Learning to compose - lens advice

[gdrank]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Friends,

I’m just getting into Leica with an M9. And I need a single lens to come with it, 35 or 50mm (for now).

My work has me travelling a lot in Africa, Asia, Pacific and South America spending only 2-3 months per year at home.

Got a bulky DSLR and a bazooka-zoom 2 years ago but I finally didn’t really like carrying it with me often or pointing it to peoples’ faces. I addition, my mistaken –consumption driven- belief that good equipment will give me good shots resulted to only a couple of -lucky- nice pictures in those 2 years. Maybe they did me a favour when they stole the whole gear from me, one night in Indonesia, together with the external disks of all images of that period (back up inclusive)… haha!

So I’d like to get it right this time and stick to the basics. My question is not purely Leica related but about learning photography in general.

I want a lens that will help me learn composition – that’s the main objective at this point. I love shooting all kinds of photography, colour or b&w, apart from –tele- wildlife & sports. I’m mainly intrigued by the artistic aspect and messages implied in images.

So,

· Although I find 35mm and wider angle perspectives very attractive while the 50mm seems more monotonous and restricted, I know I underestimate the 50. I then hear & read that the 50mm’s narrow perspective will help me get the basics on composition easier than the 35mm. What’s your take on that?

· What’s your take –leica wise- on first lens for everything? (been through Rokwell, Overgaard, Huff that point to 50 Summicron). My jaw dropped when found out that a new lens, Summicron or Summilux, takes 6 months to a year to arrive!!!

· I will of course have to shoot shoot shoot to get better; any other advice is appreciated!

Cheers

G.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[luigi bertolotti]

Welcome to the forum !!!

My opinion, for what it can be valued (I'm a pure amateur) is that 50 is, after all, the best lens to learn how to take a good photo : I add also that, being 50 a frame which leaves a good space around in the M9 Viewfinder, it is of help in evaluating how can be the best composition : try some variants if situation allows... one of the big advantages of digital, for any photog but even more for beginners is that one hasn't to worry about "throw away" film... : take some different pictures of the same subject with slightly different compositions... then when you have time, think well, in front of the monitor, which is the best and above all WHY it is so... you can draw many considerations on composing doing such an exercise.

 

And, yes... Leica lenses are often to be waited for long... but, if you prefer, a used Summicron 50 in good conditions is not difficult to find, and is always a good choice to start. When you are rather satisified with your skill, add a wideangle like 28 and do the same learning path...

[leicafan!]

I'd also say that a manual rangefinder is a poor choice for a complete beginner. Get a Fuji X100 or something like that and save your money. I'd expect a beginner to find a Leica extremely frustrating to use.

[Peter H]

Welcome.

 

I think a 50 is always a good place to start.

 

Aside from the fact that using one lens only will teach you a huge amount about composition, it will also help you decide which other focal lengths you want to follow up with. But a nice 50 is an incredibly versatile lens that will allow you to cover all sorts of subjects and circumstances. Its only monotonous if you allow it to be. In fact its "ordinariness" might be the greatest spur to your creativity you can find!

 

Having said that, many are huge fans of the 35 for its expanded view and ability to capture a bit more context than the slightly narrower 50. But the 50 would be my first choice for the purposes you describe.

 

There are many really good 50s readily available, including Summarits and a whole host of used lenses, and the same applies to 35s too. I don't think you should let availability determine this important creative decision.

 

Have fun!

[Michael Hiles]

I also recommend a 50mm. Its angle of view roughly matches what the eye sees and concentrates on(neglecting peripheral vision), and the sense of perspective is about the same as normal human vision. Pictures made with a 50mm look "natural". So what you see without the camera is what you get.

[jdlaing]

My vote goes to a 50 as well.

Now for the hard part.....I can think of 6 different versions to choose from.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'd also say that a manual rangefinder is a poor choice for a complete beginner. Get a Fuji X100 or something like that and save your money. I'd expect a beginner to find a Leica extremely frustrating to use.

I would say it is a perfect way to learn photography - unlike automated cameras that teach exactly nothing.

