Re: [Leica] Use just a 50mm, are you nuts???????

[Stephen <cameras@jetlink.net>]

David Hamilton found fame and fortune only shooting with a 50, and a Minolta
of all things.  not sure what he's using on his current work.

Stephen Gandy



BIRKEY, DUANE wrote:

> Disclaimer:  This isn't directed at anyone in particular.
>
> But selling everything and shooting with just a 50 or a 85 for that
> matter, you either have to be nuts or you must have a very limited vision
> or want to shoot very limited subject material.
>
> I know, some say it's a great way to learn photography, and my students
> I'm mentoring are using Nikkormats and 50's. (but's that's because that's
> all we have to offer) But......I look at their contact sheets and think
> to myself, this would have been better with a 85, a 135, a 20, a 35 or a
> 200 etc. etc.
>
> I went to downtown Quito this past week to photograph the Good Friday
> processions,  I brought three zooms a 17-35, 28-70 and 70-200.  I would
> have gotten very few good images with just a 50mm,  I used every bit of
> the range as it was unbelievably crowded and I was shooting from within
> the procession itself which was slightly less crowded than the
> sardinelike jampacked sidewalks. One photographer was using one body with
> one lens, a 20mm, another photographer was shooting with just a 24 and a
> 105.  Both commented that in hindsight they should have done what I did
> and brought zooms, but they were trying to keep it simple.
>
> If you can't compose with a 50, a 17mm or a 200mm probably won't  make
> you a better photographer.  But my experience is that there are just too
> many subjects and situations that are better served by lenses other than
> a 50.  Sure you can shoot portraits with a 50, but the background usually
> looks better with an 85 or longer.  Yes you could take general detail
> photos of buildings with a 50, but forget about overall shots which are
> better served by a 20 or 24 or specific details that need something
> longer.   A 50 1.4 is a nice general lens, but doesn't focus close enough
> for macro shots and a 50 macro is usually to slow for available light.
> If you want to isolate a face in the crowd, a 200 does a far better job
> than a 50.
>
> The key is to realize how each lens works in practice, how it changes
> perspective, how it changes the appearance of the background, how it
> isolates the subject or puts it into context and how they each have
> different depth of field.
>
> And you can't learn that with just a 50 since you need something to
> compare it with.  A M-series 3 lens kit like a  35 (24 or 28) , 50 and 90
> works for many situations.  That's what my M-kit is but I don't carry it
> all that often as I know much of what I'm planning on shooting will
> require something outside of that range (I'm saving for a 21mm ASPH but
> the 200 is going to be hard to do without).   I started photography with
> a 24, a 50 and a 70-210 and for me, that was a great way to learn.
>
> Shooting with just a 50, IMHO you got to be nuts or a serious
> photographic masochist.  But hey, it's your choice and if it makes you
> happy.................do it.   If I was going to work with one lens and
> one camera,  I'd choose a 4 x5,  a 90 and a 210 (I can't bring myself to
> choose one lens).  That way I would have narrowed down my subject matter
> to still lifes and landscapes.  You can do close-ups and crop like crazy
> and no one is ever going to expect you to do portraits or photograph
> their wedding.
>
> I'll get off my soapbox and get back to mounting slides...........
>
> Duane Birkey
>
> HCJB World Radio
> Quito Ecuador