ferider
Mentor
I can only recommend to sell whatever you need less and get a 75/1.4 to complement your 35/2. 35/75 + M6 works great.
Roland.
Roland.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
R
rpsawin
Guest
I generally carry a 35, 50 & 75 as my basic kit. That really covers it for me. I have two other lenses that I use less frquently: 25 & 40. The rest of my lenses don't get much use.
Bob
Bob
MCTuomey
Mentor
Other things being equal, including shooting volume, the one benefit to shooting with less gear is that I'll get more proficient with the gear I use. I'll be more fluid, quicker, responsive with my camera. I'll know my lens' characteristics and be able to maximize its best qualities. Results should improve. For me, picking up a camera once every one or two years to run a roll through it makes no sense. I tend to sell what I don't use. I'm on the gear=tools team.
But if I need a 800mm lens to shoot subjects at long distance, there's no sense for me in going out with a 50mm. The first photographer to articulate the less-is-more philosophy may have been Kertesz, as far as I know. "Simplify, simplify" were his words, iirc. Not quite the same, still I don't think he was referring to life or gear (he shot small to large formats), but rather to composition and subject matter.
If you've got to carry your gear a distance, well, as Will says, no questioning the need to practice "less is more" while packing. Ditto for travel. That's only practical, and clearly reveals the soft belly of the Mattock dictum: schlepping less gear ----> more range and energy ----> more fun making pics.
But if I need a 800mm lens to shoot subjects at long distance, there's no sense for me in going out with a 50mm. The first photographer to articulate the less-is-more philosophy may have been Kertesz, as far as I know. "Simplify, simplify" were his words, iirc. Not quite the same, still I don't think he was referring to life or gear (he shot small to large formats), but rather to composition and subject matter.
If you've got to carry your gear a distance, well, as Will says, no questioning the need to practice "less is more" while packing. Ditto for travel. That's only practical, and clearly reveals the soft belly of the Mattock dictum: schlepping less gear ----> more range and energy ----> more fun making pics.
Last edited:
bmattock
Mentor
That sounds less like simplification than a happy accident. Granted if all one has is a 50mm lens, one learns to use it to best advantage, and one may find out how truly capable such a lens is.
However, when I want to shoot sandhill cranes, that is not the lens I will reach for.
If I want to go on a voyage of inner discovery, then perhaps I'll select a lens at random off my shelf and go out just with that and see what I can make of it. Totally different concepts.
jl-lb.ms
John A. Lever
I took a walk on the beach yesterday with an M8 and a Canon LTM 135. No external finder, just using the patch for reference. Got some great shots of the sea birds!
wgerrard
Mentor
I'm a proponent of keeping life simple, but not being an ascetic. Not because I think it will make me better at something, but because it makes me happier. If I have to choose between being better at something and being happier, I'll choose the latter every time.
Deciding to "upgrade specific items in kind" makes a lot of sense to me. E.g., if I find one 50mm lens that I find myself using every time I want a 50mm, why should I go to the expense of buying more 50mm lenses? The time to buy another one is when someone markets something that will make me even happier.
That said, I deliberately bought a small clutter of cameras and lenses a couple years ago, expecting to eventually winnow out the hardware that didn't strike my fancy. That process has clicked in now. I can see going to one camera and three lenses in the next year or so.
Deciding to "upgrade specific items in kind" makes a lot of sense to me. E.g., if I find one 50mm lens that I find myself using every time I want a 50mm, why should I go to the expense of buying more 50mm lenses? The time to buy another one is when someone markets something that will make me even happier.
That said, I deliberately bought a small clutter of cameras and lenses a couple years ago, expecting to eventually winnow out the hardware that didn't strike my fancy. That process has clicked in now. I can see going to one camera and three lenses in the next year or so.
bmattock
Mentor
Try it at a nature preserve.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
I thought that if you want to go on a photographic voyage of inner discovery, you'd want an endoscope and a tube of personal lubricant. I could be wrong.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I think simplification is good if you need it. By that I mean that if having more choices doesn't actually support your work, then for some people it can be a hindrance. If you "see" in certain focal lengths, then having every other lens choice possible simply makes no sense.
Yes, occasionally having a different choice can be happy serendipity. For example, if I see primarily in compositions with a FOV of a 28 or 35 mm lens, then that is what will attract my eye. If I just happen to see something that requires a 300mm lens and happen to have it with me, obviously I will have the option of making that shot, which I would not if I were only carrying the wide. But I won't seek out/find the 300mm shot all that often, because it's simply not how I see/work.
So for Bill's example, going to shoot the sandhill cranes without long lenses would be silly. And since he will be focusing on the cranes, he may not even notice a nice opportunity that would best be made with a 28, 21, etc.
I prefer simplicity and fewer options most of the time, because it helps me to be more aware ... that's just me, others may be totally the opposite.
