I've found this thread very stimulating and feel I should contribute a few thoughts of my own. Let me say first that I'm strictly amateur and would no doubt benefit from a class or two in photography. I can't add a thing to the list of lenses best suited to the OPs purpose. However, a couple of reactions to this lively debate
For me, the most interesting aspect of the OP's question is how we best stimulate the growth of our creativity. I think it's great that the OP is challenging himself to grow. In a biography of Edward Steichen he was quoted as saying that the first thing a photographer has to learn is what he [or she] wants to say. Most of the time I suppose what I'm trying to say is "wow - look at that!" But what I struggle with is 1) how to learn see light and 2) when I do - rarely - see it, how to capture it in a way that is meaningful to me and to others who might see the image.
A book I recently read seems to me to support the idea of using only a few focal lengths, at least for a time. The book was "The Brain that Changes Itself" and I highly recommend it. The subject is "brain plasticity", meaning, the ability of the brain to rewire itself. One key aspect of brain plasticity enables the brain to recover lost functions when it is damaged. Often a stroke victim will be paralyzed but able to use one of his or her arms. One way to stimulate the brain to rewire itself to begin using the other arm is to restrain the one that works. The brain slowly begins to find ways to move the other arm in a way that it would not if the working limb were available. To me this has a certain parallel to the idea that the OP might grow by restricting himself to a few focal lengths. While it may seem artificial I have no doubt that it works for some people, just as some artists / writers develop their style by returning over and over again to the same subject, challenging themselves to say something different about it. Thinking particularly about Morandi who spent his life painting a set of dusty bottles.
One last thing - slow vs fast photography for me is more slow vs. slower, as my 300d doesn't focus real fast with either zooms or primes, and my other camera is an RZ 67 that needs me to focus it. They are very different experiences and I value them both for different qualities. At my stage of learning I really value the discipline that the RZ requires but also enjoy the spontaneity that the Rebel allows.
One of the things that makes photography so fun is that it's challenging. Capturing an image that impacts someone being the biggest challenge in my opinion. I'm not sure making it even more challenging by using less flexible hardware is the answer for me, but maybe it will work for you? Only you can know.
Thanks for taking time to write that measured response and the friendly
I agree that the internet seems to nurture polarization and an argumentative note. The pen is sharp, as is the keyboard, without the context of human interaction in all its fascinating subtlety.
To put all into context, all those who have exhibited their work even at the local community center have done more than I have.
On a different not, snobbery doesn't have to be based on superior equipment, it can be based on exactly the opposite.
But I actually agree that with lenses, less is often more. You'll probably learn more practicing with a single body and prime lens, than having access to a broad collection of gear. And I do agree that a prime tends to put the quality of a specific shot over the ability to take any shot. It is not a black and white situation though.
I find more satisfaction in using my primes than I do with my zooms, but I wouldn't like to give up the versatility of the latter (not that I find working with the 24-70L a compromise). But either through madness or luck I've been able to enjoy both paths, and that is a luxury.
Lets debate the issue again in 20 years time as I find myself heavily outgunned in terms of experience
philtax wrote:
To me this has a certain parallel to the idea that the OP might grow by restricting himself to a few focal lengths. While it may seem artificial I have no doubt that it works for some people, just as some artists / writers develop their style by returning over and over again to the same subject, challenging themselves to say something different about it.
Nobody's arguing THAT (at least I'm not).
I'm just pointing out that you don't need PRIMES to do it.
You CAN use a zoom at a fixed focal length, if you choose to do so.
In some ways, that should help the mind even MORE . . . think of the possibilities . .. using your MIND to choose focal length instead of the fact you ony have a single prime lens with you.
I sold my 135/2 after comparing images with the 70-200 4 IS set at 135mm. The only drawback, if you view it as such, is the difference in bokeh. The advantages are obvious-approximately 125 different focal lengths in the same lens, add another hundred fifty with a teleconverter.
By this logic I should also sell my 85 1.8, but I can't bear to do it. Other than the thrifty fifty, this is the best value in photography, to me, and it's far less conspicuous. (Although a LensCoat does help in this regard).
I love primes, but the images don't lie. Color, contrast, and sharpness of the 70-200 are all equal if not better than the 135. I loved and still love the 135, and didn't believe it till I saw it. But it's true. The 70-200 is that good; it's a phenomenal lens.
is that to make instinctive how the camera sees at each focal length, I should practice exclusively with a fixed focal length for as long as it takes until I automatically see "pictures out of the visual chaos of the world" for that focal length.
