How do you choose your prime?

[Doug]

Most of time I have an idea about what I'm going to shoot and bring a lens I feel appropriate to this. On a long (more days) trip I bring more lenses with me, but usually I work maybe one day with the 35 if I think more in terms os street and next day the 50 or the 75 if I think in terms of portrait. Or if I'm in the mood for more "extreme" shots I only grab the 20...
robert
PS: all referred to 35mm film.

This is my approach too, though sometimes it's just a matter of whim!

 

[Rob-F]

I would feel ill-prepared with only one lens. Even when I carry the X100, I will have an X10 or D-Lux 4 in my pocket to cover my bases. Most of the time I come prepared with at least a small section of focal lengths.

 

[traveler_101]

I voted for alternative 1. I pick a lens and generally stick with it, and that depends quite a bit on the subject matter. I have always liked 50mm (25 in m43) because it gives you the ability to get closer to your human subject without distortion, plus being just wide enough to get shots afield--unlike a long lens. However, if i am shooting landscapes or cityscapes for travel I tend to go to 28mm (14 in m43). I try to avoid lens changes, but I find it useful to take my 40-150 with me; there are instances when you can't get close to your subject and need to put that lens on to get shots you'd like to have.

To the OP:
Some people prefer to compromise between the traditional lengths I am using, i.e. wide (28) and normal (50), by using a 35. Then you have the wide-normal FL that became popular on rangefinder cameras in the 1960s. If it turns out you prefer that setup then you'll probably want to sell your new 25, but give yourself time. You might find you like the 25 for specific purposes--inside shooting of informal portraits?--or that you actually prefer it to the 17 in general use. With time it will sort itself out.

 

[Ronald M]

My very first camera had a fixed 50 2.0 Nikkor and I learned to do everything with it.

After graduation, I bought a slr with 7 lenses and never used the 50.

I am now older and wiser and have gone back to 50 mm. My 50 1.4 ASPH Lux is the best fast 50 lens out there. A 50 renders normal perspective. If a portrait session is to be done , I fix a short tele to start. I will carry a wide lens or two for vacation, but prefer to work the 50 unless I simply can not back up far enough.

If low light is not to be expected, the last version of the 50 2,8 collapsible is preferred carry.

Other lens are 21 pre ASPH, 28 from 1985, 35 Summicron from same, 75 ASPH, 90 macro, 135 tele elmar. But the bulk of the photo work is 50 mm.

 

[mh2000]

traveler 101, actually, I really prefer the normal FL over the wider 35mm (eq.), but I guess I like changing things up a little bit sometimes. While I have a 14, I just very rarely use it. The 25 will just be an upgrade to my Sigma 30.

I've got a long history with these eq. FL's (35, 50 and 90 on 35mm film). Anything outside this range becomes a special purpose lens for me.

 

[traveler_101]

traveler 101, actually, I really prefer the normal FL over the wider 35mm (eq.), but I guess I like changing things up a little bit sometimes. While I have a 14, I just very rarely use it. The 25 will just be an upgrade to my Sigma 30.

I've got a long history with these eq. FL's (35, 50 and 90 on 35mm film). Anything outside this range becomes a special purpose lens for me.

Hey MH2000,

Sorry, you undoubtedly know more about this than I do (LOL). Are you still using film? I started with the idea that the 35mm lens was great--probably wishing that I was a contemporary Garry Winnogrand or something stupid. I must admit that the 35mm lenses I have for my film cameras are faster to focus and therefore arguably better for street than 50mm lenses. I kind of see the point--even though I have both 35 and 50 film lenses--along with a 25 and 15.

