Is 35mm All You Really Need?

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, the advantage of using only one lens is that year lern to master it in stead of having a large range of lenses which you really don't know.

Is photography about mastering the lens, or is it about mastering the image?

I think photography is about wanting to show people something special you saw in reality, or making something special by the way you frame it. So framing and composition is very important. You cannot frame all these special events and situations clear enough to show what you mean with just a 35.

Edited May 23, 2017 by otto.f

[sml_photo]

Is photography about mastering the lens, or is it about mastering the image?

 

For some people, mastering the lens helps master the image.  Or at least gain the skill set to help attain that goal.

[Advertisement]

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

[otto.f]

I have never developed a feel for the 35mm focal length and definitively prefer 50mm.

I never developed a real feel for the 50 although I don't hate it, the 35 is my natural perspective but can bother me sometimes by being too narrow.

[Ko.Fe.]

Just in time.   I have discussion in progress if owning of similar 35 mm lens in two copies is reasonable. I think, it is. One for digital, one for film, with periodical use of both at the same event.

 

On DSLR I used 50mm as the only lens and it was just fine. I have tried 35mm and never liked it. But with Leica (which is M only for me) I can't force myself to use 50mm. Or 28mm. The 35mm framelines are just right and 35mm focal length is so versatile. Street, reportage, informal portraits (I'm total looser on classic portraits) and landscape. 35mm does it all for me on Leica M bodies.

 

And even more... I don't need fast 35mm lens.   

[ola.fiske]

A 28mm is really all I need, but for some reason I also have a bunch of 50's

[stephan54]

I never developed a real feel for the 50 although I don't hate it, the 35 is my natural perspective but can bother me sometimes by being too narrow.

 

I do agree with sml_photo. Pick one lens, make it work and do not feel sorry for missed shots. 50 is my most used, but I find myself shooting with the 28 very often.

[michaelwj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yawn.

Feet are the perfect transportation for my life, so no one would possibly want a car. That's not how the human body is supposed to travel.

[erl]

So much argument around this topic, generally, argues to "fit the subject to your lens" (and for that matter, to your format).

For years I, and many others were bound by the vision of everything except the subject. I was always cropping my Hasselblad (square format) to match standard paper size.

 

I have yet to see a builder who makes a house fit the size of timber he has!

 

I now see my subject, that determines the shape, vertical, horizontal, square, etc. and my position in relation to it determines the focal length of my lens. If I wish to change the perspective, I must move the camera, which will probably dictate a lens change to maintain the motif size. And so it goes on. I cannot justify just one lens in the face of all this.

 

The recently contested Australasian Leica One Challenge demanded that all competitors nominate One camera, One lens, One ISO. All this before knowing what you would be shooting. That is precisely why the word Challenge was included. It is meant to be difficult. Now if you want/need some training exercises for your photography, yes, one everything is an exercise to practice, but not for your serious shooting, IMO.

[TRIago]

All I really need is a 50mm, not a 35.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mute-on]

For general photography in cities with sea and rural fringes, 35 as a one lens solution is perfectly viable for me. My photographic vision (such as it is) is flexible enough to adapt.

If I'm taking two lenses, which for me means two cameras, then it's 28 + 50.

If I am taking a portrait with advanced warning, however, I will use a 90.

All of this applies for Leica M bodies. An SLR or other format would be different.

J

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[adan]

If I had only one lens, it would be the 21mm. By far, my most important pictures come from that lens, not that I don't use others as well. And yes, over 40 years I have learned to master ALL of them.

 

Anyone who can only master one lens hasn't mastered much.

 

However, many great photographers have worked with only a 35, or some other focal length. For simplicity and to reduce the distractions of picking a lens and changing it. David Alan Harvey of Nat. Geo and Magnum being one example. After 20 years with a Nikon and every lens in the stable (of which he was clearly a master), he switched to an M6 and a 35 f/1.4 ASPH. At one conference where he lectured, he said, "I still see lots of "180mm" pictures - I just don't take them anymore!"

 

Although even he is not all that pure - seems to still use the Nikons sometimes, as well as Fuji X cameras.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=David+Alan+Harvey+Geographic&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwitgcmM0IfUAhWHhFQKHUDsBkgQ_AUIBigB&biw=1821&bih=1251#imgrc=_

[erl]

 

 

Anyone who can only master one lens hasn't mastered much.

 

 "I still see lots of "180mm" pictures - I just don't take them anymore!"

 

 

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=David+Alan+Harvey+Geographic&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwitgcmM0IfUAhWHhFQKHUDsBkgQ_AUIBigB&biw=1821&bih=1251#imgrc=_

Agree with the above quote 1st statement.

