Lens choice: creative consistency vs versatility?

[astrostl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

36 minutes ago, Rick in CO said:

You can try an experiment that will cost about as much as one of the lenses under discussion. Buy a CL or TL2 or TL and the 18-56mm zoom. Take an excursion to shoot what you like and then analyze the focal lengths in the metadata for the pictures YOU find best. That will be your answer. 

This is regularly-suggested theory, but in practice most people seem to exclusively use the WIDEST and the LONGEST ends of a given zoom.

[Cobram]

@Masukami Thank you for opening this interesting thread. I personally think it all depends on what you want to tell with your photos and if you feel comportable with the equipment you use. At the end equipment is just a tool. Comparing to guitars: I prefer Fender guitars. Don't know why. Tele and Strat just feels like part of my body... It is similar with Leica. I think the most important is to be "bonded" with your equipment. If you think about your equipment during a photo session --> something is not OK. Maybe camera, lens,... but if you forget about your setup and just take photos --> that's it. 

@pippy @capo di tutti capi I think Nokton 40mm is really a nice lens and also interesting focal length. I used to own many Olympus rangefinders with fixed 40mm F2.8 lens. My family album is full of photos from these Olympus cameras/lenses and most of them are very interesting cause I managed to portrait the main object (my kids) but also environment. I attribute the "sucess" of these photo sessions to 3 factors: film, aperture (almost always F4-F11) and lack of other lenses. I was forced to "think in 40mm view angle". After I aquired Leica lenses I started to take photos at F1.4 and F2. Of course I lost "the environment". 😃 Now after few years of F1.4 addiction 😃 I bought Skopar 21mm and realised:

 - Voigtlander makes great lenses 

 - 21mm focal length with aperture set at F8 can contribute to interesting photos with many "environment elements" in composition. But still you have to see these elements with your eyes, otherwise there is no benefit in wide angle lenses. 

 - Using mostly apertures F1.4 - F2 , I was exercising only my laziness 🙂 

 

And last thing. I think you are both right and I hope you will both continue to post in this topic. Your experience and insights are useful.

@pippy I think capo is not "fluent" in english and maybe some statements are more "aggresive" due to the lack of  language skills... but he is very right about one thing we (all) tend to talk about equipment and not the context...

@capo di tutti capi Pippy is one of the nicest and most polite members of this forum. I'm sure he understands what you want to express with these posts...and he just wanted to say that there is not one universal truth. 

Again thank you both for your useful and interesting contribution to this very very interesting topic.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Cobram

[Masukami]

My goodness! I asked an innocent question and I appear to have incited a riot.

Looking at the positives:

 @Cobramthank you for getting us back on topic with your diplomatic post!

 

 

Quote

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.

@pippy, your mention of the 40mm Nokton brings back happy memories - it was the lens that first introduced me to rangefinders. Almost the 'perfect normal' length and coupled with a Bessa (R3M I think) which had 40mm framelines and a 1:1 finder magnification (that allowed you to shoot with both eyes open with no difference in magnification) it was a joy to use.  

 

 

Quote

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. 

 @Ouroborosby consistency I meant two things: consistency of rendering and apparent consistency of focal length.  You make an excellent third point about recognisable / consistency of style, which is hugely important and something I try (and struggle) to achieve. At your mention, I've since researched some of Trevor Crone's work and it is beautiful. I see exactly what you mean by him having a consistent style and, coincidentally, I relate strongly to a lot of his images from the south coast of the UK, where I grew up as a child. Thank you for sharing.

 

Quote

Read the topic starter

1.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. 

My answer. The story can be told with all kinds of lenses. There will be no contradiction  in the render. Look at the "theotherguy"

2. 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? 

 (How much better it is to have completely different lenses compared to close focal lengths.) 

I’m more interested in your personal opinion, ideally in the context of what and how you like to photograph. 

Everyone started writing a list of lenses.

My answer. If you photograph the pieces of a puzzle, you will not be able to show the whole. I mean. You have a narrow angle lens. If you photograph fragments of the Eiffel Tower, you will not be able to show it in full. 

@Capo di titti capi you are exactly right here and thank you for taking the time to read and understand the original post. Perhaps I was not clear enough in my question, which is why many did not respond to it. In the hope of getting this post back on track, I'll try to rephrase it below:

 

(rephrased) Question to the community 

I have recently discovered that I enjoy the visual consistency provided by only using lenses of a similar focal length (35 and 50) and similar rendering (both lenses are recent summiluxes). However, this is at the expense of having less variety in my work i.e. the much more different perspectives provided by (for example) a 24mm and 75mm pair or the different rendering when shooting with a current 35mm lux and 50mm Summicron (the difference are more visible when both used wide open).  

