Is 35mm All You Really Need?

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You are totally missing the point my friend. Photographic Nirvana can only be reached if you travel your own road. 1 lens or 100 lenses it matters not. It's what you are doing with what ever you are using that matters.

 

Absolutely. But I wonder how many painters have stuck to just one brush. The point is that whilst being self-limiting might just be for some (I honestly suspect its very, very few), the evidence presented to illustrate its viability and utilisation does not actually stand up under scrutiny. I can think of photographers do or have used a very limited range of lenses (myself included at times), but there are usually as many practical reasons for this than anything else. Making the best of what you have got or what is available or indeed what is actually viable is different from self-imposed restrictions. 

[Advertisement]

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

[EoinC]

...An epiphany moment.

 

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

i can see why - Wonderful!

[Ko.Fe.]

Absolutely. But I wonder how many painters have stuck to just one brush. The point is that whilst being self-limiting might just be for some (I honestly suspect its very, very few), the evidence presented to illustrate its viability and utilisation does not actually stand up under scrutiny. I can think of photographers do or have used a very limited range of lenses (myself included at times), but there are usually as many practical reasons for this than anything else. Making the best of what you have got or what is available or indeed what is actually viable is different from self-imposed restrictions. 

 

Brush has nothing to do with different focal lengths.  Brush is the rendering and nothing else. You could have different brushes (rendering) with single 35 mm lens.

 

This is what I have from my experience:

BW film could be on Delta, TMAX, Acros with deep tones and next to no grain. BW film could be crude like Foma 400 and if developed in Rodinal it is even more grain.

You could take color photos with ECN2, E6 and C-41 films. All are different brushes and paint.

You could print BW negative traditionally, on FB/RC paper or you could use lith developer. This will brush the print very differently.

You could use same 35 mm lens on digital Leica and it renders (brushes) differently from film.

 

It is all different brushes, pencils, airbrushes, gravure and finger like painting, but lens could be exactly the same. 

 

 

Summarit-M 35:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 26, 2017 by Ko.Fe.

[erl]

Ko.Fe. what you say above is basically true, but it not the complete picture. All those variables, with which I agree, can be added to by simply using different  focal lengths, as well, as desired. It is all only choice. None of it necessary. At some point one must limit oneself since it would impracticable to use it all at once. From that POV limitation is necessary. The remaining question, how far to limit oneself. It's an individual choice.

 

Regarding painter's brushes and photographer's lenses, they can be viewed as similar as you say, but lenses have a unique character that can be selected as well as for their drawing ability, called focal length. It is yet another way to creatively draw the image.

[michaelwj]

Ko.Fe. what you say above is basically true, but it not the complete picture. All those variables, with which I agree, can be added to by simply using different  focal lengths, as well, as desired. It is all only choice. None of it necessary. At some point one must limit oneself since it would impracticable to use it all at once. From that POV limitation is necessary. The remaining question, how far to limit oneself. It's an individual choice.

 

Regarding painter's brushes and photographer's lenses, they can be viewed as similar as you say, but lenses have a unique character that can be selected as well as for their drawing ability, called focal length. It is yet another way to creatively draw the image.

 

 

There are many approaches to getting a different look; different lenses, different films, digital processing, cross processing. A photographer could easily say a variety of different things by shooting the same subject with many different looks.

On the other hand, some people like to have the same look by keeping the lens/film/processing/etc the same, and instead saying a variety of different things by varying the lighting and composition of their images.

You might not believe it, but some people like to do the same thing in the same way over and over again. Slowly getting closer to personal enlightenment every day.

[almoore]

I'm not being awkward I'm just trying to debunk a photographic myth. In 40 years of taking photographs and 27 years of being a professional freelance and meeting a lot of photographers, I've never met one who only uses a single focal length. It might be personal preference but where are these photographers who genuinely use only one lens?

The thing about professional photographers is that the other photographers they hang out with tend to operate in the same part of the market. So if you find yourself needing a lot of lenses, chances are your friends will.

 

There are many successful photographers who use no more than two or three lenses, and a few who get by with a single focal length. For example, Steve Pyke's attachment to a Rolleiflex didn't prevent his steady rise from the UK music press in the 80s to a staff position at the New Yorker. And if you look at the high end of editorial reportage there's no shortage of photographers who work pretty much exclusively within the 28mm to 50mm range.

 

There's been a lot of undue defensiveness on this thread.

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The thing about professional photographers is that the other photographers they hang out with tend to operate in the same part of the market. So if you find yourself needing a lot of lenses, chances are your friends will.

 

There are many successful photographers who use no more than two or three lenses, and a few who get by with a single focal length. For example, Steve Pyke's attachment to a Rolleiflex didn't prevent his steady rise from the UK music press in the 80s to a staff position at the New Yorker. And if you look at the high end of editorial reportage there's no shortage of photographers who work pretty much exclusively within the 28mm to 50mm range.

 

There's been a lot of undue defensiveness on this thread.

 

Actually I talk to lots of photographers, amateurs and professionals and many in between.