2nd statement would frustrate the hell out of me if I couldn't get them!

I miss enough pics as it is, without deliberately missing more.

 

As you would know only too well Adan, when you are paid to 'bring home the bacon' you must use every means to achieve it.

[david strachan]

For me it's simplicity. One camera, one lens.

Sure we all see a million pictures, and want to change lenses all the time...but sometimes enjoy the moment without a lens change...and find the perspective for your fixed lens.

 

I never thought, but now am generally happy with a slung camera and a 50mm lens... that's all.

 

...

[pgk]

So much argument around this topic, generally, argues to "fit the subject to your lens" (and for that matter, to your format).

For years I, and many others were bound by the vision of everything except the subject.

Funny thing is that we, the ones taking the photos, seem to love rules, recommendations and suggested ways of working. Odd then, that subject matter won't always or often conform to them. Being self-limiting has its place though whether this is caused by discipline, laziness or what one can afford will vary from person to person. I do go out with one lens, usually with a specific sort of image in mind. I also sometimes take several and the composition of my gear (no pun intended  ) varies depending on what I'm doing and what I'm trying to achieve. Rules, recommendations and suggestions are all great and can be helpful, but when they dictate what you can do then its time to break or ignore them. Just my opinion.

[Exodies]

I wouldn't be surprised if some members went out with a 35 on the camera and two other 35s in the bag.

[Paul J]

If I had only one lens, it would be the 21mm. By far, my most important pictures come from that lens, not that I don't use others as well. And yes, over 40 years I have learned to master ALL of them.

 

Anyone who can only master one lens hasn't mastered much.

 

However, many great photographers have worked with only a 35, or some other focal length. For simplicity and to reduce the distractions of picking a lens and changing it. David Alan Harvey of Nat. Geo and Magnum being one example. After 20 years with a Nikon and every lens in the stable (of which he was clearly a master), he switched to an M6 and a 35 f/1.4 ASPH. At one conference where he lectured, he said, "I still see lots of "180mm" pictures - I just don't take them anymore!"

 

Although even he is not all that pure - seems to still use the Nikons sometimes, as well as Fuji X cameras.

 

 

Oh Adan, I read your excellent posts with much interest but that is a very silly thing to say and I'm sure you don't actually mean it.

 

Do you think one of living greats, Alex Webb, cares about mastering anything more than a 35mm Summicron?

 

No. He doesn't need to. He has found HIS voice and mastered HIS vision. That is all that matters. That is what photography is.

[erl]

Oh Adan, I read your excellent posts with much interest but that is a very silly thing to say and I'm sure you don't actually mean it.

 

Do you think one of living greats, Alex Webb, cares about mastering anything more than a 35mm Summicron?

 

No. He doesn't need to. He has found HIS voice and mastered HIS vision. That is all that matters. That is what photography is.

His VOICE and his VISION being mastered is only two elements. I still think Adan's observation is spot on. There is soooo much more to be mastered, if one can.

 

Limiting it to a 35mm lens is just that. Limited!

\Why would you?

[Paul J]

Only two elements? They are the only two elements that matter in photography. Alex Webb needs to master nothing more. He is a living master.

 

The camera is a means to an end in photography.

[Rus]

I use a 50mm 90% of the time, but that doesn't mean I see any point in restricting oneself to one focal length.

 

I tend to, rather than feel obliged to in anyway, stick with one focal length because I've grown quite comfortable with the usual subject-camera distance and what I call the "field of observation" that come with using a particular focal length. But these are, again, highly idiosyncratic things.

 

That said, while using the 50mm I do also "see" potential shots that should work with a longer tele lens. What do I do in these situations? I take the shot where I am and crop later, and thus in effect get a, say, 90mm shot. I've never been a purest when it comes to the issue of cropping. With the high res digital sensors that we have today, why not crop if it doesn't reduce the IQ too much?

 

And for this same reason I once tried to switch from 50mm to 35mm, thinking that I might be able to crop it whenever I want a 50mm field of view. That did work for me to a certain extent, but I decided to switch back to 50mm because I mostly shoot between 3-8 meters, and a 50mm works better for me than the 35mm.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Rus

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Ko.Fe.]

His VOICE and his VISION being mastered is only two elements. I still think Adan's observation is spot on. There is soooo much more to be mastered, if one can.

 

Limiting it to a 35mm lens is just that. Limited!

\Why would you?

 

Is using of only 50mm lens limiting as well? Soviet time photo cameras were sold in millions and many with only one and 50mm lens. Millions photographers used them for decades with only 50mm lens. Myself included. It never was limiting.

 

Winogrand known for 28mm, HCB for 50mm. I'm not finding their photography to be limited.