Shooting without thinking: which lens?

[hansvons]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In this thread, @pippy wrote:

8 hours ago, pippy said:

Thanks for your reply, hansvisions, and it could be posited that these points you raise merit their own thread. It would be a great deal of fun to discuss these aspects over a glass of wine (or two)...

As far as Tracking / Cropping and Perspective / Framing goes my own view is that each approach shares equal importance and validity. For f/l decisions I belive that the pair of images posted earlier illustrate precisely why it is desirable to be able to select the appropriate f/l  to capture the desired image and that, for me, merely relying on using ONE f/l is not the correct approach.

As stated earlier; this would be Fun to discuss!

Philip.

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, I live on the continent, so we're having this conversation online. But I do like good red wine, preferably Bordeaux.

---

I deliberately gave this thread the title “Shooting without thinking: which lens?" to open up the discussion as much as possible. I know this thread is more about content creation than technical shop talk in a technical forum, but one can only try. 

 

My original post:

First, moving your feet/camera instead of your focal length is the difference between tracking and zooming/cropping. It’s an entirely different thing. Feet changes perspective, focal length, and framing. Needless to say, which is more important.

Secondly, defaulting to one focal length is desirable as vegetative previsualisation is much easier to obtain. Why’s that? Because shooting without thinking will take you to the next level. No moving your feet, no wondering what to do, no re-framing and lens swapping because all of that is done unconsciously and quickly. Only your subject’s action, focus and exposure may require some attention (already hard enough).
 
Hence, it makes much more sense to own multiple lenses of the same focal length than to own a set of primes from 21 - 90 unless you are a filmmaker or need various focal lengths for different jobs, e.g. architecture vs product shoots. But it’s interesting how fast one unlearns previsualisation skills when changing focal lengths regularly. 
 
BTW, I use 98% of the time 35mm and own two 35mm lenses for two M cameras. I might get another 35mm lens at some point, or not. 

 

I'm interested in learning how others feel about this. Thanks!

Hans

[Smudgerer]

Well, it's beer for me even living in the Land of Wine on the Continent too...........But despite feeling that I have too many lenses and thus a wealth of framing options I go with the "framing with the feet" method most of the time and also my choice of lens falls at or under 50mm with a M system camera, 35mm being my norm' and I am looking forward to a newly acquired 24mm arriving this week. Actually I don't own a M lens above the 50mm mark anyway, above 50mm I find, ( for me ), that a SLR/DSLR/EVF system is a far better choice and it's also where the use of zoom lenses makes some sort of sense too, ( as it does with film-making as well for a few other reasons ).........So yes, for my personal work I generally go out with one lens, at the most two, and use the eyes and feet to frame what I want.

[a.noctilux]

For me, the lens is to be used to deserve the picture that I had in mind.

The focal length has nothing to add only as medium for picture realisation.

So at home, I  know (or try to know ) which lens(es) to carry at one photo session.

When it happends that I don't have the right focal length, not important (it's not vital for me) I take the picture or not I don't know ( in advance ...).

So good thing with Leica M is in the VF we can see the framing with more or less in/out picture area.

As said, being already in my brain, the framing and final picture must coincide, after  years-and-years of practice.

Edited December 5, 2023 by a.noctilux

[jaapv]

I mount the lens I need beforehand and only switch if needed by a drastic change of subject. 

It depends on the type of photography one does, though. Wildlife requires for instance a long telezoom plus a camera with short zoom.
I guess that this is the case as the subject determines the image and the photographer to a lesser extent.

[costa43]

I tend to have monogamous relationships with my lenses for prolonged periods. I like to get to know them even if they are not always the best choice for the environment I am in. Currently, I am shooting a 24mm everyday. It makes me think differently to what I am used to. An aspect I am really enjoying. 

[JoshuaR]

It depends what I'm photographing. If I'm somewhere new, I want options. But for everyday life—and most of my photography is just unremarkable everyday pictures of my family, or the place where I live—I much prefer to 'shoot without thinking,' and for me this means a 35mm. The 35mm field of view fits perfectly with where I tend to stand relative to my subjects, especially people with whom I'm already interacting. I find it easy to compose 'without thinking.'

