Is 35mm All You Really Need?

[Paul J]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'll ignore your remark about 5 or 10 things, it is a ridiculous response to my argument.

 

 

It was in response to you saying one lens can only say one thing so i think it was quite well said.

[pgk]

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.

 

Not at all - I simply can't understand how a point of view can be suited by focal length (or field of view which might be a better determiner these days).

 

But the photographers you link to represent only one small genre. And I'd be very dubious about suggesting that they all stuck with merely one focal length because some certainly didn't as you yourself say. And things have moved on. Many on your list lived in very different times. I'm not arguing that its not possible to achieve stunning images with one focal length, just that its self-limiting and pointless unless you have an extraordinarily good reason for doing so (and I can't think of any offhand).

[Advertisement]

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

[wattsy]

I simply can't understand how a point of view can be suited by focal length

 

 

I think that is the nub of it. You (and Erl) seem to be conflating the needs of the jobbing pro with that of somebody at the artist end of the spectrum who has an established vision and/or style that is consistent and in tune with a preferred perspective and field of view. 

[pgk]

I think that is the nub of it. You (and Erl) seem to be conflating the needs of the jobbing pro with that of somebody at the artist end of the spectrum who has an established vision and/or style that is consistent and in tune with a preferred perspective and field of view. 

 

Well that's a very simplistic comparison (!) and few of those mentioned actually did stick to one focal length ..... its a bit of a myth IMO to be honest. In any case how would anyone establish which focal length will suit their vision without trying a variety even if they were to think in such terms? In the past it was simpler because there were fewer lenses available and no zooms - choice was rather more limited.

 

Not sure that I'd describe McCullin's work as artistry with an established vision either to be honest having read his autobiography  - sounded more like survival to me.

[Paul J]

But a photographers work and commercial work does and should look the same. Editors and Creative Directors hire photographers for their vision, not their lens range.

[michaelwj]

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.

Sorry that it's frustrating you, it's supposed to be an exchange of ideas.

 

Yes, one lens only sees on focal length. I never said it could SEE more than one thing (which it can if you take into account focal distance and aperture but we'll leave that for now). I (and others) said it can SAY more. Very different and nothing to do with physics.

 

My point about 5 or 10 lenses was supposed to be a ridiculous extension of 1 lens to prove the ridiculousness of the premise that one lens can only say one thing. Your response entirely proves the ridiculous point you're trying to make.

[wattsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well that's a very simplistic comparison (!) and few of those mentioned actually did stick to one focal length ..... its a bit of a myth IMO to be honest. In any case how would anyone establish which focal length will suit their vision without trying a variety even if they were to think in such terms? In the past it was simpler because there were fewer lenses available and no zooms - choice was rather more limited.

 

Not sure that I'd describe McCullin's work as artistry with an established vision either to be honest having read his autobiography  - sounded more like survival to me.

 

 

I don't know if you are being deliberately awkward? I don't know what is so difficult to grasp about some photographers feeling comfortable working with either one or a very limited set of lenses. I get the impression that some people in this thread are getting defensive, perhaps wrongly thinking there is some competitive element to this discussion – that there is something more worthy about using fewer lenses. It's really just a matter of personal preference, it just happens that some people have a vision of the world around them that they articulate using a preferred lens or field of view.

 

What has McCullin got to do with anything – I haven't mentioned any names.

Edited May 25, 2017 by wattsy

[Guest]

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.

Yes, you could on and on - with name dropping, which is probably impressing.

 

However out of the ones you mention at least three used two focal lengths and more, all the time.

Salgado in his Leica years, had 2 Ms: one with 28mm, one with 35mm and a SLR with 60mm. Later it was a Canon ZOOM 28-70, followed by the 24-70.

 

While it would be interesting to hear what moderate focal lengths Bailey did NOT use - in all film formats.

 

In his years as a war photographer McCullin had two meterless Nikons, one with a 28/24mm, the other with a 135mm.

[Guest]

Erwitt made a very blunt remark about what he thought of working photographers, considering to only use one focal length. That did not stop him from becoming one of the Magnum presidents, during the life-time of one of Magnum's founders.

[Rus]

I can see why the point has been made about different focal lengths and physics and differences in perspectives. It certainly has truth in it to a considerable extent. But if we factor in the possibility of cropping, as I said, the differences between focal lengths, in terms of the final image created, are further reduced to differences in the DOF at different aperture values, whereas differences in angle of view or the level of compression between foreground and background are much less pronounced. 

