Lens choice: creative consistency vs versatility?

[ianman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

23 minutes ago, capo di tutti capi said:

Place the car roof in the foreground.

Ah yes, I remember...

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Lee S]

On 5/18/2021 at 4:05 PM, pippy said:

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.

Ah the 40mm Nokton, the magic 35mm and 50mm in one ☝️ I have this in Sony FE mount.

Regarding use on a rangefinder how do you compose? Do you imagine it just outside the 50mm frame lines or just inside the 35mm ones? 

 

[pippy]

55 minutes ago, Lee S said:

Ah the 40mm Nokton, the magic 35mm and 50mm in one ☝️ I have this in Sony FE mount.

Regarding use on a rangefinder how do you compose? Do you imagine it just outside the 50mm frame lines or just inside the 35mm ones?...

Hi, Lee. Good question!

When I first started using it I wondered which set of framelines would be most useful and did a few experiments using the camera's 'native' 50mm frames (which the lens activates) and then checking - using the 35mm focal-length selection lever - how the actual image captured compared, using the rear screen, with what the lines showed in the viewfinder. No real shock to discover that the 35mm frames were the closest (they are, in fact, surprisingly very close) to the captured image so the most accurate solution would be to file a fraction off the activation tab at the rear of the lens so that the lens brought up the 35mm frame and just remember that the lens will crop slightly tighter.

In practice I decided to leave the lens as it is. Having used the 40 so much I'm now in the habit of 'seeing', subconsciously, the extended image-capture area outside of the 50mm frames. If I'm in any real doubt, however, then I will still use the selection lever to double-check my initial suspicions. In point of fact I used this checking procedure when I took the snap seen in post #76 to verify the position of the lanterns at the top of the image. The pic was snapped on the M-D Typ-262 and so, bearing in mind the lack of a screen on which I could chimp, the lever was very useful. I simply held the lever over whilst framing and tripped the shutter accordingly.

It is an exquisite little jewel of a lens. I love mine and I sincerely hope you derive as much pleasure when using yours.

Philip.

Edited May 20, 2021 by pippy

[Dennis]

8 minutes ago, pippy said:

It is an exquisite little jewel of a lens. I love mine and I sincerely hope you derive as much pleasure when using yours.

 

one day I will try it, to know how it feels like 🙂 It totally makes sense to use a 40mm, despite I'm an avid 35mm shooters. Once one masters the frame lines/guesstimate, I think it's done.

Meanwhile, I would say that when it's about work, I use mainly DLSR and 24+35+58 is my cup of tea ... This way, I perfectly know what I'm getting, what to expect. I'm faster. 

With Leica M10, same with 35mm FL only. So far!

So, I would say, I should be consistent only in these scenario. But adding other lenses to these, I open the door to play and experiment.. so maybe less consistent. Does it make sense?

[Jeff S]

3 hours ago, pippy said:

For a short while my hopes were raised.

Just for a short while.

Pity.

Philip.

Posts 168, 170.  Hater! 😇

Jeff

[pippy]

2 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Posts 168, 170.  Hater! 😇...

"I Take the Fifth!"...

Philip.

[Masukami]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 minutes ago, Dennis said:

So, I would say, I should be consistent only in these scenario. But adding other lenses to these, I open the door to play and experiment.. so maybe less consistent. Does it make sense?

I believe it does make sense to me: variety vs consistency and the trade off between them. 

[jaapv]

10 hours ago, capo di tutti capi said:

I can show you what I'm talking about by using screenshots from Hollywood movies. Is this allowed here?

 

 

No, but you may link to your examples.

[pippy]

1 hour ago, Dennis said:

one day I will try it, to know how it feels like 🙂 It totally makes sense to use a 40mm, despite I'm an avid 35mm shooters. Once one masters the frame lines/guesstimate, I think it's done.

Meanwhile, I would say that when it's about work, I use mainly DLSR and 24+35+58 is my cup of tea ... This way, I perfectly know what I'm getting, what to expect. I'm faster. 

With Leica M10, same with 35mm FL only. So far!