 

I'm not bothered what anyone uses and not being defensive. I'll happily go out with one lens or a number of lenses. Paradoxically, underwater photography, which I specialised in, is absolutely limiting and whilst zooms can be used I've never bothered so I am stuck with one lens on a dive.

 

What I am trying to do is look at the reality of using one lens and today I think that its pretty much a myth that any but a tiny minority stick with one lens - I understand the appeal but its a pretty rare reality. But the myth is perpetuated and I'm tired of inaccuracies and untruths being given credence and accepted as fact. I can go out with a 35mm lens on my M all day and enjoy taking photographs and use it to the best of my ability as can/have many others. But there is no 'cure all' with lenses. Some were stuck with a limited choice in the past - that is not the situation today - we are utterly spoilt. [Mind you even Rolleiflext TLRs were offered with wide, standard and tele lenses .]

 

I'm not being defensive, I simply want a discussion based on facts as opposed to myths. We are an odd lot in that we have 'creativity' as a goal but all too often try to curtail our ability to be creative. No doubt we all have areas into which we do not stray (I rarely shoot high ISO because my long established instinct is not to do so - daft today because I've tried and files are clean but it still rarely occurs to me to do so) and part of the creative process should be to experiment and ignore convention. To me the use of one lens, whilst it could be seen as experimental, is also highly self-limiting and of mythical importance rather than genuine usefulness.

 

And just as a bit of an aside, I sometimes still have to look at the exif data on my files to figure which lens I used for a shot ......

Edited May 27, 2017 by pgk

[almoore]

What I am trying to do is look at the reality of using one lens and today I think that its pretty much a myth that any but a tiny minority stick with one lens - I understand the appeal but its a pretty rare reality. But the myth is perpetuated and I'm tired of inaccuracies and untruths being given credence and accepted as fact...Some were stuck with a limited choice in the past - that is not the situation today - we are utterly spoilt...

If you're accepting that one lens photographers exist - even if they are in a small minority - you're accepting that it's not a myth or untruth.

 

In the area that I know best - editorial reportage - there's been a definite trend towards using fewer and less extreme lenses in recent years. A lot of zooms are gathering dust while photographers work with 28s, 35s and 50s, echoing that 'limited choice in the past'. The difference between a 28 and a 50 is so radical that it's really not limiting.

 

By the way, the defensiveness reference wasn't targeted at you.

[erl]

....

You might not believe it, but some people like to do the same thing in the same way over and over again. Slowly getting closer to personal enlightenment every day.

Actually I do believe it. For some years I practiced it by walking my dog on the beach every day, carrying my M6 (yes with one lens) loaded with a fresh film each day. My challenge was to shoot the whole roll each morning, on the same walk and try to not copy any pic I had previously shot. What did I get closer to? Well, maybe your explanation is right.

[erl]

The thing about professional photographers is that the other photographers they hang out with tend to operate in the same part of the market. So if you find yourself needing a lot of lenses, chances are your friends will.

OTOH, there are also those who don't 'hang out', for various reasons. I wonder what lens choice they make?

 

There are many successful photographers who use no more than two or three lenses, and a few who get by with a single focal length. For example, Steve Pyke's attachment to a Rolleiflex didn't prevent his steady rise from the UK music press in the 80s to a staff position at the New Yorker. And if you look at the high end of editorial reportage there's no shortage of photographers who work pretty much exclusively within the 28mm to 50mm range.

I had an attachment to a Rollieflex (regrettfully sold) at the same time as Steve pyke. Choice in general in the 60's, 70's and even the 80's, was more limited than today. I think great progress has been made in photography, for some, since the improvements of technology, ready supply of gear as well as the intro of the internet. As a working photographer I was bound to keep up with these changes to survive. Many of my peers who did not embrace the changes went under.

 

There's been a lot of undue defensiveness on this thread.

By undue defensiveness do you mean differing POV,  or do have a different meaning?

[almoore]

Erl, I'm going to bow out of this. There's little point in trying to debate with somebody who implies that Steve Pyke's choice of a Rolleiflex was dictated by the era in which he began working. He's not yet 60 and he began in the 80s, a time in which the Rolleiflex was far from a mainstream choice.

 

And no, I'm not defining defensiveness as a differing point of view.

[pgk]

Erl, I'm going to bow out of this. There's little point in trying to debate with somebody who implies that Steve Pyke's choice of a Rolleiflex was dictated by the era in which he began working. He's not yet 60 and he began in the 80s, a time in which the Rolleiflex was far from a mainstream choice.

I began working as a photographer in the early '80s. I had and used Leica M4 with a few cheap lenses and Nikon cameras Fs, F2s and even Nikonos IIs. The Rolleiflex was still a coveted camera and the wide and tele versions were expensive. What surprises me when I look back at the photographs I took back then (one underwater '82 shot was used in a book just a few years back) was the quality it was possible to get from these cameras and '80's film. We do though tend to rewrite history to suit our own perspectives (I am guilty of this myself).

[erl]

Erl, I'm going to bow out of this. There's little point in trying to debate with somebody who implies that Steve Pyke's choice of a Rolleiflex was dictated by the era in which he began working. He's not yet 60 and he began in the 80s, a time in which the Rolleiflex was far from a mainstream choice.