At the same time, there's an even more 'thoughtless' setup for me, and that's a pre-focused 28mm lens, often shot from the hip or with the camera just briefly raised to my eye. Some of my favorite pictures have been made this way.

And then there's 50mm, which for me is a focal length always requires thinking, especially for anything that isn't a simple portrait. That makes it fun and rewarding, but less automatic—although that may in fact improve the quality of the pictures.

So this is an interesting thread subject for me. In fact, one way I think about my core lens kit is in terms of the type of mental engagement each lens requires: there's the "automatic" 35mm, bracketed by the snapshot-oriented, "thoughtless" 28mm and the "thoughtful" 50mm. In my particular case the 35mm Steel Rim reissue is the automatic lens, the 28 Summaron is the "thoughtless" lens, and the 50 Lux ASPH is the "thoughtful" lens. But any lenses could work.

[charlesphoto99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

All depends on what I'm working on. The last few years my walk around lens (when say walking the dog in the neighborhood) has been a 135mm APO, not something one typically associates with M shooting (though sometimes I might go out with a 90 or 75). Generally in the past it would have been a 28mm for me, sometimes 35 or 50. But the use of the 135 in taking minimalist landscapes/skyscapes  has resulted in a project now titled "Photographs for Ambient Music" that I think has a very good chance to move on to be a show or book because of the consistency of vision in using manly just one lens (or long lenses at least). If I'd used a 21 for one shot, 135 for another, for example, it would have just been an inconsistent mess with no defining purpose connecting the parts to the whole. 

[f8low]

Let me add from the perspective of someone who shoots non-professionally — sporadically — motives in everyday life, be it on the street or in nature.

Here are two abstractions that describe my perception of the process of taking photographs:

1. There’s plenty of opportunity for interesting photographs in any place, at any time. The questions is, how can I become aware of them?
2. There’s always two lenses involved - one on the camera and on in my mind. The latter is in use all the time trying to spot opportunities.

While shooting for many years with just one 35mm lens I noticed that the lens in my mind melted into my perception to a degree where I guess I needed to ‘think’ less. Even more so because depth of field is not really relevant if your 35mm lens stops at f2.8. Even more so because a film camera does not give immediate feedback. 

These days I have access to more than one lens but I notice that switching the lens in my mind is slower than switching the lens on my camera. I become better aware of interesting shots if I do not switch lenses every day - yet it’s absolutely refreshing to change perspective (🤪) once in a while.

In this context I recommend the 'The Leica as a Teacher' articles which got me to my camera and lens in the first place 😌

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/05/a-leica-year.html
https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/05/why-it-has-to-be-a-leica.html

PS: I guess parts of what I am describing are close to @hansvons‘vegetative previsualisation’
PPS: One day I want to try something like a 24-70 zoom for a drastic change. To me that's more interesting than having two primes...  
 

 

 

[hansvons]

Great answers!

5 hours ago, Smudgerer said:

Actually I don't own a M lens above the 50mm mark anyway, above 50mm I find, ( for me ), that a SLR/DSLR/EVF system is a far better choice and it's also where the use of zoom lenses makes some sort of sense too, ( as it does with film-making as well for a few other reasons )

Agreed. Every here and then I do what people call birding and other wild life shoots for projects I'm involved in. I'm not good at this and thus prefer others doing that. For that, we have an OM-1, the latests and greats Olympus camera with their brilliant 300mm lens plus a 1,4 extender. For what it is, the image quality is stunning. But recently I shot some wildlife, in this case flamingos with my SL2-S and the 35mm Summicron ASPH M, as I mentioned above 35mm is my shooting-without-thinking lens. 

 

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!

The far-away soaring bird, by the way, is an Osprey.

Edited December 5, 2023 by hansvons

[hansvons]

4 hours ago, jaapv said:

Wildlife requires for instance a long telezoom plus a camera with short zoom.I guess that this is the case as the subject determines the image and the photographer to a lesser extent.