So, I would say, I should be consistent only in these scenario. But adding other lenses to these, I open the door to play and experiment.. so maybe less consistent. Does it make sense?

OK; if no one minds too much I'm going to take this thread sort-of back On Topic (probably only for a short while).

In the OP Masukami was considering the wisdom of using a 35mm and 50mm lens pairing; whether they would be sufficiently 'different' enough but, to his surprise, he discovered he really enjoyed this set of lenses. Having bought the 50 to go along with his existing 35 he wrote;

"Since I bought the 50 I haven’t had this much fun making photos."

Bit of backstory; my first digital M was an 8.2 (= x1.33 crop factor). I had been using (since 1980) an M2 with a 35 and a 50 but, to replicate this set with the 8, I needed shorter lenses. The result was the purchase of a 28 (=37mm) and the 40 (=53). Then, however, I bought a full-frame body and subsequently realised that the 40 was, for me, the 'Goldilocks' focal length. My #2 lens was still the 50 Summicron so I had slightly similar lenses with slightly different rendering. I realised I loved the fact that, carrying two lenses, I could now 'draw' a photograph differently depending on subject-matter / mood / lighting and so on.

The 40 and 50 focal lengths might seem ridiculously close to each other but in reality are (IMX) still different enough to require a different vision / approach in use and the images produced by them will each have a different 'feel'.

Then (and as you, Dennis, know very well!) I picked up the (1930 optical formula) 1953 50mm f1.5 Summarit and discovered yet another whole new world of 'Drawing' with a lens. Using the Summarit on one body and the 40 Nokton on the other is now my preferred M.O. and I will echo the very same words written by Masukami which I have quoted earlier in the thread.

Philip.

Edited May 20, 2021 by pippy

[jaapv]

This forum is for all members. Derailing and flooding threads, pontificating and showing disrespect for other members is not appreciated. A number of posts have been deleted.

[Dennis]

50 minutes ago, pippy said:

Then (and as you, Dennis, know very well!) I picked up the (1930 optical formula) 1953 50mm f1.5 Summarit and discovered yet another whole new world of 'Drawing' with a lens.

Oh yes, I know and saw what this lens is capable of... It makes sense a combo like this. People can get used to everything, as long they enjoy it. And modern and old can perfectly co-exist together.  

As for me, the 35mm is my standard. I want more context? 24mm. I want a specific portion of my view (exclude)? Well, I'm going with 58mm. But everything is rounding around my trinity kit... For Leica M, I think I'm so consistent and committed to the 35mm, that I'm thinking about something: to trade (with a Leica fellow) my 35/2.8 ZM and the 50 Cron V, for a 35mm Cron Asph v1 ... The IQ of my two lenses is, w/o doubt, outstanding. But there are a few things that I don't like about them. I know I always wanted A 35Cron, but I'm not sure it worths it. The Biogon is wow. I don't care to remain with one lens only. Actually, it could be better for me and my way of thinking. W/o to be off-topic, feedback is always welcome. There is no deal yet; both parts are still thinking about ... 

[lct]

46 minutes ago, Dennis said:

I'm thinking about something: to trade (with a Leica fellow) my 35/2.8 ZM and the 50 Cron V, for a 35mm Cron Asph v1 ... The IQ of my two lenses is, w/o doubt, outstanding. But there are a few things that I don't like about them. I know I always wanted A 35Cron, but I'm not sure it worths it. The Biogon is wow. I don't care to remain with one lens only. Actually, it could be better for me and my way of thinking. W/o to be off-topic, feedback is always welcome. There is no deal yet; both parts are still thinking about ...

The Summicron 35/2 asph v1 will give you access to f/2 and a bit less vignetting than your Biogon but otherwise the latter is difficult to beat. If you like shooting into the light the Biogon has significantly less flare and it has also less CA. Now it is a Zeiss lens but if you like its rendering the only logical reason to let it go would be if you need f/2 IMHO.

[oldwino]

2 hours ago, pippy said:

 

The 40 and 50 focal lengths might seem ridiculously close to each other but in reality are (IMX) still different enough to require a different vision / approach in use and the images produced by them will each have a different 'feel'.

