Is 35mm All You Really Need?

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The rectangle is an annoying fact of life. The composition rarely matches a 2*3 border. 

 

Would you say that the frame of a painter's canvas is an annoying fact of life? Composition consists in playing with the chosen border. Main interest in photography to me. YMMV.

[Advertisement]

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

[Tailwagger]

Only 6?

 

Hmm... when it comes to 35mm options, clearly I am way behind.  Way behind. 

 

As for a single focal length, I can certainly see where for an M, 35mm would be the choice of many.  Whether its technically correct or not, AFAICT, the M field of view is optimally scaled for that focal length and generically offers the best WYSIWYG experience so to speak.  I can see where some might feel that 35mm is the most 'normal' of lenses, though personally by default, no camera in hand, I see in 50mm, scaling  my lens choice up or down from there.

 

I tend to be far less concerned with simplifying the shooting experience than with improving the possibility for a better result. In the field, I know I'm likely onto something special when a scene or situation is rich enough, that any number of focal lengths or rendering styles might equally apply to the very same shutter press from the very same shooting position, each having its own particular charm and significance. Count me in the camp of those who would contend that a primary role of the photographer is to assess and pre-visualize the potential of each alternative, ultimately intuiting the most appropriate tool and settings for the job.  While its useful to experiment by narrowing one's lens selections to force more thinking around how to improve ones technique, to my mind that is a self, not image, serving exercise. So in general, I would no more entertain handicapping my results by limiting myself to a single, specific focal length then I would by limiting myself to a single iso, aperture or shutter speed setting.

[michaelwj]

I think we need to define an artist and a pro.

A professional is someone who does it as a profession, and is driven externally by clients. In that respect lots of professionals use only one lens - just take a look at the mall Santa Claus photographer. Just one lens churning out money.

An artist is someone who works harder than the professional but doesn't get paid for it. They have no clients or external drivers. It is all internally driven. (A commission is a professional job).

 

I bet everyone agrees with me

[lct]

[...] lots of professionals use only one lens [...]

 

... and big empty bags

[NB23]

My walkaround lens is the Summi.

And my walkabout lens is a Summi.

 

It mostly depends wether I'm walking about or walking around. I tend to channel HCB while walking around and I prefer channeling Winogrand when I'm walking about.

[Foxtwo]

All you need is a 35 and a pair of good shoes. Shooting over water? Then a good set of swim fins.

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

OK. I have had a good sleep and think about this inconsequential topic. Frankly I don't care who uses what lens, or lenses. It matters not except to that user. Fine.

Somewhere along the thread (I'm not bothered to go back and read it) I made some sort of statement about "being limited". It seems to have upset some of the posters, which was not my intention. The simple fact of my view was/is that one single focal length lens is limiting. This was NOT to imply any limitation of the photographer(s) talent intent or factor derived from said photographer(s).

 

I thought, in my simplistic way, that 'one lens' could be re-stated as 'one focal length'. I still think that. I also see that as a limit. ie. only one focal length, as opposed to other multiple choices. I didn't think that was so hard to comprehend. There was never an inference that the photographer was personally limited. Only his/her choice of lens.

 

I did go on somewhere about professionals and their tools. I stand by that as a generalization but acknowledge that some professionals work in very defined areas and may get away with only one lens. Personally that would make me nervous, but I always worked in a broad spectrum of work and that demanded that I have a good suite of tools and not just lenses.

 

As for my references to physics, I think a re-read of those comments will prove them correct. Specifically regarding perspective, framing etc.

 

I for one now have a defined shoot to execute. It will require a choice of viewpoint, in a restricted environment and I will need to carefully choose which focal length will be optimal. A change of brief will quite likely cause a need to change focal length, along with other parameters such as lighting. Such is my changing life.

 

Just for the record, I can be seen with just one lens, (not usually when working) whenever I choose to be limited for the sake of compactness. I accept any missed shots for the want of a different lens on such occasions.

[erl]

I think we need to define an artist and a pro.

A professional is someone who does it as a profession, and is driven externally by clients. In that respect lots of professionals use only one lens - just take a look at the mall Santa Claus photographer. Just one lens churning out money.

An artist is someone who works harder than the professional but doesn't get paid for it. They have no clients or external drivers. It is all internally driven. (A commission is a professional job).

 

I bet everyone agrees with me

Come on Michael! You are jesting here, I hope.

I cannot agree with any of that.

Yes, I am rising to the bait because this is the internet and is serious.

[adan]

On "one lens" - my senior year in high school, the instructor in Documentary Photography showed us some pictures from the recently-published East 100th Street by Magnum photographer Bruce Davidson. The picture below leapt off the screen at me, and in that one instant I discovered the power of (super)wide-angle lenses - to combine "here" and "there" in one picture; to adjust scale of subject and background; to provide a main subject with informative context. An epiphany moment.

 

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/27/36/3a/27363a9241c5c0c1b03644a249cb0b18.jpg

 

A dozen years later I went to a opening of a show of Bruce's work, and told him just how much his single picture had taught me about using a wide-angle, how much it had influenced my development and seeing, blah blah blah.

 

He smiled and said, "Why, thank you for the comment. I hope you've learned to use some other lenses since then."

___________________

 

On "more than one lens" - I have a book about (not "of") the quintessential street-photographer Elliott Erwitt's work. The Private Experience. Back in the technical-details section, there is a photo of his suitcase-full of Canon F-1 cameras and every single FD lens Canon made in the early 1970s, from 15mm fisheye to 300mm. Another picture show his 4x5 view camera, adapted for 6x7 roll film and Polaroid. His professional gear, as opposed to his Leica and 35, 50, 90, and perhaps (from the "perspective" of some shots) a 135.

 

He may prefer one focal length (although his body of work suggests otherwise) - but he mastered a lot of them. I expect using many lenses improved his mastery of any one of them.

___________________

 

On "artist vs. professional vs. amateur" and "one lens" - I think one of the most unique photographic artists of the 20th century is Ralph Eugene Meatyard. Not a direct influence, since we work in completely different parts of the spectrum of photography. But I can appreciate his seeing, his ideas, his culture and his commitment. He influenced me about what photography could be, just not in any particular of technique or style or subject.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ralph+Eugene+Meatyard&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_jOmb0IzUAhXJr1QKHWI3CRkQ_AUICigB&biw=1821&bih=1251#imgrc=_

 

Now ol' Ralph was a working optician and a camera-club member. On the surface, your basic middle-American photo hobbyist. Except that in his Kentucky photo club was also Frank Van Deren Coke (later director of George Eastman House and the SF MoMA photo division). Additionally, Meatyard pushed himself to study with Henry Holmes Smith and Minor White, and hung out - intellectually - with the likes of Catholic monk and mystic Thomas (The Seven Storey Mountain) Merton, at that time in a rural Kentucky monastery.

 

Coincidentally (for this thread) Meatyard used a Rolleiflex, so he was stuck with one format and one lens. Neither a 35 nor a 50, but the most insipid "Granny-took-a-snapshot" box-camera normal - about 42-44mm equivalent on the Rollei's 6x6 format. And he mostly took "naive family-snapshot" pictures, in terms of their structure - and, on the surface, their aesthetics. It was what he took his "snapshots" of, that set him apart - carefully staged "southern gothic" scenes or still-lifes or portraits of dark enigmatic mystery.

 

Did he master his lens - or did his lens master him? (That is, he simply accepted what it delivered, given he had no other option?) My guess is that he would have made essentially the same art, whether he was using a 50mm or a 65 or his 75/80mm or a 100mm or a 150 (or all five interchangeably). Because his attention was not on a technical gizmo, but on what he was looking at, and thinking about, and putting into the frame.

 

He doesn't seem to have paid much attention to technical control of depth of field - if he wanted "everything sharp" he just constructed a flat scene against a wall, with everything in one plane of focus, and if he wanted background blur, he just shot a "deeper" scene where the background drifted out of focus on its own. He allowed himself to be very "naive" in technique, while very sophisticated in seeing and imagining.

 

BTW- he rarely cropped his square images.

____________________________

 

If all that seems contradictory, well, that's because photography is a very complex and wide-ranging activity that incorporates "360°" of approaches. Those are just a few "data points" out of a very big picture (no pun intended).

 

Bottom line - if you make interesting pictures, I don't care if you did it with one lens or a dozen. If you make boring cr*p, I also don't care if you did it with one lens or a dozen. You don't get a gold star for the number of lenses you use, be it one or many. Just the pictures you make.

Edited May 26, 2017 by adan

[Exodies]

Would you say that the frame of a painter's canvas is an annoying fact of life? Composition consists in playing with the chosen border. Main interest in photography to me. YMMV.

I don't think all paintings are done on 2*3 rectangles.

 

Have I read correctly that you are for variation in focal length but against it in frame shape? I realise you never promised to operate under one Theory Of Everything but MMVs

[lct]

I don't think all paintings are done on 2*3 rectangles.

Have I read correctly that you are for variation in focal length but against it in frame shape? I realise you never promised to operate under one Theory Of Everything but MMVs

 

Not sure my English is good enough to follow you correctly Exodies. The format of the camera together with the focal length of the lens are freely chosen by the photographer. They are both the frame of the painter's canvas.

Edited May 26, 2017 by lct

[jaapv]

Oh I forgot your last sentence. Yes, a writer really does absolutely limit themselves to one set of words. The ones you end up reading.

Yes, like the print one ends up with in photography. However, the writer does not start out writing by tearing all pages but one out of his dictionary.

[earleygallery]

For many years the Rolleiflex TLR was the camera of choice of many press and wedding photographers. One lens (but more like a 50mm on 35mm film).

 

There's no 'best' and there's no right or wrong. It's all just personal choice.

[ianman]

I think you are clever enough to handle more than one lens ?

Learn to see and remember the angle what fits the subject !

Especially the M can show you all frames you may use

in a fraction of seconds so why not use it ?

 

And to think there were supporters of getting rid of the "archaic" frameline selector !!

[ianman]

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/

 

Just to have at least one post that answers the original question:

 

No, my own choice would not be a 35mm. I have never got along with this focal length. If I am going out for the day with no specific photographic purpose but take a camera anyway, chances are it will be with a 28mm.

Edited May 26, 2017 by ianman

[pgk]

Since then street, landscape, reportage and portraits became as "only one small genre"? From photographers Paul J has mentioned, I'm only deeply studied GW and HCB photography by the books, interviews and online. GW did portraits, landscapes, reportage and street with plenty of 28mm and HCB did the same with mostly 50mm. I can't call those two artists photos as "only one small genre". Sorry. 

 

There is a lot more to photography than street photography and/or the photographers mentioned. And mostly is not exclusively.

 

If you accepted all the rules suggested as being the road to photographic nirvana suggested on the forum, you would be using one camera/one lens/no tripod/ect and hold a pretty blinkered view of life. We now have more effective and versatile photographic tools than ever before and harking back to the past or the 'great masters' isn't going to guarantee success, artistically or otherwise.

 

I try to think for myself - creativity/artistry is influenced by others but I don't want to copy them because that's anything but creativity. FWIW the current Leica Ms are versatile tools, not as versatile as others but if, like me, you enjoy using them then they really can be fabulous tools. Why limit them further than they intrinsically are? Best just to buy a fixed 35mm lens FF camera if you really want to be fully limited.

[michaelwj]

Andy, how dare you interject with a well thought out post using logic, reason, and concrete examples. This is a discussion on the internet

Edited May 26, 2017 by michaelwj

[Paul J]

On "one lens" - my senior year in high school, the instructor in Documentary Photography showed us some pictures from the recently-published East 100th Street by Magnum photographer Bruce Davidson. The picture below leapt off the screen at me, and in that one instant I discovered the power of (super)wide-angle lenses - to combine "here" and "there" in one picture; to adjust scale of subject and background; to provide a main subject with informative context. An epiphany moment.

 

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/27/36/3a/27363a9241c5c0c1b03644a249cb0b18.jpg

 

A dozen years later I went to a opening of a show of Bruce's work, and told him just how much his single picture had taught me about using a wide-angle, how much it had influenced my development and seeing, blah blah blah.

 

He smiled and said, "Why, thank you for the comment. I hope you've learned to use some other lenses since then."

___________________

 

On "more than one lens" - I have a book about (not "of") the quintessential street-photographer Elliott Erwitt's work. The Private Experience. Back in the technical-details section, there is a photo of his suitcase-full of Canon F-1 cameras and every single FD lens Canon made in the early 1970s, from 15mm fisheye to 300mm. Another picture show his 4x5 view camera, adapted for 6x7 roll film and Polaroid. His professional gear, as opposed to his Leica and 35, 50, 90, and perhaps (from the "perspective" of some shots) a 135.

 

He may prefer one focal length (although his body of work suggests otherwise) - but he mastered a lot of them. I expect using many lenses improved his mastery of any one of them.

___________________

 

On "artist vs. professional vs. amateur" and "one lens" - I think one of the most unique photographic artists of the 20th century is Ralph Eugene Meatyard. Not a direct influence, since we work in completely different parts of the spectrum of photography. But I can appreciate his seeing, his ideas, his culture and his commitment. He influenced me about what photography could be, just not in any particular of technique or style or subject.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ralph+Eugene+Meatyard&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_jOmb0IzUAhXJr1QKHWI3CRkQ_AUICigB&biw=1821&bih=1251#imgrc=_

 

Now ol' Ralph was a working optician and a camera-club member. On the surface, your basic middle-American photo hobbyist. Except that in his Kentucky photo club was also Frank Van Deren Coke (later director of George Eastman House and the SF MoMA photo division). Additionally, Meatyard pushed himself to study with Henry Holmes Smith and Minor White, and hung out - intellectually - with the likes of Catholic monk and mystic Thomas (The Seven Storey Mountain) Merton, at that time in a rural Kentucky monastery.

