Lens choice: creative consistency vs versatility?

[Masukami]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was recently planning to buy a 21 elmarit to ‘round out ‘ my existing 35 summilux and 75 summarit kit. But something stopped me.

 

I was stuck at home in quarantine at the time, so I had plenty of time to think. And the more I thought about the creative versatility the three lenses would give me, the more I considered how their different rendering and very different focal lengths would also impart a lack of visual consistency in my work. 

 

When I finally emerged blinking in the daylight from my 2 weeks of solitude I had totally changed my mind. Instead of buying the 21mm, I traded in my 75 against a 50 summilux to pair with my existing 35 summilux. 

 

‘Too close to each other!’ or ‘just move a step back or forwards’ I can hear many of you muttering. But please bear with me… 

 

My logic was that the difference in focal lengths was still sufficient to give me different ‘looks’ (I like to work close, so the difference between 35 and 50 still makes a large perspective difference) but not so different that the overall ‘feel’ of my work lost consistency (this is also why I opted for the 50 lux instead of the cron because it renders more like my 35 lux). 

 

Since I bought the 50 I haven’t had this much fun making photos. My whole way of  seeing has changed. Now I focus more on the subject, thinking less about what I can ‘make’ of it through a wide lens choice and more about how I can represent it. It’s hard to describe but the closest I can get to it is the feeling of using one camera with one lens, but with benefits. 

 

I’ve seen enough of the “what 2 lens kit?’ posts not to go there but I would be genuinely interested in peoples’ opinions. 

 

To what extent do you value the versatility a wide range of different lenses gives you vs the consistency of the sort of choice I have made?

 

Please no ‘HCB used only a 50 (and rarely a 35) type posts! I’m more interested in your personal opinion, ideally in the context of what and how you like to photograph. 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Masukami

[andybarton]

I have a 24 Elmarit-M ASPH, a 35 Summicron ASPH and a 50 Summilux ASPH. 

I find the combination just right for what I want to do and have no intention of ever buying any more lenses. I definitely will not be buying anything longer than the 50.

My most used lens is probably the 24, which I use without an external finder, sometimes with LV on my 240.

YMMV

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest Nowhereman]

40 minutes ago, Masukami said:

...My logic was that the difference in focal lengths was still sufficient to give me different ‘looks’ (I like to work close, so the difference between 35 and 50 still makes a large perspective difference) but not so different that the overall ‘feel’ of my work lost consistency (this is also why I opted for the 50 lux instead of the cron because it renders more like my 35 lux). 

Since I bought the 50 I haven’t had this much fun making photos. My whole way of  seeing has changed. Now I focus more on the subject, thinking less about what I can ‘make’ of it through a wide lens choice and more about how I can represent it. It’s hard to describe but the closest I can get to it is the feeling of using one camera with one lens, but with benefits...

Seems to me that you've answered your own question — for you. "Consistency" is meaningless without context. Why do you want consistency; why do you want "versatility". The answers to these questions depend on what you're trying to achieve. Unity of style can be a can be a narrow concept, but can also a wide one — again, depending on the context. A style can benefit from difference in the rendition of space, just as it can benefit from a similarity of rendition. It all depends on intent. No one can answer this for you: it depends what you want to do.

You may be happy with on 35 and 50. I shoot with 21, 28, 35 and 50; and occasionally 90. The reasons I do may not apply to what you're after. It all depends on intent.
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

[pedaes]

50 is by far my most used lens, followed by 35 and then 24 and 90 for specific situations. Also a 28mm Summaron for doing something a little different which is fun. I agree that there is enough difference between 50 and 35 to justify both. I suspect I am wedded to 50 as for most of my early years in photography this was the only focal length I had. 

Of course, if I wanted to do some bird (feathered) photography I would have a 1200mm autofocus/stabalised etc lens - but I don't.