My experience as well. 40 is a “relaxed” 50. 

[Ko.Fe.]

Sorry, I read enough of HCB and about him and also looked at his photos with others who understand focal lengths.

He used 35 and 90 as well. Later HCB was even more on 90 side.

Creativity from my perspective is not about lens been 1.4 or faster. Bokeh has nothing to do with real creativity. Bokeh is same, repetitive preset. With next to none content. Same is for shallow DOF. Not a creativity. IMO.

Rangefinders. They are made to be close to people.

I don't understand those who are using rangefinders for flowers in bokeh and landscapes at F16. All of my books I have purchased are free of it. Majority of books I have are with photos taken with rangefinder cameras. And it is about people.

HCB "Inner Silence" is one of the unsurpassed examples of creativity in photography. IMO. 

I'm trapped for 14 days now (perhaps same as OP reason). But even before it happened to me I was having dreams to walk on the street and been close to people.  Entire province is at lockdown for I lost my count how many months. Those are my missing creativity grounds.

Creativity involved people is totally personal choice on the lens. I dream to be able to use my 21 lens again. To be close. And my go to lens is 35.

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!

I have 50 1.5 and 50 1.8 and then I walked around empty places it was cool to emulate creativity via bokeh  

I choose 50 more often during Covid because everything nearby is typical rural NA.  .

 

 

 

Edited May 20, 2021 by Ko.Fe.

[IkarusJohn]

I’m not sure I understand this thread at all.

Cutting through “tricks”, “selling my camera gear” and other less than polite comments, I think I understand our friend from Moscow (the emphasis on think), though I disagree with the way he says it.  We had a member here, who arrived with deep pockets, considerable enthusiasm on every topic, purchased a bewildering array of cameras and lenses in different formats, asked us at length how to use it all, took lots of “beautiful” pictures, then departed.  I found his images technically fine, but fundamentally lacking in any interest.  They seemed like endless sunset photos, if you get my drift - nicely framed, well focused and exposed, but boring.  I think that’s what the boss of bosses was meaning, if you could see beyond his opinion of his own artistic merit.

Speaking for myself, I have gone through period where I have stopped taking pictures, but not sold my gear, because I felt what I was looking at had been photographed before, and I couldn’t see how I might make a new image which gave me pleasure.  No “tricks” involved, or required - just an original image which captured what I wanted to portray.  I decided that just looking was more satisfying, and the world actually looks better not through a viewfinder.

More specifically, trying to understand the original question (rephrased):

Quote

If only given one choice between the two approaches, to what extent do you value the versatility / variety that a wide range of different lenses gives you vs the consistency given by using two similar focal lengths, both with similar rendering?

The question is written from the perspective of equipment, rather than what I consider to be the core question - how do I capture what I’m seeing in a way which gives me pleasure and gives others a glimpse into the way I see the world but which they perhaps don’t (I would say perspective or point of view, but those are photographic terms which will deflect the discussion).  So, this is way more than a perfectly lit, exposed and framed product photo.  It also shows a subject in a way which is memorable, causes pause for thought or captures something which is timely.

So, if I have defined the question in a way which means something to me (not sure if it means anything to the OP, but stick with me), do I value the versatility of different lenses more than consistency of similar focal lengths and rendering?

Staying with my paradigm, if there is a scene I wish to capture in a particular way, then I choose the lens which will further that end (or more often, the one I have with me).  In that context, the equipment choice gets in the way of the creative process - our talkative friend from Moscow solved this problem with one lens.  Conversely, two similar lenses, say 28-50 Summiluxes could be rather limiting.  I can see that using one format, one camera or one lens can be beneficial, and I admire the discipline, but it doesn’t work for me.  I will better understand the strengths and weaknesses of my chosen camera and lens and have a consistent outcome, but to what end?  My modest attempts at artistic expression in photography are driven by what I’m seeing and the image I wish to capture - the camera (medium format, 135 or APS-C, colour or black and white, digital, or film) and the focal length (Mandler or Karbe or someone else) are not ends in themselves.  But, I do accept I need to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the equipment I choose.