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?

Importantly, I'm keen to understand not so much what lenses you would chose but why you would choose them, specifically related to what sort of images you enjoy making.  For example, documentary photographers often use a 28mm and 50mm combo - the first to set the overall scene / story and the second to develop the detail.  

Looking forward (I hope) to a lively and on-topic discussion.

Masukami

 

 

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Masukami

[capo di tutti capi]

Thank you, you understood me correctly. My friends from England and the USA do not always understand me.

Personally, I cannot scan everything around at all focal lengths. There is a saying - if you chase two hares, you won't catch a single one. I chose a wide-angle lens because last time I was unable to fit the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona and the Ephel tower. I only had a 50mm lens. Then I learned to use a wide angle lens for everything. Including portraits. And it seems to me that he is the most eloquent. 

It is interesting to show the beauty of a person with what surrounds him. Not just beauty in bokeh. The wide angle lens opened up a whole world for me. I know how to use it correctly. 

I photograph life and travel reporting including landscape and architecture. I don't shoot macro, like flowers. At work, I use 75mm for items. I very rarely take portraits of people. Although I know how. 

I think it's better to have two completely different lenses. With different focal lengths. But in my creative life I don't need a second lens. 

Do I need 28mm or 16mm? If I have 21mm. I think no

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by capo di tutti capi

[capo di tutti capi]

If we talk about the history that was created with different lenses. It is necessary to link the frames to each other as in the film. A very close-up is alternated with a general shot, then a middle shot is inserted.Between a sunny photo and a rainy one, you need to insert an average state. You need to make a connection. Then the story will look good

Edited May 19, 2021 by capo di tutti capi

[pippy]

2 hours ago, Masukami said:

...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?...

I'm keen to understand not so much what lenses you would chose but why you would choose them, specifically related to what sort of images you enjoy making.

Given only the choice of those two options I would always choose lenses which render differently than a pairing whose images 'draw' in a similar manner. I will quote something from my first post of this thread (post #6) which, I believe, addresses the first part of you question fully;

"...(I) 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..."

As far as the sort of images I enjoy making goes there's no quick, simple answer I can give. I love the freedom of being able to shoot very different genres of photography in very different styles; the concept of being fundamentally a 'Landscape Photographer' or a 'Street-Shooter' or a 'Documentary Photographer' (or whatever) would drive me to distraction.

Philip.

Edited May 19, 2021 by pippy

[capo di tutti capi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

https://see-aych.com/90s-movies/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/the-quick-and-the-dead-1995-4.jpg

https://static.cinemagia.ro/img/db/movie/00/10/07/the-quick-and-the-dead-320494l.jpg?ts=1451338612

It's the same movie, The render is different.

Edited May 19, 2021 by capo di tutti capi

[lct]

7 hours ago, astrostl said:

This is regularly-suggested theory, but in practice most people seem to exclusively use the WIDEST and the LONGEST ends of a given zoom.

"Most"? "Exclusively"? Are you sure? Don't count me in then. I don't use often zooms but i end up shooting in most cases at around 50mm on FF or 35mm on APS cameras. YMMV.

[Masukami]

1 hour ago, capo di tutti capi said:

If we talk about the history that was created with different lenses. It is necessary to link the frames to each other as in the film. A very close-up is alternated with a general shot, then a middle shot is inserted.Between a sunny photo and a rainy one, you need to insert an average state. You need to make a connection. Then the story will look good

Interesting.  It appears to me from your posts that you like to work in a 'documentary' style; building a story from a collection of images.  Do you ever make photos that you want to exist on their own? 

[capo di tutti capi]

3 minutes ago, Masukami said:

Interesting.  It appears to me from your posts that you like to work in a 'documentary' style; building a story from a collection of images.  Do you ever make photos that you want to exist on their own? 

Sure. In my work. Everyday. I photograph objects. This is what slows me down. Therefore, I am delighted with the dynamics.

[capo di tutti capi]

8 minutes ago, Masukami said:

Interesting.  It appears to me from your posts that you like to work in a 'documentary' style; building a story from a collection of images.  Do you ever make photos that you want to exist on their own? 

I'm not interested in beauty for the sake of beauty. It's too easy. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by capo di tutti capi

[capo di tutti capi]

I like to use cinematic framing techniques. I have a few secrets left

 

[evikne]

5 hours ago, Masukami said:

(rephrased) Question to the community 

I have recently discovered that I enjoy the visual consistency provided by only using lenses of a similar focal length (35 and 50) and similar rendering (both lenses are recent summiluxes). However, this is at the expense of having less variety in my work i.e. the much more different perspectives provided by (for example) a 24mm and 75mm pair or the different rendering when shooting with a current 35mm lux and 50mm Summicron (the difference are more visible when both used wide open).  

