suit. Six lenses is more than any serious shooter ever needs, and I'd go as far as saying that anyone that shoots with six lenses, could improve on their craft by culling half of them. Just because we see it, doesn't mean that we have to photograph it, and by trying to cover all situations, you will likely end up missing the shots you really want as a result.</p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>You can have six lenses at home but only pack two of them to take on a trip.</p>

[matthijs]

<p> Leica, 28mm and 90mm, National Geographic?</p>

<p>Might that be Sam Abell?</p>

[catcher]

<p>Yes--Sam Abell! Thanks. I ran across his book "Stay This Moment" a number of years ago. I don't recall if it's in that book or in something else I read later, but at least for some part (if not all) of his career with Nat. Geo. he traveled with primarily two lenses--the 28 and 90 mentioned above. Again, that's at least as I remember it. I could be corrected. </p>

<p>This thread keeps going! Part of my interest in this question relates to the art of 'seeing' in the composition of a photograph. Of course, 'seeing' can be extended in all sorts of ways the more flexible one's set-up is, e.g., zooms or several primes. But, my own initial experience with only one fixed focal length prime got me wondering whether my own vision could be 'extended' not primarily with extra equipment, but by attending to what in fact was in front of me, and then working in a disciplined way to attempt to arrange the pieces into a compelling photograph. Of course, could do this with more equipment (and great photographers are already good at it). And of course, limiting to one fixed prime is not necessary any <em>better </em>than having lots of equipment--and, as several have pointed out, having lots of equipment is certainly necessary in many cases. But, it is different, and in my own experience at least, facilitates my attention to 'paying attention.' For others, that might not be the case. </p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Arranging the pieces into a compelling photograph most often involves more than choosing which angle to shoot from and then stepping closer or further away. There is a great misconception that really good composition comes from using a single focal length and then fitting the <em>primary subject</em> into the frame somehow. Period.</p>

<p>While it is <em>possible</em> to create compelling photographs that way - and, in fact, at one time it was almost required, given equipment limitations in the past - the possibility that something can be done in some way does not imply that it must be done this way. It is possible to conduct all of your correspondence via postal mail, but it is (almost certainly) better to consider other options in most cases today.</p>

<p>Consider composition for a moment. Yes, the angle between the photographer and the subject matters. Yes, the size and placement of the subject within the frame matter, too. But other things are also very important. Foreground and background elements matter, as do their size and position relative to the primary subject. The primary method of controlling this is by varying focal length. Their relative focus also matters. Aperture has a role to play here, but so does focal length. The personal relationship between the photographer and the subject is deeply affected by the distance between them. Choose a short focal length and work in close and you get one sort of relationship; choose a longer focal length and work from a distance and you get another. In each case, the subject responds differently to the presence of the photographer. These are all critical factors in the creation of a photograph.</p>

<p>There are most certainly times places for prime lenses in good photography, but that does not mean that primes are better or produce better photographs as a matter of principle. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't - a prime could be the best choice or it could be the worst choice. I say this as a person who shoots both and who owns more primes than zooms.</p>

<p>For HCB, whose name has come up in this thread, the primary reasons that he might have used primes included: quality zooms were unavailable at the time he began doing the work for which he is known, and he often worked quickly and unobtrusively, raising a relatively small camera and quickly making a photograph. (He wrote about how a good part of what attracted him to photography was the ability to instantly register a fleeting scene.) It is also important to keep in mind that he was using what would have been regarded at that time as the most modern, advanced, and flexible type of camera. It sometimes seems odd that people who would emulate his "modern" approach to photography make almost the exact opposite decisions and choose to use and older and arguably antiquated type of equipment - the 35mm, single focal length, rangefinder camera.</p>

<p>One genre that I sometimes work with is street photography. Sometimes I work with zooms. Sometimes I work with several primes. Sometimes I work with a single prime. The choice has to do with how I am going to work and what I hope to accomplish during a particular shoot. The zooms allow me far more flexibility in regards to composition and let me adapt quickly to the fast-moving subjects found on the street. Working with a single prime mainly allows me to work with a smaller and lighter camera/lens and with <em>less</em> thought about compositional matters, since the prime limits my choices in this regard.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Finally, to loop back to the question that started this thread, a single prime is not a versatile single-lens choice for covering a very wide range of subjects - and that is what the OP asked about.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>I hope you'll pardon the analogies, but I was in an interesting situation yesterday. I had to extract a canoe paddle shaft that had been glued into a metal tube with Great Stuff foam. I had a screwdriver, a pair of pliers, a cordless drill, and a huge cold chisel. I WANTED a Dremel tool to cut the pipe and peel it off the shaft -- or a skinny coping saw blade, that I could use to cut the foam. I also WANTED a vice to hold the pipe, so that I could wrestle the paddle more effectively. However, I didn't have these things with me. So I jammed the screwdriver into the shaft, dug it into the plastic of the paddle, and (somewhat destructively) pried the thing out -- with considerable effort.</p>

<p>Perhaps in many ways a good flat-blade screwdriver (which I actually broke in the process) is the 50mm lens of the tool world. If I had to choose a single tool to do all jobs if shipwrecked on a desert island, it would probably be a flat-blade screwdriver. You can use it (poorly) as a chisel. You can use it (poorly) to turn a Philips screw. You can pry with it. You can scrape with it. You can hold the shaft and hammer (poorly) with the handle. You can set a nail sloppily with it. (I suppose you would pound it with a rock, not having a hammer.) You can use it as an ice pick. You can open a can of food with it. I suppose if you got creative enough, you could use it as a weapon to kill a wild boar for dinner.</p>

<p>Certainly having ONLY a screwdriver challenges one's creativity, and one can sometimes be proud of one's creative solutions. However, I do not think any given job can be executed better with a single screwdriver than with an entire collection of tools designed for the job at hand. At best, one only has to turn a slotted screw, in which case a flat blade screwdriver works perfectly.</p>

<p>These "only a single prime lens" discussions come up frequently, and many of us started photography that way. (I did.) I've grown in my abilities as a photographer, and I've grown considerably in my equipment inventory that my accumulated skills enable me to use effectively. I'm now like a chef with a cabinet of delicious herbs and spices, rather than just salt and pepper -- or just salt.</p>

[james_smith55]

<blockquote>

<p>I recently took only my 50 1.8 on a 5d to the zoo with the family and enjoyed the simplicity of it. It got me wondering. If you only had one prime lens (no zooms) for all occasions, which would it be, and why?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Couldn't do it. I shoot MF film, 35mm Film and cropped from DSLR. I guess the 50mm equivalent on each system would be what I would go for. Although there is no equivalent to the $100 excellent 50mm 1.8 for Canon cropped DSLRs. Having said that, I tell anyone that will listen to buy it or the Nikon equivalent for 35mm film or DSLR (FF or cropped). Unless someone wants to get a little fancy and get the 1.4 I tell them it is a no brainer to get the 50mm 1.8 for the money. A friend of mine in photography school got it and I showed them how to shoot shallow depth of field portraits. Let's just say their professor in their intro class was very pleased that a neophyte was taking shallow DOF portraits AND using 25 ISO film. The rest of the class was shooting garbage consumer zooms and 400 ISO film (yuck).</p>

[james_smith55]

<blockquote>

<p>Perhaps in many ways <strong>a good flat-blade screwdriver (which I actually broke in the process) is the 50mm lens of the tool world</strong>. If I had to choose a single tool to do all jobs if shipwrecked on a desert island, it would probably be a flat-blade screwdriver. You can use it (poorly) as a chisel. You can use it (poorly) to turn a Philips screw. You can pry with it. You can scrape with it. You can hold the shaft and hammer (poorly) with the handle. You can set a nail sloppily with it. (I suppose you would pound it with a rock, not having a hammer.) You can use it as an ice pick. You can open a can of food with it. I suppose if you got creative enough, you could use it as a weapon to kill a wild boar for dinner.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You have slandered the 50mm 1.8 lens to an extent that I have never witnessed.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Sorry about that! If it helps, you can use a 50/1.8 to start a fire by focusing sunlight onto a pile of straw. This would enable you to cook the boar you stabbed with the screwdriver. Starting a fire with the screwdriver would be much more difficult, but not impossible. :-)</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Sarah, +1 (And I'm assuming that James Smith accidentally left out the ironic smiley that was called for in his follow-up post.)</p>

<p>I also started shooting cameras that had only single focal length, but some of them (borrowed from my father) were pre-SLR 120 film cameras, including one with, believe it or not, a fold-out bellows arrangement. When I did get SLRs, I also started with 50mm primes. Been there. Done that.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[chris_clarke3]

<p>35L or 50L again.</p>

[anthony_bridges]

<p>I don't know. I think these one lens questions are fun. As the screw driver analogy forces you to think out of the box shooting with one lens does the same. Doesn't necessarily make you a better photographer but it's fun to consider the options.</p>

<p>I have seven lenses most of which are primes. For clients I wouldn't walk out the door without a zoom. For fun the 28mm f/1.8 would probably be most practical for me.</p>

[ken_max__parks]

<p>I use the 8-16mm on the secondary camera. But if I had to choose only ONE prime lenses for all occasions... I'd have to go with the Zuiko legacy lens from the OM-2, 55mm f/1.2 on the Canon 7D.</p>

<p>The Zuiko 55mm f/1.2 would be the equivalent of 88mm, given the 1.6X factor for an APS-C sensor. It's great for portrait photography, landscape, low-light conditions, candid, street photography, wedding photography, and etc. </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Dan, I started out as a kid with a Brownie box camera, then an Instamatic. I was very excited to buy my first 35mm camera. It wasn't much of a camera. It had been beat to hell by its previous owner, and it was all I could afford on a kid budget. However... and here's the part that was most exciting to me at the time... it opened up all the possibilities of interchangeable lenses! I started out with a semiautomatic Takumar 55/2.2 (mechanically a HORRIBLE lens, owing to its jack hammer recoil), but with some contest prize money and a bit of added allowance money, I could soon afford a very sweet, used SMC Takumar 135/3.5, and then the SMC Takumar 50/1.8 (a vast improvement over the semiautomatic 55). Then I started selling photos to other kids in my school and was soon able to afford a 28mm Tamron. Aside for the 50/1.8 that I was so happy to substitute for the 55/2.2, no lens would substitute for any other. That was sort of the point of having the M42 screw flange. Those three lenses satisfied most of my needs for a very long time. (I still have all these items, BTW!)</p>

<p>Oh, like you, I also used to shoot portraits with a 620 folding camera. It was a Kodak Monitor Six-20 that I had picked up at a garage sale in the more affluent side of town. Aside from the uncoated optics, it was an awsome camera. (I still have that one, too.)</p>

<p>It sounds like you caught the bug from your dad. I caught it from my mom, who was a Leica enthusiast. (Yes, I now have her collection, too. She had some awsome lenses for that camera, including a very sweet Nikkor 85/2.8 that was the pride of her collection.)</p>

[jason]

<p>MY system showed it in an assorted bunch of questions, not under "Canon EOS". I only saw that after posting my 1st reply. Sorry i ruined your day! It matters not what system, it is about a viewpoint. Do i use Canon? Of course. Digital and film.<br>

I also use other systems for their specialties. Gosh I used a Fuji today!</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Sarah, yours is a great story! I can relate, as it sounds like it parallels my experience quite closely - with the exception that your parental inspiration came from Mom and mine came from Dad. I didn't mention it earlier, but the first camera that was "mine" was also a box brownie - and boy was I proud of that simple little camera! (I can still get a bit nostalgic about looking for the frame number through the little red window on the back of the camera.) </p>

<p>The first SLR that I owned (as opposed to borrowing from my Dad to the school photography club) was a Minolta 35mm camera, also with some 55mm lens. I eventually moved over to Pentax and owned and loved the ME and the MX, with their small size being attractive to me as a backpacking photographer.</p>

<p>With the exception of one camera, I did not keep my father's cameras. I don't think my siblings kept them either. The exception was a classic little Rollei 35 that I used for backpacking for a number of years. (Now that was a classic little camera!) I kept it for years (decades?) after I stopped actually using it, and last year I passed it on to my oldest son, who collects old film cameras (including a Leica) that he uses to do street photography.</p>

<p>Anyway, aside from the pleasant nostalgia... when it comes to working with a single prime lens, both of us have been there, done that. I still do it at times, but I would not consider it a realistic option in the context presented by the original poster in this thread.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[philip_wilson]

Sarah and Dan. While I agree that a single FL is not versatile and that I do not plan to sell my extensive selection of

Canon bodies and lenses I take a certain pleasure in going with a simple set up - but this is not just a single prime lens

set up on a DSLR. Don't get me wrong I like the right tool for the job - as someone who owns the 70-200 F2.8 and 70-

200 F4 IS and uses them both for different reasons (indoor sports vs mountains and lightweight) how could I disagree

with you both.