If I have the self-discipline, I can do that with a zoom. If I don't, then I should stick to a prime.
Note: I can't change the prime while I'm in this training-of-the-eye phase of the world at a particular focal length; it defeats the purpose.
Once my eye is trained to see at 14, 35, 50, 100, 300, etc., mm, I suppose prime versus zoom matters much less, whatever works best for me.
First, if you want do believe that you must use a single focal length in order to learn "how the camera sees" at that FL, you can just as easily do this by setting your zoom to that FL and shooting. 50mm no more 50mm on a prime than it is on a zoom. Plus, if you use a zoom you soon adopt more or less the same instincts about focal length anyway. (In my view, saying you have to learn one focal length before you learn others is sort of like restricting a beginning driver to using only first gear.)
(And, who knows, while you are engaged in the 50mm-only exercise a shot that is better handled at 35mm might just come up. Zoom out to 35mm, grab the shot, and zoom right back to 50mm. I promise I won't tell. ;-)
Second, I think that learning how one particular focal length works is far less significant than learning how a variety of focal lengths can best be used for: different subject/background relationships, different DOF effects, different composition effects, and so forth. Understanding how focal length affects your photographs is only possible if you use more than one FL, and a zoom is the most flexible way to achieve this.
Third, the "start with a prime" advice evolved back in an era when there was really no other choice for beginning SLR photographers. If you were getting your first camera and wanted to know what lens to get, the usual answer was "get the 50mm lens" - not because a prime was the best thing to learn on but because the only choice was only among primes - there were no high quality, reasonable cost zooms as their are today. As they say, "That was then. This is now."
Dan
(Who shoots both zooms and primes and believes that both have their places for most DSLR photographers.)
is that to make instinctive how the camera sees at each focal length, I should practice exclusively with a fixed focal length for as long as it takes until I automatically see "pictures out of the visual chaos of the world" for that focal length.
If I have the self-discipline, I can do that with a zoom. If I don't, then I should stick to a prime.
Note: I can't change the prime while I'm in this training-of-the-eye phase of the world at a particular focal length; it defeats the purpose.
Once my eye is trained to see at 14, 35, 50, 100, 300, etc., mm, I suppose prime versus zoom matters much less, whatever works best for me.
danmitchell wrote:
Second, I think that learning how one particular focal length works is far less significant than learning how a variety of focal lengths can best be used for: different subject/background relationships, different DOF effects, different composition effects, and so forth. Understanding how focal length affects your photographs is only possible if you use more than one FL, and a zoom is the most flexible way to achieve this.
I agree.
Or at least that's the way that *I* learn best.
I don't think it's nearly as important to "see" at one focal length as it is to "see" the DIFFERENCES between different focal lengths.
Also, when I'm using a zoom, I'm constantly balancing several aspects at once:
1) What are the limitations on where I can go?
2) How fast is the subject/surroundings changing?
3) What kind of shot am I trying to get?
4) What kinds of shots are currently being presented to me as opportunities, and which are best, and which are achieable before things change?
5) If I stand here (or go there) to get a shot, what kinds of opportunities might I be missing compared to some other action?
I'm not a photojournalist, but I tend to think/act in a photojournalistic fashion when I'm shooting, for the most part.
what we are seeing here is people expressing their own experiences... David etc. feel that he learned best using a zoom, others felt they learned best using a prime... both are valid experiences.
DavidP wrote:
...
Or at least that's the way that *I* learn best.
...
mh2000 wrote:
David etc. feel that he learned best using a zoom, others felt they learned best using a prime... both are valid experiences.
Both are very valid . . . EXCEPT
You don't need a prime to learn at one focal length. You could do it with a zoom and some willpower or duct tape.
At least as far as it comes to "seeing" at a given focal length.
All bets are off, of course, if you wish to experience DOF shallower than f/2.8 allows.
I guess I just don't like to see people being recommended primes because "that's how you'll learn to see at one focal length." I have to call BS on that.
All the OTHER reasons for thinking primes are better, though, are A-OK with me.
If anything, using zooms should be promoted because that's how you'll learn to think at ALL focal lengths quickly . . but if it proves too much for you, you can just leave them at one focal length until your mind catches up.
