The joy of One camera One Lens

[jip]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I usually carry more lenses with me but tend to only switch at a certain point and not walk around swtiching lenses...

 

Like last week I only used the 21mm Elmarit-M on my M9 at the Guggenheim in Manhattan.

 

When I went outdoors switched to a 50mm Summicron-M which I used the rest of the day, and at some point switched over to the 35mm Summicron-M ASPH.

 

I hate switching lenses every few minutes...

[erl]

I have been shooting with an M4-P and a 50mm 'Cron since 1988, and been advocating the advantages of it ever since.

Bruce Lee once said:

“I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once. I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.”

Likewise: Don’t get caught up in acquiring all the latest, great photography tools. Pick one camera and one lens, and shoot with it 10,000 times.

mauromentallo, I respect your choice totally but you did not elucidate whether you also have and use other lenses. Just an aside.

 

My real query is directed at the 'cliche' you have quoted. ".......I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.” If attempting to equate this to using the one lens 10,000 times (I suspect this was the intent) I find it not useful in that each of the 10,000 times you are using that lens, you will most likely be facing a completely different motif. I suggest that a different lens/tool could sometimes be just a better choice. ie."not using a hammer to drive a screw" would be a good idea, to 'create' my own counter quote.

 

You also said: "Pick one camera and one lens, and shoot with it 10,000 times." Now that has a somewhat different meaning and I totally agree with it. That indicates a defined training regime, which is a good idea, but not advocating excluding other choices in real life practice.

[Advertisement]

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

[Pablo LeicaM8]

I have been shooting with an M4-P and a 50mm 'Cron since 1988, and been advocating the advantages of it ever since.

Bruce Lee once said:

“I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once. I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.”

Likewise: Don’t get caught up in acquiring all the latest, great photography tools. Pick one camera and one lens, and shoot with it 10,000 times.

 

I love the analogy, and I understand it as a training process to master that one lens.

BTW, great photo and comments at "Of Cameras And Men":)

Edited April 3, 2013 by Pablo LeicaM8

[earleygallery]

I agree with Erl.

 

If I go out and just take a camera with me with no intended use in mind - in case I see something along the way - then it's one lens. I'll make do and if it means I miss the shot because I needed something longer then so be it.

 

If I'm intending on taking photos then I'll choose the equipment I anticipate needing, which will most likely include at least two lenses if not more.

[SJP]

That is the fun of my M2 and 35/2.8 summaron, they are married and somehow will not part - at least not in my mind. I have used other lenses on it very occasionally, but it always feels wrong.

 

Similar is the X1, you are stuck with a single focal length which clears the brain. No need to make 'lens choices'.

 

Simplicity helps.

[exile]

I can't agree completely. For me it so depends on the situation and type of photography.

 

For a casual day or night, I'll just take a 40mm f/2 (outdoors), or a 50/1.5 or 35/1.2 (indoors). This is just a matter of wanting the smallest kit; one camera and one lens of the type used most frequently = "normal lens".

 

But for travel or landscape photography I take 21, 40 and 90mm. One lens of each lens type: "super-wide", " perfect normal" and "short telephoto". These focal lengths are so distinct in my mind that I am able to choose one based on a clear visualisation of how I want the photo to look - I never try to capture the same scene with three wildly different lenses so I only change lenses between scenes. One lens on the camera and one in each trouser pocket is not particularly burdensome to me.

 

If you can "learn" three different focal lengths and each lens is small enough to fit in a pocket, I think most people do benefit from having a choice of focal lengths. The obvious exception in my mind is fast moving situations like street or event photography, when physically moving the shooting position after unhesitant previsualisation is much quicker than changing a lens, and capturing the decisive moment is of overriding importance. In these situations, I agree that one camera one lens makes sense again.

 

Having said all of that, and refering back to the original post, I can see that taking one camera and one lens is also a good way of limiting your time behind the camera in consideration of companions; simply because you accept that there will be opportunities for photos that you just have to let go because you didn't bring the appropriate lens. I do exactly this on business trips when I am exploring cities with colleagues.

[wizard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As long as that one lens is my MATE, I am all with you .

 

Andy

[Archiver]

This is something often espoused in camera forums, but it really does depend on your taste and desired subjects. I've long tried to come up with a one lens solution but I can't get past two. I'd want a 28 for general shooting and a 50 for environmental portraiture, subject separation and a more compressed view. They need to be as fast as possible in order to handle dimly lit jazz clubs or night scenes.

 

35/1.4 is between 28 and 50 but I still can't stick with just a 35. I find myself in a room I want to capture but 35 isn't wide enough without some panoramic gyrations. Or I want to capture a more intimate portrait and 35 is too wide, and won't give me the shallower depth of field of a 50.

 

M7 and 50 Summicron won't cut it, M9 with 35/1.4 Nokton won't cut it, M7/M9 with 28 Elmarit won't cut it. It would be great to do this, but the original Tri-Elmar would be my only Leica-based one lens solution.