[Jeff S]

We each have our own styles and preferences. I only own 28/35/50 lenses for my M shooting, using RF only, and 35/50 accounts for most of my work. Been that way since the 80’s (altered only with the cropped M8.2 sensor, which prompted greater use of the 28).  Longer focal lengths/zooms are native to my SL2, for a different shooting experience and use.  
 

Versatility vs creative consistency is not due to my gear choices; that’s on me.  I find that one can be versatile even with a single lens, or creatively consistent (or not) with many, if that’s the intent.  I just don’t like having more gear than I need. And with an M, my need for different focal lengths is limited.
 

Jeff

Edited May 18, 2021 by Jeff S

[pippy]

I second everything said by Nowhereman.

My most-used lens is a 40mm f1.4 Voigtlander Nokton which isn't normally a first-choice-go-to lens but for the purposes of the vast majority of my personal work I simply find it closely matches what I 'see' in my mind's eye as I wander around.

At the same time I do also have a few other focal lengths lying around and will often deliberately choose something completely different in order to capture images with a very different look to 'the usual suspects' and I find altering my approach keeps my snapping fresher than were I to continue to use just the one lens all the time. This also requires a changed mind-set which is interesting in itself.

To that end I have selected lenses with varying optical designs; some of which date back pretty much a century but also have ASPH optics for when in the mood for more up-to-date rendering takes hold.

But I fully understand the 35 / 50 choice. Someone recently started a thread somewehere hereabouts asking if you could only shoot with one lens for the rest of your life could you do it and, if so, which lens would it be? My answers would be 'Yes; quite happily' and the aforementioned Nokton.

Just my take on things.

Philip.

Edited May 18, 2021 by pippy

[Narsuitus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Masukami said:

I was recently planning to buy a 21 elmarit to ‘round out ‘ my existing 35 summilux and 75 summarit kit. But something stopped me.

Your first choice is what I did. I decided to get a 21mm f/1.4 to "round out" my existing 35mm f/1.4 and 90mm f/2 kit.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[spydrxx]

At one time, when I was younger, I may have thought about consistency in my photography, but looking back, versatility seems to have taken precedence, and, although little used, I have a full complement of 21-280mm lenses for my Leica bodies. I had a 400, but after a couple of projects using it, decided it would get little use going forward and sold it. I guess your question goes back to the old idiom, would you rather be a "jack of all trades and master of none" or master the one. I'm the true unapologetic diletante.

[pgk]

1 hour ago, Masukami said:

To what extent do you value the versatility a wide range of different lenses gives you vs the consistency of the sort of choice I have made?

One focal length can be very versatile. Consistency is about much, much more than lenses. I tend to use three lenses - 21, 35 & 90 - sometimes/usually - but then again I sometimes don't. My lens choice doesn't affect either verstility or consistency as far as I'm concerned. Its all too easy to overthink decision choices. If you find a 35 and 50 work well for you then that's great. Just use them and concentrate on subject matter which is far more important.

[capo di tutti capi]

The rule worked for me. Look at the exif of all your photos and understand which focal length you use most often. I had between 18 and 24mm. I really love the rendering of 35mm, 40mm, 50mm lenses but I understand that they make up 3% of all frames (not counting the work) Why should I buy.

On a walk if you are looking for a photo with a 50mm lens, you will not remember anything that was around.

Edited May 18, 2021 by capo di tutti capi

[evikne]

The way you think feels very familiar to me. 35 and 50 mm are my favorite focal lengths too, and they are now the only focal lengths I have. And as you say, they are far enough apart to make a different perspective, but also close enough to give a consistent look.

I also wish I could have only one lens, but it's impossible to choose among those two. So your sentence "feeling of using one camera with one lens, but with benefits" makes perfect sense for me too.

[lct]

1 hour ago, Masukami said:

Since I bought the 50 I haven’t had this much fun making photos. My whole way of  seeing has changed.