[01af]

Although I find 35 mm and wider-angle perspectives very attractive while the 50 mm seems more monotonous and restricted, I know I underestimate the 50 mm. I then hear and read that the 50 mm’s narrow perspective will help me get the basics on composition easier than the 35 mm. What’s your take on that?

You may under-estimate the 50 mm lens ... but that's not the point.

 

The point is—what kind of guy (or gal?) are you? Don't force yourself into a 50 mm frame when the 35-mm field-of-view is how you see the world. There are wide-angle guys and there are telephoto guys. Thorsten Overgaard mostly uses Summicron 50 mm and Summarit 90 mm. Henri Cartier-Bresson almost exclusively used 50 mm. Diane Arbus and Vivian Maier used the built-in 75 or 80 mm lenses on their Rolleiflexes which roughly is equivalent to 40 - 45 mm on 35-mm format. Street photographers like Joel Meyerowitz or Bruce Gilden mostly shoot 28 mm and 35 mm lenses on their Leicas. So did Garry Winogrand. Who's right? Who's wrong? Stupid question, of course. Right is what feels right, and works for you.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with starting with a 35 mm lens if that's what appeals to you. There is nothing wrong with a 50 mm lens either ... or with a 28 mm lens for that matter. And it doesn't make much of a difference whether you choose a Summilux, Summicron, or Summarit ... or something else, like Biogon, Planar, Sonnar, Nokton, Ultron, Color-Skopar etc.

 

In terms of 'learnig to compose,' a 50 mm is neither better nor worse than a 35 mm lens. The trick is that you pick a lens and then use the heck out of it. As simple as that.

[lars_bergquist]

The classical definition of 'standard lens' is one with a focal length equal to the diagonal of the negative or sensor format. That was the rationale behind those classical standards of 75mm (6x6cm film), 105mm (6x9), 135mm (9x12) and 150mm/6' (4'x5'). But the diagonal of the 35mm format is 43.3mm.

 

So the fact is that 35mm and 50mm (actually, 52mm) are about equally positioned on both sides of 43.3mm so that both focal lengths can be regarded as 'standard' – one short, one long. Which one you decide on has to do with your shooting habits, and above all with your way of seeing. I use both, and prefer 35mm for indoor and street shooting, 50mm for the Great Outdoors and for intimate 'people shots'. But both are definitely the most versatile lengths, and they do overlap quite a bit. Which one you decide for is not too important. If you buy a 50 and find that you would like more elbow room, sell the 50 (at little or no loss to you) and buy a 35 – or just buy a 35. They are different enough for it to be worthwhile to own and use both. Sometimes I actually carry both in my bag!

 

Re composition: Both lengths, being 'standards', are good for the classical Western Renaissance central composition, with the 'main subject' centered in the frame and possibly other subject matter deemed 'subordinate' or 'secondary' and placed peripherally. With progressively wider lenses, you must learn a different, more 'Oriental' composition where everything in the frame is subject matter and there can be two or even more 'main subjects' that do at least spatially interact. The 35mm lens is wide enough to lend itself to simple variants of this composition method. The 'main subject' is placed off center and interacts with its close environment. You do then focus on that 'main subject' – usually a person – and then you re-compose. This is actually not much different from focusing with the rangefinder and composing the picture in an auxiliary finder, which you do with lenses wider than 28mm. Don't worry, it works, and the result is often striking.

 

One good way of learning seeing, and composing, is to subscribe to the Leica Photography International magazine. Most pictures in it are made with M cameras. The photo forums here are also interesting, but they have not gone through the vetting procedure of the LFI. So – get a lens and go take pictures! A M camera, even a digital one, is very straightforward and the learning curve is short as long as you go about your learning in a reasonably methodical manner.

 

The old man from the Kodachrome Age

[steveclem]

Buy a 15 or 18mm and use the crop possibilities to post process your shots and see what appeals to you the most in a given situation. Then buy a suitable prime if,and when you have decided on an appealing angle of view.

[leicafan!]