I can say this - going back 40 or so years when I was shooting lots of film, mostly backpacking through SE Asia, Africa and Europe, where everything was new to my rather sheltered and narrow upbringing, I wanted the widest focal length range I could carry.  Over time, I realised that life was more interesting with one moderate telephoto prime, and more in the wide to mid-range.  Now I only use 21-75 with my M camera most of the time, and rarely carry more than one or two lenses.  I try to understand the character and limitations of what I’ve brought with me, with varying success.

So, while I can understand the almost Zen like quality of using just two similar lenses in a reasonably narrow focal range, and I appreciate the discipline, I prefer the variety and versatility of different focal lengths and different formats.  There is a cost to this flexibility, as it means I don’t have the time or discipline to truly understand the equipment I have, and make the most of it; but that also frees me from thinking too hard about the gear and more about what I wish to capture.  Granted, too much choice can be confusing and can get in the way of your aesthetic aspirations; but I make do with what I have with me at the time.  I do try to anticipate what I might wish to photograph.

Have I understood the question?  Do I get a gold star?

If you think less about your gear, and more about the image you want and how you’re going to get it, the gear choice becomes easier and largely irrelevant.  The more you manage to capture what you wanted others to see, the less banal it will be and the less likely you will want to sell your gear, or to try “tricks” as you won’t need to.  Long post.  Maybe I should have been brief, rude and obtuse …

Cheers
John

[capo di tutti capi]

death cannot be reported gently. it will break the soul anyway.

the topic will always go into the technical aspects of choosing a lens. I do not know why it is so. Interestingly, there was talk among artists about choosing a brush 99% of the time?

Only students the first two months

Edited May 21, 2021 by capo di tutti capi

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

I’m not sure I understand this thread at all.

Cutting through “tricks”, “selling my camera gear” and other less than polite comments, I think I understand our friend from Moscow (the emphasis on think), though I disagree with the way he says it.  We had a member here, who arrived with deep pockets, considerable enthusiasm on every topic, purchased a bewildering array of cameras and lenses in different formats, asked us at length how to use it all, took lots of “beautiful” pictures, then departed.  I found his images technically fine, but fundamentally lacking in any interest.  They seemed like endless sunset photos, if you get my drift - nicely framed, well focused and exposed, but boring.  I think that’s what the boss of bosses was meaning, if you could see beyond his opinion of his own artistic merit.

Speaking for myself, I have gone through period where I have stopped taking pictures, but not sold my gear, because I felt what I was looking at had been photographed before, and I couldn’t see how I might make a new image which gave me pleasure.  No “tricks” involved, or required - just an original image which captured what I wanted to portray.  I decided that just looking was more satisfying, and the world actually looks better not through a viewfinder.

More specifically, trying to understand the original question (rephrased):

The question is written from the perspective of equipment, rather than what I consider to be the core question - how do I capture what I’m seeing in a way which gives me pleasure and gives others a glimpse into the way I see the world but which they perhaps don’t (I would say perspective or point of view, but those are photographic terms which will deflect the discussion).  So, this is way more than a perfectly lit, exposed and framed product photo.  It also shows a subject in a way which is memorable, causes pause for thought or captures something which is timely.

So, if I have defined the question in a way which means something to me (not sure if it means anything to the OP, but stick with me), do I value the versatility of different lenses more than consistency of similar focal lengths and rendering?

Staying with my paradigm, if there is a scene I wish to capture in a particular way, then I choose the lens which will further that end (or more often, the one I have with me).  In that context, the equipment choice gets in the way of the creative process - our talkative friend from Moscow solved this problem with one lens.  Conversely, two similar lenses, say 28-50 Summiluxes could be rather limiting.  I can see that using one format, one camera or one lens can be beneficial, and I admire the discipline, but it doesn’t work for me.  I will better understand the strengths and weaknesses of my chosen camera and lens and have a consistent outcome, but to what end?  My modest attempts at artistic expression in photography are driven by what I’m seeing and the image I wish to capture - the camera (medium format, 135 or APS-C, colour or black and white, digital, or film) and the focal length (Mandler or Karbe or someone else) are not ends in themselves.  But, I do accept I need to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the equipment I choose.