You will learn the basic characteristics related to FL this way, but it will take years and years to learn the sublties of all these FL... the basics can be outlines in a single paragraph though...
>>Second, I think that learning how one particular focal length works is far less significant than learning how a variety of focal lengths can best be used for: different subject/background relationships, different DOF effects, different composition effects, and so forth. Understanding how focal length affects your photographs is only possible if you use more than one FL, and a zoom is the most flexible way to achieve this.
ok, so your experience is all that you think is valid... some people are like that.
Please attempt to be less rude though... ok?
DavidP wrote:
Both are very valid . . . EXCEPT
You don't need a prime to learn at one focal length. You could do it with a zoom and some willpower or duct tape.
At least as far as it comes to "seeing" at a given focal length.
All bets are off, of course, if you wish to experience DOF shallower than f/2.8 allows.
I guess I just don't like to see people being recommended primes because "that's how you'll learn to see at one focal length." I have to call BS on that.
All the OTHER reasons for thinking primes are better, though, are A-OK with me.
If anything, using zooms should be promoted because that's how you'll learn to think at ALL focal lengths quickly . . but if it proves too much for you, you can just leave them at one focal length until your mind catches up.
ok, I'll admit it... if I will be out with people shooting 5D's, 1D MKIII's etc. I really like having my crappy little Rebel with me, I enjoy the challenge of getting top results from low end equipment (and I also really like small and light weight too)... if everyone is shooting crap, I like carrying my Leica...
rhorta wrote:
MH2000,
...
On a different note, snobbery doesn't have to be based on superior equipment, it can be based on exactly the opposite.
...
Ruy
Cool Thread. Long time lurker here, first time poster.
This is actually a debate I've had with myself many times over, and I just recently went back to an (almost) all prime. I started off about 10 years ago with an entry level body and a 50 f1.8 and a fish and thats it. Then added the 100 f2. Then added a 28-70 I think it was. Sold that and stuck with my primes. Then bought a 20D and added the 24-70, 70-200 and Sigma 10-20. Used the 70-200 once and sold it. Then sold the 24-70 for a lighter Sigma 24-60. Liked that lens a lot, but I just never felt comfortable with it (or any of my zooms for that matter). So I sold it and bought a Canon 28 f1.8. So now my line up is the 28, the 50 and the 100 along with the 10-20.
I use the 10-20 quite a bit, but for me shooting wide angle is more of a free art or long exposure type venture, so the zoom doesn't bother me, it usually just sits at the 10mm setting. But, for all my other shooting, I like the primes. Not just for the bokeh, the sharpness, etc. But more for me personally. I know the lenses, I can picture their exact field in my mind. Now yes, I'm sure I could do that with a zoom too, but it just never flowed well for me. With my primes, I never find myself thinking about focal range, I just get my body into position and I shoot, and it works for me. Do I miss photos because of it.......I'm sure. But then again I think everyone does regardless of lens. Also, I dont own a flash anymore and refuse too, so I need that extra light, desperately.
I think for me its a comfort thing first, a light gathering issue second and a look that i like thing third. And like someone else said, it adds a certain overall feel (consistency) to ones portfolio, and that can be seen as both a good and bad thing, but I like it.
if you go out with only a 50mm prime it is a fact that you cannot shoot at anything except at 50mm, period. that is a fact. unless you alter your zoom in some way it will always be possible to shoot a zoom at more than one FL. that is also a fact. how you choose to work with these facts is your choice.
no, rude is implying that anyone who has different oppinions from yourself is somehow automatically an idiot.
in case you don't recognize rudeness... maybe your slow brain needs a little time to catch up with the implication of this post of your's:
>>If anything, using zooms should be promoted because that's how you'll learn to think at ALL focal lengths quickly . . but if it proves too much for you, you can just leave them at one focal length until your mind catches up.
Not really wanting to get in the middle here, I'll give this one try,... I think David is only saying that with a zoom, you can shoot all day at one FL if you want, (and he even mentioned duct tape as a bit of a joke.) So, he pointed out that having a prime is not the only way to limit yourself to one FL, so hes says it's false to say that only a prime makes you think in one FL, because you can simulate a prime with a zoom, if you want. Then I think he said the other reasons people give for preferring primes make more sense to him.