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?

Importantly, I'm keen to understand not so much what lenses you would chose but why you would choose them, specifically related to what sort of images you enjoy making.  For example, documentary photographers often use a 28mm and 50mm combo - the first to set the overall scene / story and the second to develop the detail.

I have always felt most comfortable in the range between 35 and 50 mm. But to choose only one of them has been impossible to me. After all, there are differences that I cannot live without. I've had many different lenses, but most of them with these two focal lengths. I take mostly candid portraits, and I often prefer a loose cropping with some context around.

The 50 mm often results in slightly more standard portraits where I am more concerned about bokeh and background, whereas the 35 mm tends to be used even more candidly, with more focus on perspective.

A couple of days ago I took these pictures. First with a 50 mm:

A different 17 May

Then I changed to 35 mm:

A different 17 May, part II

If people didn't know, they probably wouldn't notice the difference. And because the lenses are so close in focal length, I feel in a way they act like one lens. But a very versatile one.

Edited May 19, 2021 by evikne

[Narsuitus]

23 hours 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?

If I really valued visual consistency in my work, I would have continued shooting the same subjects, with the same film, with the same lighting, with my Canon QL17 with fixed 40mm lens set at f/8, and the focus set to the hyperfocal distance.

However, since I needed to be prepared for any subject under various lighting conditions, I valued a wide range of different focal length lenses. The 21/35/90mm lenses on my M6 rangefinder or the 35/85/180mm lenses on my 35mm SLR allowed me versatility to capture 70% of the images I needed.

When I needed to capture the remaining 30%, I could reach into my lens inventory for wider lenses, longer lenses, or specialty lenses (such as macro, fisheye, and perspective control). I could also supplement with additional lighting and light modifiers.

 

[Capuccino-Muffin]

Wide angle lenses are to be used parsimoniously within 35 or 50mm lenses, otherwise a body of work becomes boring and monotonous.

Some people use a 50 and they make it look like a 35, some others use a 35 and make it look like a 50. That’s style.

Choose your main lens and add a wider angle for completeness.

 

 

[pippy]

1 hour ago, Capuccino-Muffin said:

...Some people use a 50 and they make it look like a 35, some others use a 35 and make it look like a 50...

Funny that you should say that...

Just the other day I took this snap with the 40mm Voigtlander Nokton and someone, on being told which f/l had been used, expressed surprise that it wasn't shot on something considerably wider;

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!

Philip.

[pgk]

10 minutes ago, pippy said:

Just the other day I took this snap with the 40mm Voigtlander Nokton and someone, on being told which f/l had been used, expressed surprise that it wasn't shot on something considerably wider

Perspective can be difficult. I often struggle to remember which lens I shot what on, and I often have to resort to the exif data which is helpful when I've remembered to tell the camera which uncoded lens is fitted (I'm getting better at this, slowly).

[pippy]

34 minutes ago, pgk said:

...I often struggle to remember which lens I shot what on, and I often have to resort to the exif data which is helpful when I've remembered to tell the camera which uncoded lens is fitted (I'm getting better at this, slowly)...

I don't always remember to input which lens I'm using; in part because the M-D can't be told (so it's hardly likely to become a regular habit) but also, when using the Monochrom, because some of my most frequently-used lenses aren't even listed. If I do remember I will select what I imagine would be the most similar lens offered so that the '53 50mm f1.5 Summarit (M) will go down as the earliest 50 Summilux; the 40 1.4 Nokton (as used above) 'becomes' the earliest 35 Summilux and so on.

For quite a time I doubted that the profile made any real difference but, whaddyaknow, it does. I only discovered this when using the ubiquitous 40 Voigt. on the same day and on both bodies. Shots taken at f1.4 on the M-D had far greater vignetting than I had ever noticed before(*) whereas shooting at f1.4 on the Monochrom the images looked exactly as I expected. It turns out the Monochrom's profile correction - unavailable, of course, on the M-D - was making all the difference.

Philip.

(*) Probably because I don't often shoot at f1.4...

Edited May 19, 2021 by pippy

[Rick in CO]

20 hours ago, astrostl said:

This is regularly-suggested theory, but in practice most people seem to exclusively use the WIDEST and the LONGEST ends of a given zoom.

Maybe for yourself, but someone else might find it useful. 
We might not all shoot the same subjects in the same way. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[rramesh]

'Creative Consistency' is just an oxymoron!. Creativity is the ability to use imagination and think outside traditional ways so to create something new. 

Edited May 20, 2021 by rramesh