[andybarton]

One lens per day. Not forever.

[erl]

Maybe till lunchtime, or even morning tea.

I don't normally 'do' morning tea, but if I were doing the 'one lens' thing I would have to, just to change lens.

[sblitz]

yes one lens one camera, but then i carry a couple of cameras

[Graf Lomo]

I ask myself where is the limit? 2 lenses, 3, 10? If I have a 21, do I need a 15? If I have a 90 with me, do I need a 200? With my M I than need another body. Imo erverybody must make his own choice. My choice is mostly one camera and one lens. A 35 or a 50. But sometimes I like more

 

To make a long story short: erverybody is right

[Broadside]

I just wish I could afford more than one lens!

[250swb]

Bruce Lee once said:

“I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once. I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.”

 

Whether it is personal expression or a wider artistic amibition I don't like this trend of putting numbers to the creative aspects of photography. If somebody wants or needs to use a few different lens to make the photographs they like, I think they should, and without having read some self important pseudo zen claptrap to hold them back.

 

As I read the quote above I see in the first sentence10,000 photographs exploring the creativity of the photographer, and there is eveything to applaud in that. In the second sentence I see 10,000 photographs exploring the same thing, and let's face it, we only need to see the very last image from the 10,000 because that will be the perfect one. Using one lens is a nice game to play in a photography workshop, or over a period of years as the photographer's vision and themes are explored. But it is a very dangerous thing to advocate as being artistically superior because such bunkum is taken on board too seriously by people willing to be led up the garden path. It ranks with 'Leica's shouldn't be used on a tripod', or 'I only use my Summilux wide open' in the pantheon of useless and self serving Leica folklore.

 

So forget the #1, each to his/her own, use as many lenses as you want to use, after all you'll soon start leaving those at home that aren't worth bothering with. And you could also stop your Summilux down to f/16 and take a tripod with you if you want to explore what you can do.

 

Steve

Edited May 15, 2013 by 250swb

[robert-gregory]

When I was first getting into Photography and Leica I don't remember my mentor using anything other than his M4 and 50 Summicron. Of course this had a big impact on me.

 

Although now I may have a variety of lenses and bodies to choose from, when I go out the door I usually have one camera and a lens for the day, even if that lens is a bit over the edge of 'normal', a 24 or even 90. I does give a sense of freedom to work with a set focal length and see everything framed with the camera's one lens.

 

When I travel it stays the same but more of a flexible use view with an M-series and 35 or my Rollei with its 75mm. Don't usually feel I'm missing anything, instead its peace of mind, lighten the load, and 'seeing' in a set way, getting to know my equipment well and what I can do with it.

Edited May 15, 2013 by robert_hitt

[erl]

Why do I keep hearing the phrase 'blinkered vision' in my brain?

 

Sorry, just my post dinner ruminations.

[wlaidlaw]

For the last two weeks, I have had nothing except the Zeiss Contax Vario Sonnar 28-85/f3.3 on my M240. This is a great lens and works brilliantly on the 240 (selected as a 28-90 Vario Elmarit-R). However pocket sized it is not; nor a lightweight at a combined total of 1.45 kg.

 

Wilson

[gberger]

Guess I'm antediluvian, as I used a IIIc with the 50mm 3.5 Elmar from 1946 until I could afford an M4 with an early 50mm Summicron. Transparencies only (no darkroom facilities).

Then I acquired a version II 35mm Chron. and a later version with an M6.

 

After all the early years with a 50mm, the 35mm became my ideal, and one was glued to my camera

 

Unfortunately, eyesight has driven me to the Zeiss Ikon ZM, but with a 35 Summilux ASPH.

When traveling, I buy local postcards, then deliberately avoid shooting what the locals believe constitute their surroundings. One camera, one lens seems to work.

[MarkP]

This is something often espoused in camera forums, but it really does depend on your taste and desired subjects. I've long tried to come up with a one lens solution but I can't get past two. I'd want a 28 for general shooting and a 50 for environmental portraiture, subject separation and a more compressed view. They need to be as fast as possible in order to handle dimly lit jazz clubs or night scenes.

 

35/1.4 is between 28 and 50 but I still can't stick with just a 35. I find myself in a room I want to capture but 35 isn't wide enough without some panoramic gyrations. Or I want to capture a more intimate portrait and 35 is too wide, and won't give me the shallower depth of field of a 50.

 

M7 and 50 Summicron won't cut it, M9 with 35/1.4 Nokton won't cut it, M7/M9 with 28 Elmarit won't cut it. It would be great to do this, but the original Tri-Elmar would be my only Leica-based one lens solution.

 

You have perfectly expressed my thoughts about my 28 Summicron and 50 Summilux (or 1.0/50 Notilux) combination.

 

I have an E49 MATE which is a fanstastic and convenient lens except obviously limited in low light. There is some distirtion at 28mm which I don't find an issue in more general photography.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[SteveYork]

Most rangefinder users walk around with only one lens.

 

As a practical matter, you're limited to two lenses anyway.