do you need the 'best' lenses for street shooting?

back alley

back alley

IMAGES
Local time
12:30 PM
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
41,289
i notice that when lens comparisons take place here that some members will categorize lenses according to use...this makes sense to me...for architecture a lens without distortion is more appropriate than one with...fast lenses for low light, a no brainer...

i'm wondering if one needs the best lenses for normal street shooting...i'm thinking a really nice cv lens against the most expensive german lenses...lots of money difference in the choice for maybe not so much image quality difference...

does it matter for street?

joe
 
Ιt depends what you're trying to achieve. If you want Chris Weeks type shots with bokeh then obviously it matters. Personally I like Gary Winogrand's photography. His lens was a Canon 28/2.8, which Sean Reid tested against 4-5 others and it finished last LOL
So for me no it doesnt matter, any old lens will do. The cv you mentioned is a luxury haha
 
I don't even want the "best" lenses. With my Leica, I have a 35mm Ultron, not a bad lens by a long shot, but certainly not one of the über-lenses that costs more than my camera ... well more than ALL my cameras put together! I want a lens that has interesting characteristics, but that those characteristics do not over-ride my own vision.

I had a lens that cost a couple thousand dollars, but I gave it away, as it decided the look of pictures shot through it, not me.
 
It all depends on what you're going for.

If you do a lot of night shooting, sure, a Noctilux would be best. Now, whether or not it's worth 10x the price over a Nokton, is a different discussion.
 
Spyro said:
... tested against 4-5 others and it finished last LOL ...
Click to expand...

I hear ya there! One of my faves for my Nikon slrs is known as their worst lens ever: the 43-86 f/3.5 non-Ai. If it were a Leica lens, they would say it had the glow. As it is they say it has aberrations.
 
OK after reading the forms here a RFF for a few months two people lets call them Bill and Sue decide to give street photography a try. Bill goes out a buys a M4-2 + Summicron 35 F2 and Sue goes out and buys an M4+ CV 35 F2.5 Skopar.
Question who here actually believes Bills images will be better then Sue's based simply on the fact of the lens he's using?
 
Spyro said:
Ιt depends what you're trying to achieve. If you want Chris Weeks type shots with bokeh then obviously it matters. Personally I like Gary Winogrand's photography. His lens was a Canon 28/2.8, which Sean Reid tested against 4-5 others and it finished last LOL
So for me no it doesnt matter, any old lens will do. The cv you mentioned is a luxury haha
Click to expand...

Agreed with all of this.

I'd use any of the CVs if all I was going to do was street photography..
 
What did HCB use ... isn't that the deciding factor round here? :D
 
Mcary said:
OK after reading the forms here a RFF for a few months two people lets call them Bill and Sue decide to give street photography a try. Bill goes out a buys a M4-2 + Summicron 35 F2 and Sue goes out and buys an M4+ CV 35 F2.5 Skopar.
Question who here actually believes Bills images will be better then Sue's based simply on the fact of the lens he's using?
Click to expand...

It comes down to how you define "better" and "quality". If Bill's using the Summicron ASPH and the conditions call for shooting at maximum aperture, Bill's images will probably be sharper across the frame if they're photographing graffiti on brick walls. If Sue has a better eye for composition and a better awareness of what's about to happen around her, I'd bet on Sue's 35/2.5 CV lens delivering the goods.

Beyond a certain minimum threshold of quality it becomes very difficult to pick the difference, and "experts" are people who make an art form of distinguishing differences that few others neither can see nor care about.
 
Last edited:
My opinion - no... no need for the best lens. Good bokeh doesn't equal a good street photograph. The "glow" says nothing about the interplay of composition, subject matter, light, etc...
 
I like using gear I can replace easily if damaged, particularly when doing street-like work.

By my definition of replaceable, that means i use relatively cheap gear. ;)
 
That scene, that moment, can only be taken once. No one will ever be able to go back to take that same street moment with another lens to compare. Hence it does not matter which lens was used. I seldom hear people say, "I wished I had the lux asph for that shot."

But some like to show off they own the expensive gear out on the streets, well they pay for that glamour.
 
The iconic photos we all remember were taken with lenses that today many would not even consider as worth being used.... The most often printed photo, the famous portrait of Che Guevara, with a 9cm Elmar 1:4 (mounted on a M2).

Any lens made in the last 40 years that is not totally scratched or otherwise damaged will be suitable for perfect street-photos / documentary photos, IMO. Leica lenses are good were > 100% performance is required but not for the quick snap ...
 
usability and size are the deciding factors for me. I have a 35mm/2 biogon, however I never use it as it is so big - I use the technically inferior canon 35mm/1.8, because it is so much smaller and unobtrusive. similarly, my 50mm is a summitar, which is positively outdated but produces good images for me.
 
No, not for street photography. I do like using good lenses though because I do mainly work that is about architecture, with some landscapes and portraits. Architecture and landscapes really do benefit from sharper lenses and lack of distortion is better for architecture.
 
Whatever gets the picture the way you want it is best.

If you're relying on sharpness, distortion or contrast minutiae to make a picture good...

I like leica on leica; the lens is (most of) the camera, but I'm under no illusion that having a similar CV on it would be just as effective a tool.

.
 
My personal choice of lenses for 'street' photographs is based upon their user-bility (yeah, sorry English language purists but that's a Modern Comprehensive School education for you :eek:.) By which I simply mean what makes my life easier. I have the 35mm Nokton which gives a look I love but the focus throw is quite long, so I tend to use my little 35mm summicron with a much shorter throw allowing me to focus more quickly.

I recently gave my Canon 50mm 1.8 away to a member here after having my head turned by all the talk of 50mm summicrons. The summicron is lovely but for what I use it for I may as well have saved my money and kept the humble work horse Canon.

Lenses can play a huge part in the resulting look of your photographs but as we all know already, but for SOME types of photography it is relatively far down the list of ultimate importance. It reminds me of the question of sharpness in photography, given the choice I'd personally go for sharp if I can but I'd rather get a slightly soft picture than no picture at all.

Of course, if you can afford 'the best,' and I don't wish to open that debate, then why not go for the best?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom