Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I also heard that Henri Cartier Bresson used a 50mm leitz lens almost all the time. I have seen many pics of him with his screwmount leica. Dan K. At 02:17 PM 15/4/98 -0400, you wrote: >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 > > > >