I can say this - going back 40 or so years when I was shooting lots of film, mostly backpacking through SE Asia, Africa and Europe, where everything was new to my rather sheltered and narrow upbringing, I wanted the widest focal length range I could carry.  Over time, I realised that life was more interesting with one moderate telephoto prime, and more in the wide to mid-range.  Now I only use 21-75 with my M camera most of the time, and rarely carry more than one or two lenses.  I try to understand the character and limitations of what I’ve brought with me, with varying success.

So, while I can understand the almost Zen like quality of using just two similar lenses in a reasonably narrow focal range, and I appreciate the discipline, I prefer the variety and versatility of different focal lengths and different formats.  There is a cost to this flexibility, as it means I don’t have the time or discipline to truly understand the equipment I have, and make the most of it; but that also frees me from thinking too hard about the gear and more about what I wish to capture.  Granted, too much choice can be confusing and can get in the way of your aesthetic aspirations; but I make do with what I have with me at the time.  I do try to anticipate what I might wish to photograph.

Have I understood the question?  Do I get a gold star?

If you think less about your gear, and more about the image you want and how you’re going to get it, the gear choice becomes easier and largely irrelevant.  The more you manage to capture what you wanted others to see, the less banal it will be and the less likely you will want to sell your gear, or to try “tricks” as you won’t need to.  Long post.  Maybe I should have been brief, rude and obtuse …

Cheers
John

You get your gold star as far as I’m concert, my friend, but my take on this is rather more concise: choose your tools,learn all about the way they work, use them and forget that you are using a tool by utilizing a different part of your brain. Every photographer should be a technical/creative schizophrenic.  

[capo di tutti capi]

43 minutes ago, jaapv said:

You get your gold star as far as I’m concert, my friend, but my take on this is rather more concise: choose your tools,learn all about the way they work, use them and forget that you are using a tool by utilizing a different part of your brain. Every photographer should be a technical/creative schizophrenic.  

you understand that this does not work here? several decades in a row. Tests, tests tests.

 

Edited May 21, 2021 by capo di tutti capi

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

Sorry? You lost me here. It works perfectly for me and, I’m sure, for many forum members. 

[pgk]

BUT photography requires the photographer to use camera and lens (pinhole photographers excepted). So there is an inevitability of needing to understand the choice of equipment. The trick is to use appropriate equipment which does not get in the way of creating the image. The real problem here is that in order to find the equipment which is best for each of us there are various routes, some involve asking others and some involve trying specific equipment out. I'm not a believer in trying and discarding - it takes time and experience to enable equipment usage to become second nature, and some will become so and some will not. I have owned (and still own) cameras and lenses which I do not particularly like using but they have specific technical attributes which I need and must use. On the other hand I can pick up my M9 and a Leica M lens and use it almost without thinking about its operation at all. At this point I can concentrate on what I am photographing without thinking about the gear in the slightest. And I think that the same goes for focal length in that eventually the choice becomes subconscious and I don't atually think about changing lenses, I simply do so upon seeing subject matter (which is probably why I can't remember which lens I used most of the time).

If there is one piece of advice I would give to new photographers it would be to 'keep it simple' and use a straightforward camera and fixed focal length lens. Learn its limitations and progress when they are too confining. Few do so and many go quickly for 3 bulky zooms (16~200mm covered) and consequently flit around trying to use everything.

Just to add. Divorcing photography from its requirements of equipent is like suggesting that a watercolour should be painted without a brush. The trick is to understand how to lay the paint down as and where required without needing to think about the brush. I suspect that watercolour artists have a selection of brushes which have varying characteristics and which don't keep losing hairs onto the painting. Selecting which brush probably becomes an automatic choice. Simpler technology (perhaps!) but same principles. Most people on the forum have decided on their gear and are looking for information about refinement.

Edited May 21, 2021 by pgk
Last para added + typos