Perhaps you have discovered "your" focal length. Some people "see" in 50mm and feel better this way. Others may prefer 35, 21, 75 etc. Not sure if this is related to the debate about versatility vs consistency though. Contrary to what "just move a step back or forwards" people may think, changing focal length allows to keep the same perspective whilst changing the field of view. If you prefer a natural perspective you may then wish to use close focal lengths like 35 and 75 for example to complement your 50 instead of zooming with your feet. Versatility + Consistency sort of .

[capo di tutti capi]

Speaking of telling a story. I love this guy. 

Careful, not for children. http://shotbytheotherguy.com/ My apologies, I do not know what camera he is shooting with.

For a story you can use lenses from different poles of the planet https://photosight.ru/photos/5182430/

I want to take the same photos from my trips.

Edited May 18, 2021 by capo di tutti capi

[Ouroboros]

A poor image is a poor image, regardless of the focal length or equipment used but if by 'consistency' you mean having a recognisable style throughout your images, this is primarily achieved through experience and refining your technique and intent.

Many great photographers have proven their ability to interchange formats and media yet retain their individual signature and this would be my definition of consistency. 

One contemporary British photographer whose work I have followed for a number of years is Trevor Crone (I could list many more inspirational photographers whose work would be equally good examples of consistency, but his work resonates with me). 

Trevor is both versatile and consistent  across media and formats, ranging from Polaroid to large format film photography. His work  is instantly recognisable and has little to do with choice of focal lengths limited to one format as a primary concern.  It has more to do with his personal refinement of vision, aim, intent and experience. 

Consistency follows.

 

[tom0511]

If you want total "consistently" it would be one lens.

I own many M focal length, but I usually only carry 2 or 3.

For the last months 28 and 50 and sometimes additionally 75 or 21.

I enjoy the options. I like 28 or 35 to carry a whole "scene", or sometimes to include even more surrounding. But I also enjoy to use 50 or 75 if I want to focus more on a person or subject.

I don't need to bring 10 lenses, but I find using just one lens can be limiting. However I found for me the extreme focal lengths are used quite seldom, and I like the 28-90 range a lot. But sometimes 21 can give a really cool "overview"/perspective.

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by tom0511

[pippy]

3 hours ago, capo di tutti capi said:

On a walk if you are looking for a photo with a 50mm lens, you will not remember anything that was around.

With respect, capo, I think that, perhaps, you meant to write;

"On a walk if I am looking for a photo with a 50mm lens I will not remember anything that was around."...

...because you are certainly not describing my experience when using a 50.

Philip.

Edited May 18, 2021 by pippy

[capo di tutti capi]

1 hour ago, pippy said:

With respect, capo, I think that, perhaps, you meant to write;

"On a walk if I am looking for a photo with a 50mm lens I will not remember anything that was around."...

...because you are certainly not describing my experience when using a 50.

Philip.

previously, horses used side eye pads. So that they look only forward and not on the sides. I think this also works for lenses with a narrow angle. I didn't mean specifically, I meant everyone

Edited May 18, 2021 by capo di tutti capi

[pippy]

1 minute ago, capo di tutti capi said:

previously, horses used side eye pads. So that they look only forward and not on the sides. I think this also works for lenses with a narrow angle.

Fortunately I'm not a horse; I don't wear eye pads and I can rotate my head some 170 degrees from side to side and some 100 degrees up to down.

Perhaps your reasoning - plus the added difficulty imposed by having hooves instead of hands - explains why so few horses have become famous photographers?

Philip.

[capo di tutti capi]

5 minutes ago, pippy said:

Fortunately I'm not a horse; I don't wear eye pads and I can rotate my head some 170 degrees from side to side and some 100 degrees up to down.

Perhaps your reasoning - plus the added difficulty imposed by having hooves instead of hands - explains why so few horses have become famous photographers?

Philip.

it also explains why everyone still takes pictures of flowers in a bokeh and leaves in a puddle?

Edited May 18, 2021 by capo di tutti capi

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pippy]

No; that's for a different reason...

Philip.