 

So if I can use a 35mm lens to take a shot and crop it, I can effectively get almost exactly the same image (in terms of angle of view and perspective, compression, etc.) as I would have been able to get with a 50mm standing at the same spot (although without cropping). Same logic, I can use a 50mm to take a shot and crop it so that I get an image that's essentially the same as one I would have been able to get, again standing at the same spot, with a 135mm lens. 

 

This is why I don't think using a single focal length is as "limiting" these days as it perhaps would have been back a few years ago when the digital sensors had not reached such a high level of pixel density and resolution. 

 

All these said, I'm completely open to using or carrying multiple lenses when I'm out taking photos. I used to do it regularly, in fact; and it is just a very recent thing that I've become more comfortable with taking no lens other than the one on my camera. Sometimes I still bring along the tiny trusty cron-C 40mm f2 in my pocket. It is an entirely flexible matter of personal preference. 

 

And if I'm worried that I might be missing out or limiting myself by not trying to explore absolutely every possible look from a myriad of different lens designs and focal lengths, I might as well start dealing with this sort of worry in other areas, say, food. I'd much rather try out all types of cuisine first than focal lengths.  

Edited May 25, 2017 by Rus

[lct]

What's cropping?

[Paul J]

Yes, you could on and on - with name dropping, which is probably impressing.

 

However out of the ones you mention at least three used two focal lengths and more, all the time.

Salgado in his Leica years, had 2 Ms: one with 28mm, one with 35mm and a SLR with 60mm. Later it was a Canon ZOOM 28-70, followed by the 24-70.

 

While it would be interesting to hear what moderate focal lengths Bailey did NOT use - in all film formats.

 

In his years as a war photographer McCullin had two meterless Nikons, one with a 28/24mm, the other with a 135mm.

 

 

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.

 

 

I spent several posts trying to explain, without citation or reference, and continued to be told it was "limited". So I will ignore the name dropping slur because these are the people who work in this way and their work isn't limited by their lens choice.

 

In my list, I also stated that some of these mostly gravitated to one or two focal lengths, including Salgado and McCullin for the vast majority of their work.

 

Many use one lens and to suggest they "haven't mastered much" or are "limited" is absolutely ridiculous and missing the point. That is where this discussion started.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Paul J

[Rus]

What's cropping?

 

Oh I assume by that word I meant cropping the image?  

Being a non-native speaker of English I hope I've managed to use the right word. But if not, please let me know the correct word for this

[lct]

Your English looks way better than mine but i did mean cropping the image in my provocative question  

[Rus]

Your English looks way better than mine but i did mean cropping the image in my provocative question

 

Ah I see. Hmm I should have read between the lines, I guess.

[Guest]

These were names you mentioned.

 

"Gravitating" to 24mm AND 135mm (because at war with a small bag) in a thread:

Is 35mm all you need??

 

Bailey gravitated towards almost always being creative and entertaining, while Salgado used at least 3 focal lengths.

 

A pro PJ or advertising (wo-)man, who misses an opportunity, that would be a not functioning contradiction in itself imo.

Edited May 25, 2017 by tri

[lct]

There are different kinds of photography folks. I'm used to take legal photos from time to time and it is impossible to do the job with a sole focal length obviously. If i bring only one lens it has to be a zoom with macro capabilities then. FWIW.

[Guest]

What's cropping?

Un peccadillo

 

(of cause not for photograpic evidence in court, that I know nothing and you everything about).

[Paul J]

These were names you mentioned.

 

"Gravitating" to 24mm AND 135mm (because at war with a small bag) in a thread:

Is 35mm all you need??

 

Bailey gravitated towards almost always being creative and entertaining, while Salgado used at least 3 focal lengths.

 

A pro PJ or advertising (wo-)man, who misses an opportunity, that would be a not functioning contradiction in itself imo.

 

 

It would help if you read things a little more carefully.

 

I know they were names I mentioned and that is why I elaborated on it, that is why I quoted myself and underlined the applicable words.

 

Bailey prefers to work with a 40mm or what ever is closest for the format he is using.

 

A very experienced photographer who chooses one lens does not miss shots because they have the wrong lens. Like I have been saying all along - if you need to use 100 lenses, use them.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

I do not favour frantic lens changing, but I do try and visualise the subjects I will be shooting and the photographic conditions, and choose my lens accordingly...beforehand. It is a bit like one camera-one lens, (or maybe two) but adjusted to the circumstances. I would not like to tie myself to one focal length for some philosophic reason.