One Lens and Leica theory

[semilog]

Can anyone list famous photographers that only used one focal length? I've read some that use a 35-50-90 combination, basically a wide-normal-short telephoto. Which ones limited themselves to only one focal length?

A lot of street-based photographers have standardised on only one lens, or done significant fractions of their work with only one lens.

These are from (posibly flawed) memory: Alex Webb, as already mentioned (35). David Alan Harvey (28/35). Cartier-Bresson used only one or two lenses (usually 50). Josef Koudelka went for long periods using only one camera/lens (24 for much of his career). Bruce Davidson (28 for the Subway series, IIRC). Etc.

 

[lawrence]

Gene Smith's printing was consistent. He was the best b&w master printer ever -imo.

Yes, great printer. Last month I saw some of his original prints at 'The Jazz Loft Project' exhibition in Chicago and they were wonderful. The same could not be said for the modern 'archival pigment' (I think they meant 'inkjet') prints that were also shown, not because there's anything wrong with inkjet prints but these just weren't of the same standard.

 

[Roger Hicks]

A lot of street-based photographers have standardised on only one lens, or done significant fractions of their work with only one lens.

These are from (posibly flawed) memory: Alex Webb, as already mentioned (35). David Alan Harvey (28/35). Cartier-Bresson used only one or two lenses (usually 50). Josef Koudelka went for long periods using only one camera/lens (24 for much of his career). Bruce Davidson (28 for the Subway series, IIRC). Etc.

There's a big difference between 'significant fractions of their work' and a doctrinaire adherence to 'one body, one lens'. With HCB, for example, it's not 'one or two'. It's 'at least two'.

As I said in an earlier post, if it comes naturally, fine. But choosing it as the One True Path (someone else's fantasy) doesn't make a lot of sense.

Cheers,

R.

 

[emraphoto]

There's a big difference between 'significant fractions of their work' and a doctrinaire adherence to 'one body, one lens'. With HCB, for example, it's not 'one or two'. It's 'at least two'.

As I said in an earlier post, if it comes naturally, fine. But choosing it as the One True Path (someone else's fantasy) doesn't make a lot of sense.

Cheers,

R.

these are wise words. beware 'doctrines' coming from any one.

as Roger has mentioned, try it out and if it works for you then run with it for as long as you see fit. it doesn't have to be a year or it could be 5 years.

to say that folks seriously interested in making pictures wouldn't venture down this path is totally untrue. i know many very, very serious photographers who use 1 lens. i also know many very, very serious photographers who use a gaggle of them. there are no universal truths to be found on either side of the discussion. only what works for you.

 

[former member]

The OP's setup reminded me of Alfred Eisenstadt's chapter in the 1951 edition of the "Leica Manual" by Morgan and Lester. He used a 35 Elmar, 50 Summitar, and 90 Elmar and carried two bodies. He states that the 35 Elmar is used for 95% of his work. Several of the selected existing light portraits are using the Summitar. This "one-camera One-lens" excercise may help to know which lens to use 95% of the time, but I am glad Eisenstadt carried and used the Summitar after reading his chapter.

The trick is to know when to use the correct lens for a given situation to get optimal results. If you limit yourself to one lens, you will look at some images and wish a wider lens was used, a faster lens was used, or a tighter shot was acheived. Or- you only take the pictures that you can get with the one lens. Then you miss the shot. Your current setup is a good one, I would just use it.

 

[robertcambab]

The response to this has been very broad and varied. I don't really get the fantasy tag for the idea. I see it something along the line of extending thought to a proces that detracts from the learning of composition and framing (or are they one and the same thing). I think the exclusion to one type of lens would not be conducive to all types of photography, but would certainly be enough for others. It has been driven by my thoughts of trying to better the composition by moving myself about rather than changing lenses, i.e. thinking about the shot rather than the equipment.

 

[cam]

out of curiosity: how many on this thread do use primarily one lens and, if so, what is it?

 

[lawrence]

out of curiosity: how many on this thread do use primarily one lens and, if so, what is it?

As mentioned above, the 35mm is for me essential although sometimes I need a 28mm in confined spaces or a 50mm for portraits. The beauty of 35mm is that it gives such a naturalistic view at normal shooting distances and it has enough coverage for most things. I see it as an 'inclusive' lens, where you tend to view the subject within the environment whereas 50mm is more 'exclusive', giving more isolation to the subject.

 

[ebino]

The benefit of one focal length is that as you begin to shoot with it, you start to see things in that focal range as well. Secondly, your work looks consistent and finally your mind is at peace because you don't have to worry about changing focal length.

Its a good thing.

 

[kshapero]

I pretty much use only an M6 with a CV Nokton 35/1.4 SC. OK I sneak in my Elmarit 90/2.8 once in a while.

 

[emraphoto]

out of curiosity: how many on this thread do use primarily one lens and, if so, what is it?

i have been using a 45 on an xpan for going on 6 months now.