Yesterday, while driving back to Roch from Windsor, nearly everything I saw along the way was a 4x5 shot or panorama made with the 150 on 4x5; only one scene would have been best made with the 90. Why? I dunno, except to say that that was the way I was "seeing" in the given landscapes. Another day it might be the 100 on the OM. Of course, yesterday I was coming back due to a family medical situation, and didn't even have the 4x5 kit with me, so everything will remain in my memory.
Yes, occasionally having a different choice can be happy serendipity. For example, if I see primarily in compositions with a FOV of a 28 or 35 mm lens, then that is what will attract my eye. If I just happen to see something that requires a 300mm lens and happen to have it with me, obviously I will have the option of making that shot, which I would not if I were only carrying the wide. But I won't seek out/find the 300mm shot all that often, because it's simply not how I see/work.
So for Bill's example, going to shoot the sandhill cranes without long lenses would be silly. And since he will be focusing on the cranes, he may not even notice a nice opportunity that would best be made with a 28, 21, etc.
I prefer simplicity and fewer options most of the time, because it helps me to be more aware ... that's just me, others may be totally the opposite.
Yesterday, while driving back to Roch from Windsor, nearly everything I saw along the way was a 4x5 shot or panorama made with the 150 on 4x5; only one scene would have been best made with the 90. Why? I dunno, except to say that that was the way I was "seeing" in the given landscapes. Another day it might be the 100 on the OM. Of course, yesterday I was coming back due to a family medical situation, and didn't even have the 4x5 kit with me, so everything will remain in my memory.
bmattock
Mentor
Internal versus inner. One always trips over the ungainliness of the language.
BillP
Rangefinder General
Hmm... It strikes me that contrarians counsel against simplification because it leaves them with ever less to rail against...
Regards,
Bill
Regards,
Bill
lns
Established
antiquark
Derek Ross
I like simplicity, because it's easier to carry around.
35mmdelux
#Represent
As a generalist photographer I'm cool on the street with one camera and one lens.
jl-lb.ms
John A. Lever
amateriat
We're all light!
Film Simplification: I did that years ago, switching from a big SLR-based system to RF. Of course, it's relative: still two bodies, but now just three small lenses, a flash or two, and nothing else. It does practically everything I want. (The Olympus OM-2n with Sigma 21-35 zoom setup is another story.) Couldn't be happier.
Digital Simplification: Here's a mental hot-foot: I currently use a borrowed Olympus C-8080 and tiny Casio EX-850. I was thinking about replacing both with a Panasonic GF-1, but now, in a fit of radical "simplifying" on the digital front, I'm thinking of replacing the above digital gear with a Nikon P6000 and SB-400 Speedlite flash. Seriously.
(As my Dad told me, 48 years ago, after I lost my last balsa-wood slingshot-glider in the trees in Fort Tryon Park, "That's all, no more." For the time being, anyway.)
- Barrett
Digital Simplification: Here's a mental hot-foot: I currently use a borrowed Olympus C-8080 and tiny Casio EX-850. I was thinking about replacing both with a Panasonic GF-1, but now, in a fit of radical "simplifying" on the digital front, I'm thinking of replacing the above digital gear with a Nikon P6000 and SB-400 Speedlite flash. Seriously.
(As my Dad told me, 48 years ago, after I lost my last balsa-wood slingshot-glider in the trees in Fort Tryon Park, "That's all, no more." For the time being, anyway.)
- Barrett
Last edited:
FrankS
Registered User
With rangefinders, 50mm seems to be my short tele lens. 35mm is "normal" and a CV21 is my wide.
With slr's, 50 and 28 are my main lenses.
With slr's, 50 and 28 are my main lenses.
venchka
Mentor
Actual conversation at dinner last night:
Spousal Unit, "Why don't you pick one camera and get to know it inside out and backwards?"
Me, "Get rid of everyhting else?"
S.U., "Pick one for a year. You always have to have just one more camera. Learn how use one camera you have."
Me, "Good grief. Which one?"
Why are wives always right?
ps: In her logic, one camera means one camera with one lens. A body and a bag of lenses don't count.
Now, which one for a whole year?
Spousal Unit, "Why don't you pick one camera and get to know it inside out and backwards?"
Me, "Get rid of everyhting else?"
S.U., "Pick one for a year. You always have to have just one more camera. Learn how use one camera you have."
Me, "Good grief. Which one?"
Why are wives always right?
ps: In her logic, one camera means one camera with one lens. A body and a bag of lenses don't count.
Now, which one for a whole year?
amateriat
We're all light!
It depends on the Significant Other. But, damnit, some have serious radar. (Mine does, most of the time, anyway...)
For all I know, she might have influenced my return to RFs. Do you understand the implications of this?
- Barrett