 

And no, I'm not defining defensiveness as a differing point of view.

I do not imply Steve Pykes progress was limited, but rather that 'general choice' for everyone, not just Steve. I don't even know him and therefore would not presume a personal comment as you imply I said. I understood your use of his name as a representative case, I was responding as a general POV, not individually.

 

Actually, in my experience the Rollei was pretty much in demand and a frequent stepping stone to Hasselblad, for some.

[jhluxton]

When I bought my M262 last autumn I chose a 35mm Summicron as the standard lens before going back to the shop and getting a 75mm Summarit.

 

Over the past few months my lens use as been predominantly the Summicron with a bit of cropping in Lightroom sometimes.  

 

However, I am making the effort to use the Summarit a bit more.

 

So yes I think the 35mm is a good all rounder but I must say I still hanker after more lenses for a bit of variety and I can see something wider coming next. 

[Paul J]

Actually I talk to lots of photographers, amateurs and professionals and many in between.

 

I'm not bothered what anyone uses and not being defensive. I'll happily go out with one lens or a number of lenses. Paradoxically, underwater photography, which I specialised in, is absolutely limiting and whilst zooms can be used I've never bothered so I am stuck with one lens on a dive.

 

What I am trying to do is look at the reality of using one lens and today I think that its pretty much a myth that any but a tiny minority stick with one lens - I understand the appeal but its a pretty rare reality. But the myth is perpetuated and I'm tired of inaccuracies and untruths being given credence and accepted as fact. I can go out with a 35mm lens on my M all day and enjoy taking photographs and use it to the best of my ability as can/have many others. But there is no 'cure all' with lenses. Some were stuck with a limited choice in the past - that is not the situation today - we are utterly spoilt. [Mind you even Rolleiflext TLRs were offered with wide, standard and tele lenses .]

 

I'm not being defensive, I simply want a discussion based on facts as opposed to myths. We are an odd lot in that we have 'creativity' as a goal but all too often try to curtail our ability to be creative. No doubt we all have areas into which we do not stray (I rarely shoot high ISO because my long established instinct is not to do so - daft today because I've tried and files are clean but it still rarely occurs to me to do so) and part of the creative process should be to experiment and ignore convention. To me the use of one lens, whilst it could be seen as experimental, is also highly self-limiting and of mythical importance rather than genuine usefulness.

 

And just as a bit of an aside, I sometimes still have to look at the exif data on my files to figure which lens I used for a shot ......

 

 

You don't understand it because it's not your point of view. That doesn't make it a myth and it doesn't mean the person is in any way limited. It is what it is and we don't need to put everything in a well defined box.

Edited May 27, 2017 by Paul J

[adli]

Of course there are many situations which justifies more than one lens. Still, the photographer should learn to know his tools. Buying a broad range of lenses without learning their characteristics will result in mediocre pictures. Jack of all trades, master of none....

[pgk]

You don't understand it because it's not your point of view. That doesn't make it a myth and it doe only lens neededsn't mean the person is in any way limited. It is what it is and we don't need to put everything in a well defined box.

 

Absolutely. But. Trying to justifying the 35mm as the only lens you really need by quoting a few, rare examples of photographers who have only used a 35mm lens is defining a distinct 'box' on marginal evidence. If I take out one lens, more often than not its a 35mm because of its versatility and usability in many situations. But moving from that viewpoint to suggesting its all I need isn't simply a shift in point of view.

[Ko.Fe.]

Ko.Fe. what you say above is basically true, but it not the complete picture. All those variables, with which I agree, can be added to by simply using different focal lengths, as well, as desired. It is all only choice. None of it necessary. At some point one must limit oneself since it would impracticable to use it all at once. From that POV limitation is necessary. The remaining question, how far to limit oneself. It's an individual choice.

 

Regarding painter's brushes and photographer's lenses, they can be viewed as similar as you say, but lenses have a unique character that can be selected as well as for their drawing ability, called focal length. It is yet another way to creatively draw the image.

I was taking kids pictures on bycicle safety event for several years. Most simple, easier choice was tele zoom. But pictures never sound to me until I switched to 50mm lens, which was my main and only lens back then. Zoom was limiting me, prime was not.

 

As for lens character I would leave it for amateurs. Wimogrand, Bresson were using what was available for Leica. I can't recall them to talk about lens character. Here is known in Europe photographer from Russia. A. Makishev and his Kolodozero book. Ten years ago he was talking about how good Lux 35 is even if it is not perfect. Now, as professional, he uses Summarit-m 35 and 50. I can't recall any photographer whom I know to talk about lens character.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[tobey bilek]

Can`t do a head and shoulder portrait with 35.  Either the frame is severely cropped losing quality on the photo is taken close in filling the frame and perspective distortion makes the nose too large.

 

Maybe you want to do a city scape or interior room and there is no place to back up.  A 24 might be right.  

 

I did many race pics and 300 was correct for that track.  Wildlife, even longer is better. Flowers and micro work need something longer.

 

Should you choose 35 and are willing to not get many photos,  that would be your choice.  

[NB23]

We are defensive because this is Leicaaaaaaaaa!