Maced: My current setup is great. Sharp images, awesome L color and creamy bokeh. And lightning fast (well, not the 50mm) AF.
But I find myself doing pretty much the same over and over again. I need a challenge. My 24-70 is a great tool, but I have more fun shooting the 50mm, because it challenges me.
What makes you better? Doing what you always do, what comes easy to you? Or trying something new, something more challenging perhaps? If I go all primes now, I know I'll be picking up a 24-70 again one day. That lens is just too damn good to ignore. But right now - I'd rather be challenged. I only shoot for my own amusement, so I'll go with whatever route think is funny. Who knows, in a year I might be shooting a Holga or a 4x6! Or I might have the same kit as I do know, making the same images as I do know.
primes are awesome, but you really need to have a good set of zooms as well. If you sell your zooms to get the primes, you'll end up re-buying the zooms down the line. Keep both lines.
rhorta wrote:
I think the subject title ends up misleading people.
You've made up your mind, you want to go primes only (good for you, have fun), and just want suggestions on lens choice.
But skip the 28/1.8
Ruy
I think I have made up my mind, yes. But I would love to hear from people on both sides of this (surprisingly heated) debate
As I've written some times before in this thread (this will be the 3rd or 4th time), I'm gonna shoot only primes for a week, to try it out. I have at my disposal the 50mm F/1.4, the 85mm F/1.8 (borrowed) and the 100mm macro. I'll let you all know how that turns out for me.
No lenses have yet been sold or bought for this project or experiment. But MAN, do people have an opinion about this!!
Since I make plenty of typos in my own posts in these forums, I was not exactly "belittling" you in the portion of my post that called out the humorous and no doubt accidental use of the word "trough" - nor did I consider that you might not be a native speaker/writer of English.
However, while you reconsider the main points of my post that are relevant to the topic of this thread, please also accept my honest apology for being unaware that English is not your first language - and my sincere respect for those who possess multilingual skills that far exceed my own. If you knew me outside of this forum you would see that making fun of anyone's second- and third- language skills is something I regard as deeply offensive and which I would never knowingly do.
Since things are often misconstrued and personalized in these forums, let me be completely explicit: I do understand your reaction to my original post. I believe that it is appropriate for me to offer an apology. I hope you understand that it is sincere.
I have edited my original post to remove the text you find offensive.
That aside, the most significant points in my response to the content of your post were two, and they were, in fact, focused on refuting the substance of your post.
The first one called out the illogical nature of your argument:
I wrote: First, how is "doing something physically" different from "doing it with a twist of the wrist"? (See your original post for the point to which I was responding.)
The other point, and the most significant one to me, was the following - with my original reference to your typo removed here to keep the focus on this point:
I wrote: I've seen more than enough posts by now that presume that using a zoom necessarily means shooting without thought. This is simply nonsense. When I shoot with a zoom I apply at least as much thought... as I do when I shoot with a prime.
I stand by those responses to the substance of your post, especially the unfounded assumption that those of us who use zooms cannot shoot with care and deliberation. I still call that nonsense.
Take care,
Dan
ulrikft wrote:
It is good to see that you are far more busy belittling me on account of how I use my second/third language than actually trying to understand and refute my points. Good job!
Edited by danmitchell on Aug 29, 2008 at 12:53 PM GMT
" .... most photographers can only *see* really well/best at one or a few focal lengths, and for them it is better sticking with that/them and refining their art/skill around them"
Yes, well put.
We will have to ask what focal length/s Kaffemonster tends to shoot at, and suggest he gets a prime/s to fit the bill. Personally, if I had to choose only one focal length (difficult and somewhat artificial I know, but potentially instructive) then it would be 28mm on full frame. That's just me of course
yellowducky wrote:
The one 'catch' with your plan is you are on a crop body so the 24L is still not going to be that wide really. Don't get me wrong, I love that lens but it really comes into its own on full frame. That said, even on full frame, I am tempted by the 17-40L as its cheap but it would be a quasi prime as I would only use it at 17 for landscapes.
I agree, while buying lenses is fun and rewarding, it may be best to add a full frame camera, giving you 2 effective focal lengths for all of those nice lenses. I'm not sure you'll want to get rid of the 16-35 if you have a full frame camera.
danmitchell wrote:
I've seen more than enough posts by now that presume that using a zoom necessarily means shooting without thought. This is simply nonsense.