I would say it is a perfect way to learn photography - unlike automated cameras that teach exactly nothing.

 

Extremely expensive though for a beginner....

[Sp12]

Learning composition via a specific lens seems pretty preposterous to me. Primes can help, but the reality is that it's something you see. You can compose with a zoom too -- it's called picking your perspective first then picking your FL to match. You said you erronously chased good gear as a means to get good photos, and I'm struggling to find a difference here. Rangefinders are a means to an end. Photos come from you.

 

IMO the most useful 'single' focal length is 35. Voigtlander makes a 35/1.2 for ~1.3K that many claim is sharper than the FLE Lux. There's the Summicron for only a bit more cash if F/2 is good enough and you value size.

 

That said, Leica is likely coming out with the M10 in ~3 weeks, so I would hold off plopping ~8K on a camera body likely to be outdated before you put 100 clicks on it.

 

I would say it is a perfect way to learn photography - unlike automated cameras that teach exactly nothing.

Isn't really accurate. You don't have to turn on cruise control, and if you want to be any good at driving you must learn to drive without it first. It's your call to use autoexposure on any modern camera. I still shoot my DSLRs in manual mode a majority of the time, often with MF lenses, but it sure is nice to have smart Ap mode and AF for birds in rapidly shifting light. It's the same deal as zooms really.

[spydrxx]

I began RF photography (not with a Leica though) using a 50mm lens over 50 years ago. When I bought my first Leica, although my friends loaned me their 50 Elmar and Summicrons to try, I chose a 35mm Summaron instead and it was almost 20 years before I went back to using a 50. I think the choice of lens is what your vision and subjects dictate. I just sold the 35 and 135 I've been using for about 10 years, and am touching the (RF) extremes (15 + 90) with a 50 to keep me grounded.

[earleygallery]

Hmmm. A 'good' camera won't mean that you will take 'good' pictures. I've seen people make that mistake before, spending a fortune on equipment in the mistaken belief that it will improve their photography.

 

I also don't think that any lens will 'teach' you compostition. Compostion applies to all lenses, in fact you could argue that a 21mm is best because it's quite difficult to use ultra wide lenses effectively.

 

Buy a 35 or a 50 and learn to use it. Read some books, maybe take a short course. Look at the work of other photographers and study how they have composed their photos.

 

Oh and look at a Summarit range too, your dealer probably has those in stock ready to go.

[Jager]

As Lars described, either a 35 or a 50 will do perfectly. If you find 50 rather boring - then by all means go with the slightly wider focal length.

 

Whichever you choose, stick with that one lens for a good long while. Until its viewpoint of the world becomes so second-nature that you know what it sees before you raise the camera to your eye.

 

And, finally, be aware that neither focal length will teach you composition. For that, first understand that the single biggest compositional faux pas - made millions and millions of times, every year, ever on - is to place whatever your nominal 'subject' is dead-center in the middle of the frame. It's a mistake as old as photography, made worse in the modern era by auto-focus cameras with their ubiquitous center-focus sensors. Break that habit. Learn the rule of thirds. Practice seeing the whole frame, not just the subject. Strive to make the composition in each shot a choice, not simply a result.

 

Mostly, study the work of photographers who appeal to you. Your photography will benefit more from spending time with monographs from Cartier-Bresson, Maier, Kertesz, Erwitt and folks of that ilk, than having a whole bag of lenses.

 

Welcome to the forum!

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello G,

 

Welcome to the Forum.

 

The 35mm & 50mm lenses you have asked about are the traditional lenses people often learn photography w/. Learning w/ them is certainly an easy way to learn to take an acceptable picture. In terms of learning composition I have a somewhat different perspective:

 

A 90mm lens covers a somewhat more restricted angle of view w/ a somewhat lesser depth of focus.

 

As such a person has to be more selective in terms of their subject, background & perspective. They have to learn composition.

 

If you go to any major museum in the World & study the work of a variety of artists whether they are painters or sculptors you will notice that many of the works which are in the collections are done w/ the perspective of more or less a 90mm lens on a full frame camera. Someone picked a subject out of the World it was in & captured it for everyone to see.