 

Coincidentally (for this thread) Meatyard used a Rolleiflex, so he was stuck with one format and one lens. Neither a 35 nor a 50, but the most insipid "Granny-took-a-snapshot" box-camera normal - about 42-44mm equivalent on the Rollei's 6x6 format. And he mostly took "naive family-snapshot" pictures, in terms of their structure - and, on the surface, their aesthetics. It was what he took his "snapshots" of, that set him apart - carefully staged "southern gothic" scenes or still-lifes or portraits of dark enigmatic mystery.

 

Did he master his lens - or did his lens master him? (That is, he simply accepted what it delivered, given he had no other option?) My guess is that he would have made essentially the same art, whether he was using a 50mm or a 65 or his 75/80mm or a 100mm or a 150 (or all five interchangeably). Because his attention was not on a technical gizmo, but on what he was looking at, and thinking about, and putting into the frame.

 

He doesn't seem to have paid much attention to technical control of depth of field - if he wanted "everything sharp" he just constructed a flat scene against a wall, with everything in one plane of focus, and if he wanted background blur, he just shot a "deeper" scene where the background drifted out of focus on its own. He allowed himself to be very "naive" in technique, while very sophisticated in seeing and imagining.

 

BTW- he rarely cropped his square images.

____________________________

 

If all that seems contradictory, well, that's because photography is a very complex and wide-ranging activity that incorporates "360°" of approaches. Those are just a few "data points" out of a very big picture (no pun intended).

 

Bottom line - if you make interesting pictures, I don't care if you did it with one lens or a dozen. If you make boring cr*p, I also don't care if you did it with one lens or a dozen. You don't get a gold star for the number of lenses you use, be it one or many. Just the pictures you make.

 

Thanks Andy for taking the time to clear that up. It's somewhat different to your original comment.

 

Meatyard’s work is fascinating and perfectly sums things up. At the basis of all this is photography and that’s rarely something that is dictated by a lens. IMO, it’s not a case of mastering the lens, and it’s certainly not a case of the lens mastering him. I couldn’t call his technique naive either; the compositions are purposeful and made with intent, there is nothing misplaced or lacking judgement about that. I think the fact he rarely cropped shows he wasn’t unsure of anything, there was nothing missing from what he wanted to say. The technique is loose but that feeds the content. It works, it’s right, because it’s authentic, it’s him. It just is what it is. It’s really not so far removed from Diane Arbus anyway. I agree that if he had used different lenses the body of work would still look the same and I would guess that even if he did own several lenses he would have still stuck with the one lens anyway - why wouldn’t he? it wouldn’t really change the work anyway. If he didn't feel something was right about his work he could have easily changed camera anyway.

 

Lenon said it best “I'm an artist. Give me a Tuba and i’ll give you something worth listening to".

Edited May 26, 2017 by Paul J

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Paul J]

Yes, like the print one ends up with in photography. However, the writer does not start out writing by tearing all pages but one out of his dictionary.

 

Writing and photography are very different, but I will stay with it because it still translates in some ways.

 

Making a print is different to the act of writing. Making a print is validating a decision that's already been made. In terms of writing that's more like publishing a writing.

 

Actually "blackout poetry" does exactly that, pulling pages from a book, black out most words and leave some. Yeah, it's a thing and it's really catching on.

 

But even less literally and more broadly, writing is extremely selective. Infact, a writer is performing "blackout poetry" in their head anyway, I mean, where on earth do the words come from otherwise? A writer with a distinct vision is going to use words that communicate what they want to say. They are not going to use words that aren't relevant. Exactly the same process. It's not a case of limiting, it's a case of choosing what is right for the message.

Edited May 26, 2017 by Paul J

[Paul J]

There is a lot more to photography than street photography and/or the photographers mentioned. And mostly is not exclusively.

 

If you accepted all the rules suggested as being the road to photographic nirvana suggested on the forum, you would be using one camera/one lens/no tripod/ect and hold a pretty blinkered view of life. We now have more effective and versatile photographic tools than ever before and harking back to the past or the 'great masters' isn't going to guarantee success, artistically or otherwise.

 

I try to think for myself - creativity/artistry is influenced by others but I don't want to copy them because that's anything but creativity. FWIW the current Leica Ms are versatile tools, not as versatile as others but if, like me, you enjoy using them then they really can be fabulous tools. Why limit them further than they intrinsically are? Best just to buy a fixed 35mm lens FF camera if you really want to be fully limited.

 

It seems you're missing the point being made, my friend - I've not read anyone talking about using one lens as a rule. "Photographic Nirvana" can only be reached if you travel your own road.

Edited May 26, 2017 by Paul J