I concur.
Though I suppose some people might (for whatever reason) find it too mentally challenging to cope with a zoom.
mh2000 wrote:
You have claimed in the past to be able to *see* pefectly at all focal lengths David, but most photographers can only *see* really well/best at one or a few focal lengths,
I look through the viewfinder, and I see.
And if one can truly "see" at only a few focal lengths, it shouldn't be THAT difficult of a concept to interpolate between them, IMO.
coping with limitations always makes you think... and you more often have to do this with primes,
IMO, primes make you WORK harder . . but not necessarily THINK harder.
but even going out with a 24-70 and 70-200 I can't say how many times I was swapping between those two lenses because I was going between 50 and 135... a 50 and 135 would have been easier to swap than the zooms.
rhorta wrote:
There are people with very little gear that get the most out of said gear. You might call that creativity, as in finding creative ways to get the most bang out of the Buck, but given a choice wouldn't you rather have the best tool for the job?
Yep, I call such things LIMITATIONS, that LIMIT the creativity to only the tools at hand.
Having lots of OPTIONS available is what truly gives one the ability to be creative, IMO.
there are different depths of *seeing*... if it's just about framing a photo, then yup, not difficult at all... "subject far, use long lens, subject close use shorter lens."
I still cannot help be being struck by the fact that work hung in art museums and galleries is almost always by photographers who use primarily one lens...
a lot can comes down to what your vision of being a photographer is... if you are watching a sporting event and think, "wow, I identify with the photog in the sea of white and black long lenses," that is one thing, if you go to the SFMOMA etc. and see a show feature Freidlander (or someone) and think, " wow, this work is very personal and distinctive," and are yourself after defining your own vision through photography, you may be more inclided to pick up a (Leica RF with) 35mm lens and throw all the other crap away... of course you can't play sports shooter with that rig.
I guess I must be really lame, but I see in normal vision with my eyes and like normal lens on my camera... I can *almost* see in terms of a 35mm lens as well (FF)... but that is kind of a stretch!
My portrait lens is just that, a lens for portraits that results in a pleasing perspective for a portrait and good framing at a comfortable distance... and while I take plenty of good portraits with it, that is all they are... "just a portrait." A good portrait is just that, it certainly isn't art... like so many other cash cow images... there are great wedding photos, but if you aren't in the wedding, who cares.
>>And if one can truly "see" at only a few focal lengths, it shouldn't be THAT difficult of a concept to interpolate between them, IMO.
mh2000 wrote:
I still cannot help be being struck by the fact that work hung in art museums and galleries is almost always by photographers who use primarily one lens...
Probably because those are the kinds of shots where you have tons and tons of time to think about what you're gonna do and have time to posistion yourself where you need to be?
I do use primes, too. But depending on the situation, zooms can be much more practical. But that hardly implies that they require less thought.
mh2000 wrote:
so you really thing HCB, Friedlander etc. would have been much more creative had they used a zoom?
Why wouldn't they have been?
Are you implying that they couldn't handle the complexity of thinking about zooming?
I suspect that they used primes because they were smaller, lighter weight, better optically, and had wider apertures. Not because they couldn't handle thinking about focal lengths.
Since you're having a go at me (well, perhaps a few others as well, but let's not let that ruin my discussion :-) about managing the "complexity" of a zoom, let me try and refute--and again, I use zooms a lot, and probably more than my primes, but they certainly are a different experience.
Totally personal experience:
Being stuck with a single focal length makes you take an image in a different way than zooms because... well... you're stuck. And I'm not talking about having a dozen other primes in your coat pockets, because that's cheating. Therefore, you're going to go about taking pictures that play to the lens' strength compositionally.
Instead of seeing a sight thats perfect for a 135mm and saying "Gah! That's perfect for a 135mm shot" and then zooming your 70-200 appropriately with a zoom, you're having to actively look for shots that work well at 50mm, since that's all you have.