 

[cam]

i, too, use a 35/1.4 (pre-asph with the Epson, asph with the Leica) most of the time and have been using it for nearly two years on mostly cropped sensors (R-D1, M8). i love limiting myself to a vision i know.

that said, i am dying to use it FF after playing with it on film, knowing i'd be most comfortable using it as it should be used... but still, i adapted, and learned to use my feet when possible, only putting a second lens (Noctilux) in my purse if i knew i was going to be out after dark.

i have other lenses and love to play with them, sometimes taking them for a walk or to a bar. it's fun to challenge myself now and again, to see things differently, and keep me from becoming complacent.

the reason i asked if people primarily use one lens is because, i think, most do. we become comfortable and at home with it, so that the camera and lens become an extension of ourselves.

but very few of us completely rule out other lenses and that is good to!

i'd suggest the OP trying to limit himself to one lens for a shorter period of time and/or switching focal lengths weekly (monthly?), round robin, to really get to know each lens... or maybe use one focal length for 95% of the time as many of us naturally do...

but if he really wants to do this one lens for six months, however, hearing what other people shoot and why might help him make up his mind on what to choose.

 

[Dralowid]

Coming from north of the border perhaps the OP would view life with a 50mm Elmar as hair shirt photography.

I think most of us know where he is at. That time in life when a bag full of bits no longer contributes its worth to our pictures, when things have got too involved and the results become less rewarding.

Perhaps we should all realise that by contributing to this forum we are all, in some small way, gearheads, some of us may even be..shock horror...collectors. We all think we are photographers of one standard or another...or gearheads.

We all have opinions, in our own way we are all right.

Leicas are 'desirable' to us for all sorts of reasons. Collect them or use them, it doesn't really matter. A cupboard full of unused cameras isn't a crying shame, it is probably someone's hobby and presumably they get satsifaction from it.

Spend a year using a single lens and camera? Why not? Use a different lens and camera evcery month? why not?

Each to his own but if you look to emotional reward from the end result, concentrate on the image. The gear can surely look after itself. If you enjoy the process then swapping gear can become part of it.

I've been re-organising my so-called archive. It has made me realise that I am a very average photographer who has kept very average pictures for so long that they are almost passable now. The ones that stand out are those that interest, delight or bring a smile...and yes, most of these are snaps with an Elmar or Summar taken on the spur of the moment in b/w or Kodachrome.

Rant over...that shirt is starting to itch again!

Michael

 

[rodt16s]

If I take out a bag full of lenses, I end up using one. Take only one lens and I always find a need for one left at home.
If I was forced to choose then I could probably live with a 35mm to do most things.

 

[skibeerr]

This is al very personal of course, I did a one month walk with one camera and one lens once, mainly because of weight reasons. I found the experience mentally liberating.

It was the Bronica rf.

On our last backpack trip in India I carried a 21, 50 and 90mm on the Leica and my wife a Hexar af.

The ability to choose was also liberating.

It depends on how you feel at that moment and the sort of images you plan to make.

We don't need the camerapolice telling us what to carry.

 

[robertcambab]

I don't think it is the camera police or people telling us what to do. I am not worrying about photography or choosing lenses, or getting tired of the process. I would like to simplify the thought process and see if the rewards come from the thought extended to the taking of pictures, rather than whta to use to do it. I agree the year may be a bit long, hence the six month stretch. I think the 50mm Jupiter III for the period and a good few rolls of XP2 and see what I get. I would be interetsed to see if I hold the same views after the time stated.

 

[alistair.o]

As mentioned above, the 35mm is for me essential although sometimes I need a 28mm in confined spaces or a 50mm for portraits. The beauty of 35mm is that it gives such a naturalistic view at normal shooting distances and it has enough coverage for most things. I see it as an 'inclusive' lens, where you tend to view the subject within the environment whereas 50mm is more 'exclusive', giving more isolation to the subject.

Thank you. You have summed up my thoughts very well.

 

[wlewisiii]

out of curiosity: how many on this thread do use primarily one lens and, if so, what is it?

35 - 50/2 Summitar - 99%
4x5 - 135/4.5 CZJ Tessar - 90% (though that may well change depending on my new to me 6.5" Series Ia Wollensak Velostigmat. 😎 )

 

[Sonny Boy Havidson]

Considering the time it takes to change lenses for screw mount cameras and the use of external finder on Leica III, having one camera per lens is not a bad ide but this has more to do with practical aspects.

I think that the one camera/one lens theory suggests that you want to shot with a give point of view: view angle, depth of field. Using mostly a 35 or 50 mm, I tend to use my Rollei 35 a lot more because of the 40 mm lens view angle.

 

[besk]

I once read that a well known photographer used only a 35mm lens set at F/2.8 based on his theory that the angle of view was approximately the same as the human eye. And the depth of field for a 35mm lens set at F2.8 was similar to how the human eye sees things.

Interesting theory and something to think about. I haven't adopted it yet myself..