 

Painting or sculpting composition is no different than the same w/ a camera. The lighting, perspective & so on are all the same. What is different is the capturing box w/ a digital sensor as opposed to a pallette, brush & canvas or a hammer,chisel & marble.

 

Since you want to learn composition & remain somewhat unobtrusive I would recommend a 90mm F2.8 Tele-Elmarit w/o any problems of fungus?, etc along w/ a 12575 lens hood more for protection than to prevent flare. Rigid lens hoods are important whichever lens of whatever focal length you choose. More for preventing damage than reducing flare.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[Michael Hiles]

Me again.

 

To learn about composition and what works in the picture space, read appropriate books (most photo books say nothing about composition), and mainly, look at pictures. Not only photographs - look at important paintings too. Making fine pictures has little to do with wringing your hands about lenses.

[Peter H]

Lars, I can't help feeling that the world has moved on a lot since the time when you could meaningfully talk about western renaissance and oriental composition in relation contemporary photography.

 

They are helpful terms in understanding the development of composition, but I don't think they have the same relationship to the way modern photography is practiced as they used to.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wda]

If you have a 'wide-eyed' view of the world, get a 35mm Personally I would choose a 50, which is much better for details and portraits than a 35mm lens. Then, later, consider a 28mm wide angle lens to open up that segment of photography.

[skinnfell]

Welcome to the forum, and a very good question to start with.

 

The general advice is to start with a 50mm lens. You say it yourself, the 50 is somewhat tight, forcing decisions as to what to leave in and what to leave out. It also affords a little more distance to your subject for portraits, grab shots and streetlife, and it also gives you slightly more control over the background.

Both a 50 and a 35 produce pictures with a very natural perspective.

 

For the first ten years of my photography I used almost exclusively 50mm lenses. Today I firmly believe that this forced me to learn to make tight compositions with no "useless trimmings". Today my main lens is a 35, but that is only because I work as a photojournalist and my stories often requires a bit more context (background/foreground).

 

One tip I found very useful was to avoid the max apertures unless you need to for low light reasons. It is all too easy to set f2 or f1.4 and do away with the background completely, but this can often lead to less interesting compositions than if you included the background.

 

It is almost impossible to bring up the subject of composition without mention the honorable Henri C-B. While he owned many lenses, it was with the 50 he made almost all of his legendary pictures. Even if you do not intend to copy his style it is definitely worth while studying his compositions. Look especially for:

- How the subject is isolated from the foreground and background, like if you cut it out and pasted it into the picture.

- How he uses diagonals and places the interesting things along them

- How he uses repeating and mirroring shapes many times throughout one picture.

- How he doesnt really use the "rule of thirds".

- How he often crops out things common photography teaching would have you include. (faces, hands, feet etc)

 

However, making a picture with a good composition is often dependent on a spilt second. The "street photography" trick of setting a narrow aperture like f8 or f11, and using hyperfocal distance so that everything from , say 2 meters to 10 meters is in focus, you are able to react shoot very very quickly. If you look at pictures of HCB you will see that he often carried his camera close to his chin, so that he can move the camera to the eye very quickly.

 

I know many people on this forum hate them, but a focussing tab would also be indispensable since you can feel the lens with your fingers and by learning the tab position you can estimate focus pretty accurately where your focus is even before you raise the camera to your eye.

 

I sometimes makes the comparison with a serve in tennis. If you look at the ball you are never going to make it. You have to develop a "feel" for where the ball is, and focus only on where you want the ball to end up. It takes a lot of practise but when you get it, you will get it right almost every time.

 

Wether you get the summarit, summicron or summilux is only up to your wallet. They are all excellent. However, If you look at the great "leica masters" very very few pictures are made at F2 or F1.4.

 

Finally, if you REALLY want to learn composition, take a trip to an art gallery with old paintings, particularly the renaissance masters. Study how they used light, shadows, lines and diagonals, how everything has a meaning. I am sure this is what HCB did too.

 

Good luck!