One lens or two?
I’m busy writing some chapters for the eBook I’m working on about Street Photography, and I’ve been diverted to reading on Photo.net today about David Alan Harvey. I’ve loved his photographs for some time now, and he’s a very simple shooter, only taking with him a Leica, 28mm and 35mm lenses.
I’ve been busy writing about how I prefer prime lenses and that I prefer to go out with only one or two lenses with me. Often it’s only the one lens I use. In the case of India and Nepal last year, the entire collection of images I made were shot with my Contax 645 and an 80mm lens. I didn’t need anything else.
I’m a big subscriber to keeping things simple and cutting down on the amount of gear I travel with. It can be back breaking bringing too much kit with you, but it can also inflict a sense of creative constipation because you also have too many choices at hand. You think that bringing all the lenses you can think of will mean you’re going to be prepared for just about any photo situation, but the truth is more often the case that we just confuse ourselves with what to use and when.
It takes time to master lenses, but that’s not really the issue at hand. It’s more about immediacy. If you have one lens on your camera at all times, you learn to work within the confines of that. I prefer primes because they make me roam a location and work the scene more. I also prefer primes because I don’t have to think about different focal lengths. I make do with what I have. I also prefer one lens because there is no delay in choosing another one. I also start to ’see’ every potential encounter in the focal length of the lens I have on me.
Using one lens makes it easier for me to ‘visualise’ and be proactive, rather than reactive. And it also means I’m much more free to move around.
Hi Bruce; it is something I keep hearing – the benefit of a few primes – then I hear the opposite that having a selection of fast zooms supports a creative approach more.
Then you have the camp that says today’s fast zooms (for DSLRs) are better quality than the primes available.
As always, there is a lot of noise and it is difficult to see the wood for the trees!
Currently I subscribed to the zoom approach and have the core arsenal of 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200; all fast Nikon lenses.
However, having recently had major spinal surgery, I don’t really want to lug all these heavy lenses around. The lighter freedom 2 or 3 primes would bring is very tempting – but are the primes available today (for Nikon FX DSLRs) of good enough quality?
And all my photography is landscapes, so does this apply as much as to travel / street photography?
Obviously it is something I am thinking about but with so much investment in pro zoom glass, it is difficult to get the courage to switch.
All very confusing :-)
Phil
Comment by PhilC — 21 June, 2010 @ 5:19 pm
Hi Phil,
My posting was mainly to do with travel and street photography and not Landscape Photography. But I think the same still applies. The less gear you have – the more you work with what you’ve got. Too many zooms opens up too much choice and I doubt that most folks know how to utlise all of their lenses – jack of all trades, master of none.
Certainly, cutting down the gear makes for easier decisions and allows you more freedom to work.
I doubt very much that the Zooms are better than primes. In my experience, most 35mm zooms are pretty terrible at the wide angle side. Well, I’m really commenting on the Canon L glass. I’ve tried a lot of it – 17-40L which was a poor lens, the 35L, 24L and 50L were no better or sharper than their cheaper alternatives. However, the 70-200 L range are superb. I would say that the argument that these zooms are ‘just as good as primes’ is probably true, but I doubt they’re better.
The bottom line with anything Phil is to not take anyone elses word for it. I made my mind up ages ago through trial and error. I hate lugging lots of lenses around and I found it overwhelming when I had to keep changing lens because I had so many options.
I took a Contax 645 with one lens to India and Nepal with me last year and it was total freedom. Sure there were photos I felt got away from me, but this is the rub : we always want to shoot and capture ‘everything’ but even with lots of gear at our disposal, we seldom manage that.
So my advice would be to try it for yourself. Most landscape shooters shoot at the wide angle side most of the time anyway, so why not go and do some landscapes with just a wide angle lens and see how you get on?
Forget other peoples opinions. The web is awash with them. Just listen to your own feelings and perhaps the odd stellar-photographer (like myself – LOL !)
Comment by Bruce Percy — 21 June, 2010 @ 5:27 pm
Didn’t cartier Bresson mainly use the standard prime lens (50mm in his case) for almost all of his street shots?
Comment by Ibraar Hussain — 21 June, 2010 @ 7:25 pm
Hi there Bruce,
I used to be the of the “pack mule” type, struggling in the field with tons of gear swapping lenses on multiple cameras. In fact it was rather inefficient, as I was constantly focusing of the gear rather than the scene.
I recently experienced bringing less gear during travel, mostly because of EasyJet weight restrictions, and thank them, it was great. Not only my back didn’t hurt as it used to, but I was also forced to “watch” around and focus on the landscape rather than on the lens I had on.
Don’t know if my photography improved though, but that’s really something I want to move towards to.
As Ibraar pointed out, early photographers used prime normal lenses for years and obviously produced stunning pieces of work. Not that zooms are bad, both types have pros and cons. However, I think that primes have the advantage of making you learn how important your placement, distance, and finally relationship to the subject is, by forcing you to move. As Ernst Hass said: “Best wide angle? Two steps backward. Look for the ah-ah”.
Cheers,
Ben
Comment by Benrouf — 22 June, 2010 @ 9:42 am
Hi Ben,
I couldn’t agree more. I love that quote by Ernst Hass. I often find the best composition is a few feet away from me. That’s why I prefer to hunt the scene with my camera before setting up my tripod, because once we’ve got the camera on the tripod – we’re locked in.
It’s also why I like primes too. Zooms mean I stay rooted to one spot and zooming with the lens, while primes make me move around the location looking for the best vantage point.
It’s hard to do though – leave a lot of kit at home.
I’m in Shetland at the moment, and I’m back to how I used to work a few years ago – Mamiya 7 with 50,80 and 150 lenses and small Gitzo tripod. It’s a very light compact system to take around with me and it’s been great not humping lots of stuff around.
We can’t shoot everything all of the time. I often come home frustrated because I missed a lot of shots, but when I see the shots I did get, I’m aways very happy. I think that’s because I work harder with what I’ve got with me.
Comment by Bruce Percy — 22 June, 2010 @ 9:48 am
This is a great discussion Bruce. I started out with a digital camera and of course used the kit zoom lens, which looking back weren’t completely terrible (now they have gotten good at collecting dust), but I came to prefer my prime lens. I think using the prime lenses definitely changes our approach more than anything.
Not that a zoom lens couldn’t capture the same perspective as a prime, but in landscapes in particular I have noticed that when I have a couple primes I’m compelled to make better use of space. With a zoom I sometimes get too fixed on isolating a subject rather than complimenting it with its surroundings. Prime lenses have definitely made me move forwards, backwards, up, and down, at least more so than any zoom has. Everything has its own use I suppose, but I am definitely a prime kind of guy.
Comment by morgangray — 24 June, 2010 @ 4:59 am