I'm A "One Lens" Kinda Guy

S

Spleenrippa

Yes, Right There
Local time
3:54 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
417
Location
Halifax, NS
View My Gallery
It might be silly, since (other than you) the lens is what makes the picture, but it's true. I'll sell your grandmother to Somalian pirates to fund the purchase of another body. However, I just can't seem to work up any sort of "lens-lust."

Looking over my collection, I see a bunch of bodies with only one bit of glass for them to use:
Bessa R- J8 50/2
Bessa R3a- Nokton 40/1.4
Leica M3- 50/2 Summitar
Bronica ETRS- 75/2.8
Fuji gs645s 60/4 😀
Nikon F90x- Nikkor 105/2.5
Nikon F80- Tamron 28-105

The only exception seems to be in my Canon DSLRs. Between my 1DIIN and T2I, I have the 50/1.8, 50/1.4 and 70-200 F4L. I'm not bothering to count the kit lenses, haha.
Hopefully, I'll be picking up the Sigma 150-500 in a month or two, though!

I don't even think that my body-fetish is entirely a case of gimmick-addiction. To be honest, I've never really been able to "see" a lot of the characteristics that people rave about in some lenses. 3/4 of the time, I'm not able to tell you if a photo was taken using old Leica glass or a newer Nikkor, and so I don't get hot and bothered my glass purchases.

How about you guys?
 
Ooh, I guess I should add in that most of my interests lay in street and portrait photography... You only need so many focal lengths for those!
Again, my Canons are the exception- I want to shoot birds someday...
 
I appreciate odd/exotic/unusual lenses: a
bunch of Carl zeiss C mount glass, Nikko S mount, g-rokkor M mount, uc-hexanon, l-hexar, and am waiting for a reissue nikkor 50/1.4. This and some adapters -- a whole lot of fun. Used glass doesn't depreciate much and might even go up.
 
It's not that I'm not excited by lenses it's that they cost money. I used to have varieties of lenses: f mount, m mount, hasselblad, etc etc.

I sold it all and kept my beloved rollei TLR and bought a 5dmkii with the 50mm 1.2L (and had money to spare to pay off bills).

For now, this will have to do and like the OP said, I also primarily just wander the streets so I don't find my lack of focal lengths limiting at all. If fact, i don't even think about it at all.

Eventually, if I find myself flush in a year or two I'll invest in another m body and probably a
35mm summicron but until then I'm fine with my minimal setup. I don't do this for money, just the love.
 
Last edited:
I'm a one lens guy as well, only because I don't have the money to afford other lenses! I could probably live with just my one lens, but sometimes you just find yourself in a position where a little more reach/a wider perspective would be more suitable. So I can definitely understand why people have several lenses in their kit, but I can also understand why people only have one or two.

As for the different lens characteristics - I'm pretty much the same. When I look at a photograph, I don't know what lens took the shot, it comes down to whether or not the image works. The only lens I can say for sure has a unique 'look' is a Sonnar lens - a good portrait with the C-Sonnar 50mm or Nikkor 50mm just has something about it that makes it different from all others.
 
I no longer suffer from lens-lust.

Lack of shelf space for additional lenses finally settled in.

I do not own every lens ever made since the beginning of history.

I need more shelf space.
 
I have a bunch of CV lenses for my R2 and R4 but seem to be able to "see" only one at a time. When I try to change focal lengths it seems to throw me off stride. This spring, I first walked around El Moro in San Juan with the 28mm on the camera and then retraced my steps with the 50mm, going for more details. This seemed to keep me saner than continuously switch lenses - of course you can only do this with a static subject.
 
I find that I only like the 28-50mm range of lenses... so I'm more of a body lust guy as well. And, I hate zooms. For my two Leicas, I use a 35mm-36mm lens. On the Nikon, I use 28mm, 35mm, and 50mm... but that is only because they cost under $600 for all of them i.e. the price of one ok, older Leica lens.
 
Some common sense in this thread! and I agree with most of the OP. There are one or two here in the position of having around thirty 50mm lenses, constantly 'testing' one against the other. I often wonder what the point is, but of course - 'each to his own', and I'm sure there are results of my excesses of time and money (not much!) - that would amuse/puzzle them! 🙂
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I used to be, until I could afford another lens to supplement the 55/1.8 Super-Takumar on my Pentax SV. Unfortunately I bought the wrong second lens, mainly because it was cheap: 90-180/5,5 Yashinon, possiby the worst lens I ever owned. I wish I still had it for soft-focus portraiture...

My first Leica sported (and still sports) a 50/3,5 Elmar, to which I added a 90/4 fat barrel Elmar: £11, and the only recorded Leica lens with both 'a' (attrape, dummy) and * (re-used serial number)at the end of the serial number.

But for the last 30+ years I've used mostly a 35/1,4 Summilux, supplemented with other lenses for particular applications. Likewise I normally use a 100mm on my 'baby' Linhof or a 210 Apo-Sironar on my 4x5 or 5x7 Linhof or a 21 inch Ross on 8x10, but I do have other lenses for when I need them: 110 Super-Symmar for 5x7 & 8x10, 150 Apo-Lanthar for 4x5 and 6x7cm, and others.

I generally find that one lens does 60-90% of what I want; the second does 60-90% of the remainder; and so forth, in ever-diminishing returns.

