Landscape a la Cartier???

[philgeusebroek]

Did you ever throw aside your heavy burden of a full complement of

zoom lenses, and just go out with one or two primes in a couple of

pockets?

 

Did you miss anything? Did it make you feel free? Did it enhance

your experience? Did it make your images better? Did you have more

fun?

 

I am keenly interested in your experience. Currently I am sick of

buying and carrying everything, and just want to go out and shoot

with a 24mm and 100mm macro. The problem is that I always turn 'boy

scout', and lug everything from 24-300mm along at the last minute,

just in case.

 

I wanna hear from you people who actually took the risk of losing a

shot or two. How was it?

 

Thanks,

Phil

[thidglance]

I shoot all my serious landscape work with two lenses on my Xpan - 45mm and 90mm.

 

>Did you miss anything?

 

Yes - I can't do wildlife work anymore, or macro. But I was never that great at either.

 

>Did it make you feel free?

 

How many times have you summited a snow caped mountain with a 600mm F4 lens ... pre-dawn ....

 

>Did it enhance your experience?

 

Of course - my whole camera kit with a tripod and 20 rolls of film is 4kg. I can walk unassisted for 10 days with a pack under 20kg.

 

>Did it make your images better? www.thirdglance.com - you tell me.

 

>Did you have more fun? Yes - once you get over the fact that you can't have every shot you see, you concentrate on getting the best of what you can. You can only ever shoot so many keepers.

[alan_woolnough]

Hi Phil,

 

Yes, i know exactly what you mean. Over the years i accumulated lenses ranging from 28mm-600mm, convincing myself that if i didnt cover all my bases, i might miss something. As time passed, i found i was buying bigger & bigger rucksacks, and my legs grew shorter and shorter under the burden. At the end of a long day i would find that i had only used one or two lenses, but this didnt stop me doing the same thing, the next time, "just in case".

 

In recent years, now and again, i have had a day out with just a standard lens, and its always been a rewarding experience. I find that i have to use my brain cells more often, and do a lot more walking. I always keep my fingers crossed, in case i miss something that needs a telephoto, but this rarely seems to happen, as im in a different frame of mind, in these situations, as im looking for suitable subjects for the lens im using, as opposed to finding a subject and choosing from an array of lenses.

 

Those days of carrying everything i own with me, have long gone, and i now only own three lenses: 80mm, 150mm, and 500mm. These lengths have been my most commonly used for many years, and i dont miss the others one bit. I probably havent saved much weight, as i use 645 sometimes, but i know that i will probably use all three lenses, during the course of a long day, and im not lugging stuff around that im never likely to use.

 

All the best

[guytal]

As a large format photographer these questions makes me smile. I used to carry the full 35mm system before switching. Now I do about 75% of my work with a normal lens. It was not only liberating in the physical sense but also opened my eyes to creative possibilities I never realized existed when I was obsessing about lens selection.

Knowing the perspectives available to me with the 3 lenses I normally carry allows me to see things and visualize compositions better. I don't need to look through the finder/glass to know whether something is worth photographing or not.<br>

Sure, I miss a lot. I miss the dozens of "okay", and "decent", and "not bad", and "so so" images that I used to stuff my albums with.<br>

Note, I'm speaking strictly as a landscape photographer here.

<br><br>

Guy<br>

<a href="http://scenicwild.com">Scenic Wild</a>

[ryan_taylor1]

When I switched to a new autofocus 35mm system some years ago, I only had one lens for my new AF camera at the time, a 24mm wide-angle. I often took my AF camera and 24mm out and left my other cameras at home. I spent almost a year shooting exclusively with that 24 mm. It taught me how to really get the most from the lens. Although today I have a full complement of lenses for my AF camera system, I find that some of my best images are still produced with my 24mm. I think using that lens exclusively taught me how to really "see" with it. I did miss a lot of shots when I was out with only a wide-angle. However, I developed a skill with that lens that would not have otherwise been possible. Was it worth it? You bet.

[jess_lee]

For landscape I generally use two systems. One is one of those big bulky pentax 6x7's with a 55mm and 165mm, rarely I would like a 300mm. My other system is a 4x5 where I often I mount my 110 and put a 300mm in a pocket. One of these 2 lens systems and a split ND

weighs less than my 1vHS with a 70-200 f 2.8 IS.

 

I just led a winter Yellowstone tour and just used the 6x7 with two lens for landscapes and felt like I was able to cover every subject from thermal close-ups to the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone.

Just do it, it will expand your horizon's <g>.

[._._z]

I usually do street photography with a 24mm lens, and a small waist-back holding a 50mm and a 135mm, film, cloth and a couple of filters.

 

But not for nature photography, and you posted this in the nature photography forum.

 

For nature photography I usually carry a tripod, then figure that as long as I'm lugging a tripod I should take a 'big gun' zoom.

[thomas_t]

For street photography and hikes, I've taken to just carrying a Leica M6 and either a 50 or 35. It is incredibly liberating. Making the equipment work for you rather than working for the equipment. The back feels much better too :)

 

Cheers

[doug_seigars]

I often go out with either a 24 or a 300 w/ 1.4 teleconverter. I found that the vast majority of my favorite pictures that I've taken were taken with either one of these lenses. I find that I work harder carrying less, which results in better pictures. I do admit that I have often missed things, but even so, it really didn't bother me too too much. I figure that there will be other opportunities, and the pictures that I do get were probably better thought out. I think that in the end it works out for the better, at least for me. The same thing goes with me and prime lenses. I used to own zoom lenses, but I now go more with primes, because of the very fact that it does limit you to some extent. I love going hikng with just a 24, it's great just having this one small lens and trying to do the most with it. I've found that deliberately limiting focal length choices has bolstered my creativity. I'm not sure that I will ever by terribly interested in carrying all sorts of zooms and all kinds of heavy stuff. No doubt, it would certainly be more versatile, but I'm not disicplined enough to be as deliberate with a zoom as I am with a prime. Even further, as has already been said, carrying too much stuff can be limiting as well, but in a bad way.

[marcus_erne]

Howdy!

 

>Did you ever throw aside your heavy burden of a full complement of zoom lenses, and just go out with one or two primes in a couple of pockets?<

 

Yepp, I went the classic route -> 28, 50 and 135mm and all-manual gear in my earlier foto-days. Was a good learning experience...

Nowadays if use 2 main AF-setups: light & "Pro".

Light= small body with either 2 zoom setup of 35-70 and 100-200mm or just one zoom 28-135mm; both kits leave little to desire especially for grab-shots or streetphotography.

�Pro�: Depends slightly on the �assignment� / location. Usually, I am going to pack what I think that I will need from 17 to 300mm plus TC�s, all packed either in a shoulder bag or a backpack whatever suits better.

 

 

>Did you miss anything?<

 

Not really, mostely something that I don�t own anyway like a 600mm or for wildlife or other necessary long focal length(-s). Ever so often I miss my 24mm when I decided to leave it home...

I never really felt the sensation of having �lost� a shot because of a lens that iI haven�t brought...

 

 

>Did it make you feel free?<

 

Whenever I am on a family outing, I cut down on equipment! I will take the bare nescesseties... My wife gets bored when a shot takes too long.

When I am in the field by myself or a photo-pal, just devoted to capture a good image or 2, then I take the big gear including the tripod and despite the weight I feel free...

 

 

>Did it enhance your experience? Did it make your images better? Did you have more fun?<

 

Anytime one cuts down on gear it can cause oneself to experiment more often and to improvise more dramatically. And yes, less gear may often translate into much better images and more fun, because you have less choices of tools thus you get less distracted or confused about a shot.

 

 

>I am keenly interested in your experience. Currently I am sick of buying and carrying everything, and just want to go out and shoot with a 24mm and 100mm macro. The problem is that I always turn 'boy scout', and lug everything from 24-300mm along at the last minute, just in case.<

 

Just give it a try! Go out with just your 24 and 100mm lenses as you already suggested...

 

Cheers,

Marcus

[marcus_erne]

BTW, if I had only one lens choice to make, I'd take a 35mm lens.

 

M.

[erick_lamontagne]

Lenses have never been a burden for me. I did my landscape for a couple of years with only a 28-105 and a handful of filters and added a 20-35 later. The problem is the tripod. I just can't do without as I often (always!) shoot in low light with slow film which means slow sutter speed. I use filters, which further reduce the shutter speed and the tripod makes the use of ND grad much easier. I'm a sucker for precise framing and a tripod is a must for that too.

[wickedmartini]

Better yet, go out and do some shooting with a Holga. There's no "hipper" way to break things down to the basics. It reminds you that creativity doesn't lie in seeing how much gear you can carry.

 

That's my two cents. Have fun!

 

Michael D. D'Avignon

[lee_shively]

I used to carry a Leica M4-P with 28, 35 & 90 when backpacking. Then I went to a 4x5 Wista outfit with 75, 135, 210 and 300 or 400. Then I went to a Canon EOS outfit with a half dozen lenses, dropped down to one body and three lenses plus extenders and now I'm using a Leica M6 with 21, 35 and 50. I also plan on adding a 90mm later.

 

Do you lose shots? Not really. You tend to work within your limitations. I don't recommend it for wildlife or bird photography. You will find a lot of subject matter you may have overlooked previously when you carried lots of lbs and mm's.

[ray .]

I like to travel light. With a Leica rangefinder the lenses are so small and relatively light they fit easily in a pocket. The ideal is one lens on the camera, one in reserve. This allows me enough choice and makes the walk a pleasurable experience because I'm not weighted down with equipment. Since I like to keep the Leica ready with b&w film for street shooting though, I just picked up a Nikon SLR for color landscape work. The lenses are a little bigger, but at this point I have only a 24mm, so weight isn't a problem yet. I'm interested to see if the Nikon will still feel as light and comfortable as I want once I pick up a second lens to carry with it.

[dan_smith]

Yep, just the 150 and the 300 on the 5x7 or only the 300 on the 8x10.<div></div>

[dane_skye]

Short answer-yes. And with exactly those two lenses.

 

Longer answer- I only own primes and have amassed a collection of 7 (21/24/28/35/50/100/200) I used to lug all thoose plus 2 bodies, plus filters, film etc. Which lenses did and do I use? 24mm for probably 60% of my shots/100mm for 30% / 21mm for 10%. I rarely use any of the others.

 

The 24 is even a 2.8, it's lighter and super shap so why pay and lug the 2.0 version? I did break down and get a 100/2.0 and now keep the older smaller 100/2.8 as my cruddy weather lens.

 

By the way I read an article by the late great Galen Rowell where he said 90% of his best work were or could have been taken with a two lens kit 24mm and 85mm. So it sounds like you are on the right track!