Is 35mm All You Really Need?

[justj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Some people can live with only one banana a day, it doesn't mean you have do it too.

[Herr Barnack]

Well if I was only allowed to take one lens it would be a 35mm, since it is my most used focal length (just like 28mm was with my M8.2).  My bag holds 21,24,28,35,50,and 90 mm lenses and I use them all as needed and would not give any of them up.

 

My walking around lens is the 35 Summicron ASPH - it is a good do it all lens.  If I need a 50 and all I have is the 35, I just get closer and it works out (usually).

 

When traveling for photographic purposes, I take them all (21/3.4, 28/2.8, 35/2. 50/1.0, 50/2.8, 90/2.0) since I don't have that many to begin with.  Some would find it outlandish to take the 50/1.0 on a photographic trip, but having it at hand has proven to be well worth the added weight.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Herr Barnack

[pgk]

Some people can live with only one banana a day, it doesn't mean you have do it too.

 

Ook?

[jmahto]

For people who can't decide between 35 and 50, there is wonderful option of 40 summicron-C.

[Guest]

People often talk about "a walking around lens." Sorry, but this has no meaning for me. My approach, when I go out photographing where I live (never mind that it's on three continents), is to take one lens — that can be 21 or 28 or 35 or 50, depending how I feel or the project that I'm shooting. If I really don't know what I'm after I go out with one lens on the camera and one in my pocket, but I fond it's rather that I change and put on the lens that's in my pocket.

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

[erl]

In response to the advocates of limiting, above, I say that is fine, but it is still limiting!

The fact, which I acknowledge, that many great and not so great photographer's  only used 50mm or 35mm or whatever, still they were limited, by their own choice.

 

Rus above says he only work at 5 - 8 metres. That is his self imposed limitation and that allows him to be restricted to 50mm. OK, that is a choice and I am sure he does well because that is his specific choice. That can't be argued with.

 

 

Anyone who today has tried to earn a living with their camera will tell you they need a range of tools, including multiple focal lengths. Of course you can shoot one lens and then crop or whatever, but that is compromise whatever you say. Try telling a client you are compromising on their assignment.

 

Out of all the discussion, clearly it is possible to shoot only one lens (I too have done it), but you cannot escape facts - it is limiting.

[Paul J]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No, it's not limiting unless you feel limited. If you feel you need to say something with a different focal length then use it.

 

As for commercial work, no that is not true either. I mostly use one lens and clients don't care what that lens is so long as they get what they book me for. I don't need to tell clients I'm compromising because I'm not compromising.

[erl]

No, it's not limiting unless you feel limited. If you feel you need to say something with a different focal length then use it.

 

As for commercial work, no that is not true either. I mostly use one lens and clients don't care what that lens is so long as they get what they book me for. I don't need to tell clients I'm compromising because I'm not compromising.

Paul, with respect, it is limiting, regardless of how one feels. Either you are aware of it or are blissful oblivious to the fact, which is OK.  It's simple physics, which I didn't invent.

 

Re the commercial work, we have to agree to disagree here. My last point is that if it is necessary to change the perspective of the shot, without changing the framing, you must change the focal length because you need to move the camera. Again pure physics.

 

After all that, we are both happy in the way we each do it. What a great outcome!

[stephengv]

I travelled to Japan, Cambodia, France, UK, Belgium, Netherlands and California, I brought the 21 and a 50, but I never use it. I only use the 35 cron asph. Its liberating and make the process simple. 

[Paul J]

Paul, with respect, it is limiting, regardless of how one feels. Either you are aware of it or are blissful oblivious to the fact, which is OK.  It's simple physics, which I didn't invent.

 

Re the commercial work, we have to agree to disagree here. My last point is that if it is necessary to change the perspective of the shot, without changing the framing, you must change the focal length because you need to move the camera. Again pure physics.

 

After all that, we are both happy in the way we each do it. What a great outcome!

 

I'm happy to agree to disagree.

 

If one lens resonates with your vision and suits your point of view than how can it be limiting?

 

To say if someone has "only mastered one lens then you haven't mastered much" is just a silly and untrue thing to say that has very little relevance to photography - which is what my initial reaction to Adan's post was about.

 

As for clients, they never tell me what lenses to use or where to stand and just as a minor detail - you don't change perspective by changing lenses.

 

My point is that the camera is a means to an end. If what you want to say needs 100 lenses, use them. For some, one lens says everything.

[EddieJ]

Like a box of liquorice allsorts   and a rigorous discussion to boot.

 

As a student - only had one lens a 50mm

As a professional -

120 film - 50, 80, 120 makro, 180 + close up +1, +2

4x5 film - 90, 150, 210

35 digital - 14-24, 20, 50, 105 macro, 135 DC, 80-200

As an educator - the Photo Store 

 

Now -

1x 50mm film

1x 23mm 35mm eqv digital

 

For me: 

As a student - aspiring, yes I owned one lens, used a Hasselblad *again only one lens.

As a professional - (advertising photographer, 80% studio 20% location) *it was mandatory to be abreast OF ALL FOCAL LENGTHS

 

Off-topic

Now I shoot for me and nobody else - not Instagram, Flickr, Tumblr, FB etc.

I have an aversion to social media - what you upload you cannot remove/delete.

 

"Likes" and "Followers" do not maketh the photographer.

 

To work as a photographer today is tough - social media is an unnecessary evil.

Your Profile, your content feed and elsewhere on this forum SEO https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/272564-eric-kim-proves-the-value-and-fallacy-of-seo-for-photographers/ is part and parcel of todays working photographer.

 

Along with weapons of mass disruption 

[anachronist]

Haven't read all of the posts here: Has anyone mentioned the personality of the photographer? If your subject are people: Are you outgoing, not afraid to get close to people and engage them? Take a 28. Are you more of an observer from a little distance? Take a 50. Are you shy and introvert, but still interested in people? Take a 90. Does it depend on your ever changing  mood and are you adaptable? Take a 35. With any of these as Leica lenses, your subject won't know how closely you observe them.

If your subject is not people, I guess the 35 is a good lens to capture anything but makro, but so is the 50. I can't answer that question with a 'yes' or 'no' and a lot of you can't either and that's the beauty of it - I enjoy reading these "contentious" discussions. Thank you all!

[erl]

I'm happy to agree to disagree.

 

If one lens resonates with your vision and suits your point of view than how can it be limiting?

By excluding all other options. But if it suits your purpose, it matters not.

 

To say if someone has "only mastered one lens then you haven't mastered much" is just a silly and untrue thing to say that has very little relevance to photography - which is what my initial reaction to Adan's post was about.

 

As for clients, they never tell me what lenses to use or where to stand and just as a minor detail - you don't change perspective by changing lenses.

Clients will frequently tell you what they want, hopefully. It is the photogs job to translate that into lens choice, perspective, etc.

Re the perspective point, read my statement again, carefully. I was deliberate to state retaining framing.That demands you move your feet (camera). It is that movement that changes the perspective. Unless you also change the lens, you will alter the framing. Again, physics.

 

My point is that the camera is a means to an end. If what you want to say needs 100 lenses, use them. For some, one lens says everything.

I don't argue with the intent of this statement, but one lens can only 'say' one 'thing'. If it is what you wish to say, then it is sufficient.

[michaelwj]

Erl,

 

If one lens can only say one thing, then 5 lenses can only say 5 things. Dying only 5 things is pretty limiting. I never know that Leica's could only be used to say 10 things? (16-18-21-24-28-35-50-75-90-135) I'm pretty sure I've seen more than 10 things said with Leica's.

 

If you haven't learned to say more than one thing with a single focal length, then you have something to learn.

[erl]

Erl,

 

If one lens can only say one thing, then 5 lenses can only say 5 things. Dying only 5 things is pretty limiting. I never know that Leica's could only be used to say 10 things? (16-18-21-24-28-35-50-75-90-135) I'm pretty sure I've seen more than 10 things said with Leica's.

 

If you haven't learned to say more than one thing with a single focal length, then you have something to learn.

This thread is starting to frustrate me. I thought photographers here were a bit more flexible in their thinking. You are ignoring the physics of the argument. Each lens (ignoring variable focus) can only 'see' in it's focal length. The photographer is constrained to this degree and must move, elevate, or other ways change things for himself, but one lens cannot change it's way of seeing.  I'll ignore your remark about 5 or 10 things, it is a ridiculous response to my argument.

[pgk]

If one lens resonates with your vision and suits your point of view than how can it be limiting?

 

After 40 years of photography I struggle to understand how any one lens can 'suit a point of view'. Sorry but this is meaningless. I can shoot with just one lens if I have to, but to suggest that one lens 'resonates with my vision' is to suggest that I have an incredibly blinkered view on subject matter and that everything will conform to my requirements - I don't and it can't. I cannot disagree that good photographer will get the best out of limited equipment but a photographer with real vision will select the right equipment for the image. Two of the 'best' images (IMO  ) that I have taken recently were taken on 21mm and 135mm lenses despite the fact that far more of my images are taken on a 35mm lens. Both the ones I like were taken for very specific reasons entirely due to the requirements of the subject matter and what I wanted the images to convey, which they do. Its not about the gear, its about using the right gear for the images/perspective/composition.

[Guest]

Do the one-focal-length-only photographers also use other cameras than Leica M?

Most of the "others" have zoom lenses.

You never touch THAT ring on them?

[philipus]

I disagree.

 

 

Just published a quick post on my blog about 35mm focal length. I think that if you must bring only one lens with you, this is the perfect choice. What do you think about it? Agree or disagree?

 

Let me know. Thanks!

 

http://www.michelebelloni.com/the-35mm-for-all-your-needs/

[Paul J]

This thread is starting to frustrate me. I thought photographers here were a bit more flexible in their thinking. You are ignoring the physics of the argument. Each lens (ignoring variable focus) can only 'see' in it's focal length. The photographer is constrained to this degree and must move, elevate, or other ways change things for himself, but one lens cannot change it's way of seeing.  I'll ignore your remark about 5 or 10 things, it is a ridiculous response to my argument.

 

 

Erl from this side of the fence it seems as you are the one inflexible in your thinking since you are the one saying it's limiting, when it isn't. You keep bringing up physics, but it's not a matter of physics. It's a matter of vision and point of view and photographic style. To suggest that someone's vision, point of view and style is limited because they use one lens is untrue. A large portion of the greatest photographers of all time either used one lens or gravitated mostly to one because it represented their vision. Finding their voice and having singular and cohesive vision is a goal for great many artists.

 

It's not a case of one lens can say one thing - one lens can say everything for some.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Paul J

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Paul J]

After 40 years of photography I struggle to understand how any one lens can 'suit a point of view'. Sorry but this is meaningless. I can shoot with just one lens if I have to, but to suggest that one lens 'resonates with my vision' is to suggest that I have an incredibly blinkered view on subject matter and that everything will conform to my requirements - I don't and it can't. I cannot disagree that good photographer will get the best out of limited equipment but a photographer with real vision will select the right equipment for the image. Two of the 'best' images (IMO  ) that I have taken recently were taken on 21mm and 135mm lenses despite the fact that far more of my images are taken on a 35mm lens. Both the ones I like were taken for very specific reasons entirely due to the requirements of the subject matter and what I wanted the images to convey, which they do. Its not about the gear, its about using the right gear for the images/perspective/composition.

You struggle to understand how it can suit one point of view because that is not your point of view.

 

If you are calling the work of Winogrand, Gilden, Cartier Bresson, Webb, Klein, Gibson, Friedlander, Salgado, Sieff, Leiter, Shore, Meyerowitz, McCullin, Bailey, Capa, Frank (I could go on and on) meaningless or limited because they chose one focal length, or mostly gravitated to one, or two, then you have quite the task arguing your case I'm afraid.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Paul J