Cheers,

R.
 
Interesting thread with some good points, but I'm mostly a two body, two lens kind of guy myself. I like covering events, telling a story, and for the most part I zoom with my feet, but usually shoot with a 50/1.4 on one body and a 100/2.8 on the other. As far as the story goes, most of the narrative is written with the 50, while the 100 provides emphasis - the telling detail - and fleshes out the story. I also carry a small shoulder bag stuffed with film and a 28/2 to set the scene, putting everything in context when needed.

Though there are a few lenses that have a look I really like, for the most part it's the focal length/ field of view that's most important to me, the way I see, and the way I tell the story.
 
bhop73 said:
I'm a two lens kinda guy myself. 28 and 50 on my Leica. I seriously have no desire for any other focal lengths with this camera.
Click to expand...

If I had three arms (and three bodies!) I'd carry the 28, 50 and 100. I'm always torn between the 28 and 100, but usually just see better at 100, or at least get consistently better shots at 100 compared to 28. That's just me, or more likely my limitations! Wish I was a lot better with the 28, but occasionally only the 28 will do and it works for me despite my inadequacies!
 
I like a bit of variety, but it is pretty rare that I duplicate focal lengths.
The only exception is that I do have a trio of 50mm lenses ( a 50 planar, 50 J-3 and 50/2 nikkor ltm). In truth, I could probably be just as happy with only one of the older lenses. But when I shoot portraits, there is a definite difference in the results I get from the planar versus one of the sonar designs.

Outside of portrait work, I generally think in pairs.
A 21 Super Angulon with a 35 pre-asph lux.
a 28 Biogon paired with the 50 planar. (I just need to buy the 28 now)
 
There are several reasons for having with us more than one lens... Maybe one of the most important is that no matter if we move back or close, we can't do with just one lens what we can do with different focal lengths... For example, if you use a 35mm lens only, it will be great for many shots, (many or just some?) but you won't be able to do things like those a wideangle lens do: you can't play their typical exaggerated near space volume game, or you simply can't have enough inside the frame when you can't step back anymore... And with a 35mm there are lots of times in which even if we get close to a subject, its generous angle just doesn't let us take out of the frame disturbing parts in such a wide background, and then the only way to make it is using a lens with a much narrower angle of view... With a 50 you are out of the prefocus game apart from the lack of wide vision... I never feel comfortable with one lens only... I can do it (who can't?) but I know what it means: being weaker photographically, because the shots I'll get won't be all the shots I'm able to get, but just the ones a single focal length can get... A lot better is being ready for most situations with a moderate wideangle and a short tele... I have been out shooting with a 15 only, and also with a 300 only, but even if I know I can use any lens properly, I don't enjoy the feeling of seeing a scene I want to capture and not having a (relatively) good lens for it... I haven't let that happen for many years... If I don't have two or three primes with me, I have a zoom... There are other reasons for more than one lens... Sometimes we need to carry and use a fast lens, but then we might not be interested in showing a big lens somewhere else a minute after for different reasons, so having a small one can help to get into the place, people and precise moment... Sometimes it's necessary to be ready to shoot at the same time on sunlight and under the shadows, so we need two bodies and two lenses because changing lenses is one of the things that makes us lose lots of moments...

Just my opinion.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
There are several reasons for having with us more than one lens... Maybe one of the most important is that no matter if we move back or close, we can't do with just one lens what we can do with different focal lengths... For example, if you use a 35mm lens only, it will be great for many shots, (many or just some?) but you won't be able to do things like those a wideangle lens do: you can't play their typical exaggerated near space volume game, or you simply can't have enough inside the frame when you can't step back anymore... And with a 35mm there are lots of times in which even if we get close to a subject, its generous angle just doesn't let us take out of the frame disturbing parts in such a wide background, and then the only way to make it is using a lens with a much narrower angle of view... With a 50 you are out of the prefocus game apart from the lack of wide vision... I never feel comfortable with one lens only... I can do it (who can't?) but I know what it means: being weaker photographically, because the shots I'll get won't be all the shots I'm able to get, but just the ones a single focal length can get... A lot better is being ready for most situations with a moderate wideangle and a short tele... I have been out shooting with a 15 only, and also with a 300 only, but even if I know I can use any lens properly, I don't enjoy the feeling of seeing a scene I want to capture and not having a (relatively) good lens for it... I haven't let that happen for many years... If I don't have two or three primes with me, I have a zoom... There are other reasons for more than one lens... Sometimes we need to carry and use a fast lens, but then we might not be interested in showing a big lens somewhere else a minute after for different reasons, so having a small one can help to get into the place, people and precise moment... Sometimes it's necessary to be ready to shoot at the same time on sunlight and under the shadows, so we need two bodies and two lenses because changing lenses is one of the things that makes us lose lots of moments...

Just my opinion.

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

Well said!
 
Generally I like 2 bodies (M9 and MP) with 35 + 75 (Summilux and Summicron), plus an 18 (Zeiss) in the bag and (for some applications, especially landscape) a 135 (Elmarit-M). That's near enough doubling the focal lengths. Everything else, I handle by moving closer or further away. Very occasionally I carry a third body with a 200 (Nikon F + Vivitar Series 1). This has the further advantage of focusing to 1/3 life size.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom