monochrome_joy
Analog Enlightenment
Imho
Imho
I was in the military, although never deployed. I did assign myself to shoot training photos and helo jumps and found that I used the wide angle on my zoom at the time more often than not (in fact, a 28 wasn't quite wide enough sometimes).
Here's the thing, it depends on your personal style and how close you can/want to get. Wide angle lenses, to get great photos, require getting very close, like an arms length from your subject. For "reportage" a 35 is going to be the most versatile lens, especially if you find yourself making photos in houses and close quarters.
On the other hand, a 50 will let you step back a bit for portraits and give you just an extra bit of reach. Many famous photographers got by with nothing but a 50 and I spent the summer shooting with nothing but a 50. It did take me a while though to get comfortable with one focal length.
I voted for the 35. I've read Nat Geo photogs who use the 35 75% of the time and a 50/28/90 the other times. A wide angle will allow you to capture more of the scene and add elements to environmental portraits where a 50 will be a bit tighter and might not allow all the elements to fit in the frame.
I personally applaud the ascetic approach of one camera/one lens. I'm almost there, but when I head to Vietnam in January I'll be taking a 35 and a 50 for my M6.
Hope that helps.
Imho
I was in the military, although never deployed. I did assign myself to shoot training photos and helo jumps and found that I used the wide angle on my zoom at the time more often than not (in fact, a 28 wasn't quite wide enough sometimes).
Here's the thing, it depends on your personal style and how close you can/want to get. Wide angle lenses, to get great photos, require getting very close, like an arms length from your subject. For "reportage" a 35 is going to be the most versatile lens, especially if you find yourself making photos in houses and close quarters.
On the other hand, a 50 will let you step back a bit for portraits and give you just an extra bit of reach. Many famous photographers got by with nothing but a 50 and I spent the summer shooting with nothing but a 50. It did take me a while though to get comfortable with one focal length.
I voted for the 35. I've read Nat Geo photogs who use the 35 75% of the time and a 50/28/90 the other times. A wide angle will allow you to capture more of the scene and add elements to environmental portraits where a 50 will be a bit tighter and might not allow all the elements to fit in the frame.
I personally applaud the ascetic approach of one camera/one lens. I'm almost there, but when I head to Vietnam in January I'll be taking a 35 and a 50 for my M6.
Hope that helps.
Ade-oh
Well-known
Rubbish, it's harsh but not that harsh. Provided that one is moderately careful with the gear, it will survive very well. I didn't have any major issues with cameras, laptop, satphones, cellphones, weapons or any other bits of relatively high tech gear when I was in Iraq. I don't imagine the conditions are that much different to parts of the south western US deserts.
I would mention that I think Tri-X would be a an odd film choice. Most of the time the sun is pretty fierce out there, and without an ND filter, you won't be getting too many depth of field effects.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
I've thought about it and this is the weirdest thread this week. Your stated age is 26, and you intend to bequeath US/ Iraq war photos not to your children but your "future grandchildren". This is even more curious than the OP 'one camera, one lens, one film'
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Deart Ade-oh,
I'm glad that someone with direct experience of Iraq confirms what I suspected. As I said in an earlier post, I've used Leicas in India in the dusty season (more than once) and in other dusty environments; carted them on motorcycles; gone up mountains... My M4-P has survived 25+ years of that and I'd expect it to shrug off a year in Iraq, given anything like reasonable care. What do these people think is going to happen to a camera in a dusty place?
Cheers,
Roger
Tuolumne
Veteran
I can't believe people are still responding to this ridiculous thread.
/T
/T
parsec1
parsec1
Going to planet P next week with the Mobile Infantry(The Bugs are acting up again) Can't take my Leicas as the weight would upset the powered armours guidance system and I could end up on another planet(If I'm not already there) so I can only take my bakelite box brownie. Anybody Know where I can get some 127 film.....
Ade-oh
Well-known
I don't think it's ridiculous. I got sent out to Iraq by the British Army, took some cameras with me and took some pictures with them when I could. I didn't have any particular ideas in mind before I went but if I 'd given it much thought I might have had similar thoughts about a project. Thumbs up to this young man for thinking through what he wants to do - photographically at least - before he goes.
Attachments
parsec1
parsec1
Come on now if he has an MP he must Know something about photography so why ask what lenses he should take.
parsec1
parsec1
PPS just back from Kashmir and was shot at 3 times by somebody or other.
Colman
Established
I don't get the hostility to this thread at all. So Naos would like help making a final decision on which lens to take. Big deal. It's not an easy one, especially when you're used to taking much larger amounts of gear with you.
I guess, given the choice offered, I'd take the 35mm.
Tri-X seems awfully fast for the conditions though. What do you intend rating it at?
I guess, given the choice offered, I'd take the 35mm.
Tri-X seems awfully fast for the conditions though. What do you intend rating it at?
Ade-oh
Well-known
This whole website is full of people - who I kind of assume should know better - asking similarly trivial questions. Why jump on this one?
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Ask a simple question get called an idiot. Why all the ire?
I'd vote for the 35, simply for FOV, I think it would be more useful in a wider range of situations. Bring a few ND filters to keep the sand off the front and stay safe. As I recall, Ansel Adams was a big fan of grainy films for the desert.
edit-
Actually, the 35 pre-ASHP would be a better choice for the lower contrast. I don't think you'll be wanting for contrast most of the time...
I'd vote for the 35, simply for FOV, I think it would be more useful in a wider range of situations. Bring a few ND filters to keep the sand off the front and stay safe. As I recall, Ansel Adams was a big fan of grainy films for the desert.
edit-
Actually, the 35 pre-ASHP would be a better choice for the lower contrast. I don't think you'll be wanting for contrast most of the time...
Last edited:
Frank Petronio
Well-known
I think people are a little hostile simply because they hate to see a nice Leica get wasted and chewed up in the desert. They probably don't care as much about the person!
horosu
Well-known
I would vote for the 50 . Why? Because I doubt that you're going to be that close to the events as to use the 35, especially in a war zone.
Just my 2 cents.
Horea
Just my 2 cents.
Horea
italy74
Well-known
35.. 50 may be limiting
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Ade-oh, it's not the hostility it's the incredulity at the OP. The owner of one of the most expensive Leica's around would ask a basically irresolvable question about choosing either a 35 or 50 mm lens.
naos, perhaps some of the responses are rooted in the same basic feeling one gets when a photographer in a couple hundred dollars of new clothes, puts a camera bag over their shoulder, loads it with a Canon 1D, and proceeds to the city core to take photos of the homeless and distressed. There's something kind of vicarious and off centre about it. I'm not prude and I live in this environment. Respect for the people on 'the other end' may be part of some people’s responses.
“To each their own”
naos, perhaps some of the responses are rooted in the same basic feeling one gets when a photographer in a couple hundred dollars of new clothes, puts a camera bag over their shoulder, loads it with a Canon 1D, and proceeds to the city core to take photos of the homeless and distressed. There's something kind of vicarious and off centre about it. I'm not prude and I live in this environment. Respect for the people on 'the other end' may be part of some people’s responses.
“To each their own”
Yammerman
Well-known
Been following the thread and was a bit shocked by the snide comments which I see persist.
I 've never started a thread myself and the responses on here don't offer much encouragment.
I'd take 50 if it was me.
I 've never started a thread myself and the responses on here don't offer much encouragment.
I'd take 50 if it was me.
Andrew Sowerby
Well-known
I'm sorry for being kinda cranky ealier, but I think Roger hit the nail on the head. What lens you should take is entirely dependent on what kind of pictures you want to take and what FOV you're more comfortable with.
If you genuinely don't know which lens to chose, shoot a dozen rolls of film with each before you go. That will give you a much better indication of what you should take than querying bitter RFFers!
If you genuinely don't know which lens to chose, shoot a dozen rolls of film with each before you go. That will give you a much better indication of what you should take than querying bitter RFFers!
Last edited:
Tuolumne
Veteran
I'm not being hostile at all. I just can't believe people have anything useful to say to this guy or that he would find what we say useful to him. I like eggs for breakfast. I suggest he eat them in Iraq since I like them. That's what I mean.
/T
/T
taxi38
Taxi Driver
It seems to me youre a person with pretentions to be a purist rather than a purist,the real thing would only have one lens. As you presumably already have two lenses the purist thing to do would be to take them both. If youre fishing to see what would make you appear the more artistic then take a small watercolour set .