Yes. I can see that. But as it turned out in our case the zoom was used 98% of the time at its long end which made us realise that a tele prime would suffice. But we don't do safaris etc... only European wild life. 

 

1 hour ago, f8low said:

One day I want to try something like a 24-70 zoom for a drastic change. To me that's more interesting than having two primes...  

This what I used when shooting documentaries (films). Not a 24-70 but a similar lens in the cine domain. Its versatility is super important if content trumps form. But the workflow with such a lens can make you lazy and make you move less as you can frame via zoom and not via feet, the latter offering new perspectives.

[hansvons]

4 hours ago, costa43 said:

Currently, I am shooting a 24mm everyday.

That's quite an expressive lens for daily use! Care to share a picture? 

[hansvons]

2 hours ago, JoshuaRothman said:

But for everyday life—and most of my photography is just unremarkable everyday pictures of my family, or the place where I live—I much prefer to 'shoot without thinking,' and for me this means a 35mm. The 35mm field of view fits perfectly with where I tend to stand relative to my subjects, especially people with whom I'm already interacting. I find it easy to compose 'without thinking.'

Precisely my sentiment. I'm wondering what  you mean with unremarkable? Would you say that 35mm isn't capable for "remarkable" images?

[Erato]

All the lenses architects and designers are worth a respect and appreciation. Each lens has its own philosophy and unique language.

When you practice enough, it will most likely become second nature, but talent doesn't happen that way. With a gifted talent and the most practice, you could be the best.

Other than that, enjoy it.

[costa43]

27 minutes ago, hansvons said:

That's quite an expressive lens for daily use! Care to share a picture? 

Sure. Here is a portrait of my wife and a general shot that I took on Sunday when out for a walk. The lens is the Elmar 24mm f3.8

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!

Edited December 5, 2023 by costa43

[pgk]

I'm not sure that one can 'shoot without thinking; although as a semi-reflex action it might appear that this is occasionally what happens. In reality we use experience to 'shoot from the hip' which in my own experience is sometimes effective, but not always. But lens is dictated by subject matter, composition and lighting as ever, so I would suggest that these parameters dictate the lens and the f/l most likely to work is actually dictated by the photographer's experince level with specific focal lengths. The more you are with a specfic focal length, the more likely it is that it will enable an effective use of a reflex action when a suitably lit subject appears and a composition can be 'snatched' fast.

[jaapv]

Not "without thinking". But when lucky I get into a kind of trance excluding everything except taking photographs.

[jaeger]

First step, you need to learn how to accomplish eating without digesting. 

[a.noctilux]

Indeed, without thinking it would be hard, very hard.

Instinctively, maybe.

Then with the lens mounted on the M.

[hansvons]

56 minutes ago, costa43 said:

The lens is the Elmar 24mm f3.8

Excellent shots! Did you punch in a bit in the portrait? I guess only a bit, as the DOF is pretty shallow for an f4.0 and the close-up framing. The rendering of your wive's face is pleasantly flat, a virtue you rarely find with wide-angle lenses, a signature of many Leica lenses (there are exceptions like the 24-90 and probably other lenses I never shot with). The flatness makes noses and the head generally less pronounced and egg-shaped. My 35mm Summicron shows that, too. Voigländer's 35mm Color Skopar 2,5 is different and renders faces unfavourably dimensional. That's why I sold it despite its unique compactness.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[spydrxx]

The title sort of threw me. I usually decide what the intended subject matter will be and choose a single lens which I think will best accomplish my objective. What I discover when actually coming upon an object which I would like to capture, I may think "oh that is ideal for XX f/l, but I don't have it with me. How can I capture what I envision with what I have? It forces me to utilize my brain and the characteristics of the lens I have with me. So, generally NO I don't think about which lens, but rather how do I get what I want out of the lens I have. I've tried over the years carrying multiple lenses and IMHO it is a pain in the ass - too much fiddling and ruminating of the mind, not to mention the additional weight to a camera which is supposed to be light and inconspicuous by its design. If I have a SLR/DSLR I might carry a zoom, but not often. Others generally disagree with my approach, which is fine, we each set the groundwork for what we intend or anticipate photographing.