Sounds like a big downside to prime right there, and is on plenty of occasions, but there's more than enough interesting shots out in the world regardless the focal length. If you're stuck with a 50mm prime, you're not even going to give much notice to that awesome 135mm shot, because you're looking for things that look cool at 50mm. It's more work, but it means seeking out compositions instead of trying to capture the ones that come to you. Active vs. Passive. I like the experience of active photography more than passive.
If you can actively take pictures using a zoom... awesome. I'm getting better at it, but certainly not great. Then again, I'm certainly not too proud to say I'm a mediocre 'tog with way too many nice toys.
" ... it may be best to add a full frame camera, giving you 2 effective focal lengths for all of those nice lenses"
I am certainly coming round to that point of view myself, it would certainly maximize the flexibility of primes. Particularly as cameras like the new 50D really look like they would make use of all that resolution in the middle "sweet spot", much like a teleconverter but much, much better.
umm... who said anyone "couldn't handle" thinking about different focal lengths? I have zooms too and I can use them, but a small good fast 50 seems perfect for the photos that I take and the reasons you list are part of it, but not all.
I don't think good zooms were an option for HCB, but seeing that Friedlander is still shooting photos today I guess he can choose whichever he wants right? Do you think he goes out with his Leica and thinks, "crap, I could be so much more creative if I would only buy one of those damn 28-300mm super-zooms!"?
DavidP wrote:
Why wouldn't they have been?
Are you implying that they couldn't handle the complexity of thinking about zooming?
I suspect that they used primes because they were smaller, lighter weight, better optically, and had wider apertures. Not because they couldn't handle thinking about focal lengths.
danmitchell wrote:
Since I make plenty of typos in my own posts in these forums, I was not exactly "belittling" you in the portion of my post that called out the humorous and no doubt accidental use of the word "trough" - nor did I consider that you might not be a native speaker/writer of English.
However, while you reconsider the main points of my post that are relevant to the topic of this thread, please also accept my honest apology for being unaware that English is not your first language - and my sincere respect for those who possess multilingual skills that far exceed my own. If you knew me outside of this forum you would see that making fun of anyone's second- and third- language skills is something I regard as deeply offensive and which I would never knowingly do.
Since things are often misconstrued and personalized in these forums, let me be completely explicit: I do understand your reaction to my original post. I believe that it is appropriate for me to offer an apology. I hope you understand that it is sincere.
I have edited my original post to remove the text you find offensive.
That aside, the most significant points in my response to the content of your post were two, and they were, in fact, focused on refuting the substance of your post.
The first one called out the illogical nature of your argument:
I wrote: (See your original post for the point to which I was responding.)
The other point, and the most significant one to me, was the following - with my original reference to your typo removed here to keep the focus on this point:
I wrote:
I stand by those responses to the substance of your post, especially the unfounded assumption that those of us who use zooms cannot shoot with care and deliberation. I still call that nonsense.
Take care,
Dan
Edited by danmitchell on Aug 29, 2008 at 12:53 PM GMT...Show more →
Thanks for the apology, and now that I know that you did not mean it the way I took it it is not really needed anymore It was not my intention to act all frustrated, I just felt that you attacked me, but enough about that!
What i meant about the physical thing was maybe put in a weird way, what I mean/meant is that when I have a prime on my camera, I have to take 10-100 seconds more to walk/crawl, bend over and figure out what exactly I want to do right here, the ficed focal lenght forces me to think in new patterns, new ways. That combined with the fact that I'm a bokeholiker helps promote the prime-idea for me.
Quite a lot of photography clubs have "one focal lenght only in one month"-kind of competitions, and they do promote creativity, and I think that it is a healthy way of learning.
It is not that I think that people that use zooms are stupid, no more than I think people using Nikons are stupid, even though I love my canon.
why do I comment on these... David will go on an on saying how anyone who finds benefits/enjoyment shooting a prime must be a weak minded idiot... a few people try to express the reasons why they find primes a good choice for them... things get nastier and nastier...
mh2000 wrote:
I still cannot help be being struck by the fact that work hung in art museums and galleries is almost always by photographers who use primarily one lens...
I have a friend who is one of those folks. He was literally an Ansel Adams protege, and he used to shoot large format color film. His work can be found in the Ansel Adams Gallery in Yosemite Valley among other places. From what he tells me, his primary lens these days is a zoom on a MF body with a digital back.