 

However, I love to shoot a simple set up. I find I get lots of great people shots with my Leicas. These shots tend to be

better than with my Canons as the viewfinder, intuitive simple handling and compact size allows a different shooting style.

I am talking about candid shots here not studio. I even love using my old F1s and a 24 or 35mm lens to make a change.

Obviously the Leica cannot substitute my Canons - while I can get ski racing shots or ice hockey shots with the Leica they

are not the same as those with t.he Canons.

[james_smith55]

<blockquote>

<p>Sarah, +1 (And I'm assuming that James Smith accidentally left out the ironic smiley that was called for in his follow-up post.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I did forget it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry about that! If it helps, you can use a 50/1.8 to start a fire by focusing sunlight onto a pile of straw. This would enable you to cook the boar you stabbed with the screwdriver. Starting a fire with the screwdriver would be much more difficult, but not impossible. :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I will grudgingly accept that, Sarah. But I've got my eye on you. ;)</p>

[jim_larson1]

<p>Ah, I love this thread! Sarah: That is a great set of posts!</p>

<p>For me, as I said before, if I was restricted to ONE lens, it would be a 24. (I have a 24/2.8). But the joy of SLR's is multiple lenses . . .so 24 and 35 and 50 and 85!</p>

<p>(I have the cheap versions of them all! - although I admit that the 24/2.8 and 35/2 have been replaced with zooms in my bag these days. The 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 are still in there).</p>

[jim_larson1]

<p>Ah, I love this thread! Sarah: That is a great set of posts!</p>

<p>For me, as I said before, if I was restricted to ONE lens, it would be a 24. (I have a 24/2.8). But the joy of SLR's is multiple lenses . . .so 24 and 35 and 50 and 85!</p>

<p>(I have the cheap versions of them all! - although I admit that the 24/2.8 and 35/2 have been replaced with zooms in my bag these days. The 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 are still in there).</p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>One fact that seems to have escaped all the manufacturers is that the 'standard' lens for 35mm / full-frame digital is 43mm. 43mm gives a really pleasing view which can do a group, an environmental portrait, street and an engaging landscape. 28mm on a crop body comes close - and is a favourite lens on that format. The 28mm f1.8 works very well on the crop body. But where is a 43mm lens - from any manufacturer? I have a Nikon zoom that starts at 43mm but it is nowhere as nice as a crisp, comapct modern prime. 45mm is close, but 43mm would be even better for me.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>One fact that seems to have escaped all the manufacturers is that the 'standard' lens for 35mm / full-frame digital is 43mm. </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sigh.</p>

<p>The "standard lens," to the extent that the concept refers to focal length, is whatever focal length seems to be "not wide and not telephoto" to the person using it.</p>

<p>The concept of "standard lens" made a lot more sense in an era without zooms (or without good and affordable zooms) in which people had no choice but to start with one lens. In an era of zoom lenses, the whole notion of some generic "standard" focal length is pretty meaningless in all sorts of ways.</p>

<p>I'm also amused when some conceptual abstraction leads to a conclusion (43mm is normal!) that no one would arrive at by using their subject sensibilities. </p>

<p>Dan</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>I'd much rather have a 35mm than a 43mm or a 50mm. It's a very personal choice of course so YMMV.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

 

[dennisgg]

<p>For me on my Canon 7D - a late 1970's Vivitar Series 1 90mm f2.5 VMC macro lens made by Tokina. Needle sharp wide open, smooth natural bokeh, build quality to die for, great contrast even wide open, great color, one of the best. I got it for $65 from KEH to replace the one I got for $75 and dropped it (this one's aperture doesn't open fully anymore). It is even very nice for portraits, but you have to step back with the crop camera. The natural bokeh, sharpness and contrast produces a 3D effect with depth.<br>

I love macro photography and this produces even if it is only 1:2 by itself. I recently got the Lester A. Dine 105mm f2.8 macro that does 1:1 pristine for $25 and it is excellent, but the Vivitar 90mm is better. <br>

Give me that with my flash and diffuser and I am good to go!</p>