gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.3 #5 · Have we become obsessed by ever faster lenses | |
chez wrote:
I only have my experiences to draw from and I only travel with primes not only for the size advantage, but also because they force you to view the scene through a single focal length. That combination, lighter lens and single focal length provides me with excellent images. I don’t use a zoom for travels so I don’t understand why I would discuss pluses or minuses between zooms and primes…my experience is with primes and that is what I discuss.
So, for anyone wondering about the pluses and minuses of each option for their photography, you can offer one perspective on using primes only, but don’t have experience to share about using zooms as an alternative. Good to clear that up.
Like you, my preference for travel (and street) photograph is to work only with primes. Their small size is useful in several ways — less space in the bag, lighter camera/lens combo, and arguably faster to photograph with since you have one less variable to attend to. I think it is useful, too, to use a camera/lens combo that doesn’t seem so big to potential subjects — we can operate with somewhat less effect on the subjects and scenes we are photographing.
On the other hand (and for those who have not already made up their minds), I have on occasion found a zoom useful for travel photography. I earlier mentioned a trip a few years ago that included both some landscape photography (while doing a. weeklong walk in Scotland) and some visits to urban center including Glasgow, Edinburgh, and London. On that trip I still brought the small pancake lens that is my most-used prime, but I also carried a 16-55mm zoom since it would give me more flexibility and compositional control for the landscape stuff. (This was on a APS-C camera.) Since I had it, I ended up using it on occasion in the urban areas and, when I was willing to accept its larger size, it turned out to be more useful than I expected.
I think my point here is that choices about lenses for various subjects are not “right” or “wrong” in a generic way. While you and I prefer small primes for the travel stuff, there is also a good case to be made for other photographers (especially in different situations) to consider the option of using a zoom lens.
- - -
philip_pj wrote:
If using an f1.4 (or so) lens, your best images should include a high percentage taken at max aperture, for the design to have worked. And these are images that cannot be emulated by slow lenses.
Everyone’s experience and preferences will be different, but over years of photographing I realized that I don’t really need the f/1.4 class apertures that often for street and travel photography. I’m even able to do effective handheld night street photography with f/2 or f/2.8 lenses on modern camera with their higher ISO performance and much improved noise characteristics. (A challenge with the f/1.4 and larger apertures is that the DOF is so narrow that you end up with a lot of OOF stuff. That’s fine if it is what you want, but often it isn’t, and even when I was (and still do) use the large aperture lenses, I rarely shoot them wide open.)
- - -
Regarding the general question of camera+lens weight…
For street/travel I usually work with the camera in hand and with a wrist strap. I might be out for hours working this way as I walk and photograph. Here, using a small, lightweight prime really does make a difference, at least for me.
On the other hand, if you are a hang-the-camera-around-the-neck or keep-the-camera-in-the-bag kind of photographer, the weight probably matters less.
|