But with m43 I have been mostly frustrated waiting for a good lens at the 35mm FL; I bought the P-20/1.7 instead, and even though I've never been thrilled by the FL, it became my most used lens on the E-P1. I don't use the 20 that much anymore, and I sort of skipped over the 17/1.8: it was kind of too expensive and there was so much noise around this lens. Around this time I came close to dropping out of m43, but hung in for some reason. Anyway when 25/1.8 came out to very good reviews at a reasonable price, I decided to go with it. Besides I was a very early adapter of the 14/2.5, which I really like even though all the reviews are negative, and I thought the 25 would make a good two lens kit with the 14.

It seems to me that sometimes availability has a lot to do with which FLs one uses. How do you find the 17/1.8 by the way?

Mark

 

[mh2000]

Mark,

Dammit!!! No, I don't own the 17/1.8. Just a few minutes ago I tried to get in on a 20% off Oly refurbs deal, but they sold out of all the $300 17/1.8s before I got my order in!

Really, I am much more a normal guy and have shot primarily 50's my whole life, typically supplimented by a 90 or 135 telephoto. I was kind of dragged into the 35mm (eq) FL kicking and screeaming first because of my attraction to small quality pocket cameras like the Oly XA and Minox GL. Then I bought into m43 on a whim with a close out price E-P1 without recognizing that at the time there were no nomal lenses for the system!

Anyway, I bought the 17/2.8 after agonizing whether to get it or the 20...

I really ended up liking the 17/2.8 (more so than the P14).

I think it is kind of an anomoly that I am shooting my 17 a lot lately, but for some things it's a very comfortable FL.

I mostly want the 17/1.8 for night photography. My girlfriend loves shooting at night and I'd enjoy it much more if I had a good scale focus to use with a VF-1.

I gave up film 3-4 years ago when my Coolscan film scanner broke and all quality replacements were going to cost me $2000! It was very hard to accept, but in going digitial I made the transition to becoming a color photographer which I have really enjoyed -- only shot b&w for maybe 35 years.

The 17mm FL makes for a really good travel lens: http://markhahnphotography.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/coffee-shop/

 

[traveler_101]

Mark,

I bought the 17/2.8 after agonizing whether to get it or the 20...

I really ended up liking the 17/2.8 (more so than the P14).[/URL]

Hi Mark,

The 17/2.8 -- yes, of course, when I read "17" I thought of the newer lens. I put the 17/2.8 out of mind years ago with all the negative blather about it. I got the 14 before the dpreview crowd finally got around to pronouncing it unacceptable.

I think it is kind of an anomoly that I am shooting my 17 a lot lately, but for some things it's a very comfortable FL. . . . The 17mm FL makes for a really good travel lens. http://markhahnphotography.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/coffee-shop/[/URL]

I heartily agree . . . if you are shooting one length and trying to get something that handles most situations . . Nice series of the restaurant and its environs in LA!

I mostly want the 17/1.8 for night photography. My girlfriend loves shooting at night and I'd enjoy it much more if I had a good scale focus to use with a VF-1.[/URL]

Absolutely, then, you NEED the 17/1.8! If you are actually going to use the scale focus I see the point in getting that lens . . . the complaints of the reviewers, i.e. relatively high cost for the lens in relation to image quality, matters far far less if you are going to use the very nice scale focus feature. Looks like you're going to have to break down and put in some extra cash in to get it. 😀

I gave up film 3-4 years ago when my Coolscan film scanner broke and all quality replacements were going to cost me $2000! It was very hard to accept, but in going digitial I made the transition to becoming a color photographer which I have really enjoyed -- only shot b&w for maybe 35 years. [/URL]

Eh . . . I have a cheap scanner and go at low resolution and the tonal qualities of my b&w scans are better, more interesting and aesthetic to me than all my digital photographs. I don't want to give it up, even though running two systems is both expensive and time consuming. Don't want to demean your decision; you have time for some really nice photo essays--while i am sitting n front of a scanner. 🙂

 

[mh2000]

Haha! Yeah, I managed to get over all the 17/2.8 and give the lens a chance mostly because I thought the P20 just looked so darn ugly on the otherwise stylish silver E-P1. It was also half the price, so I found a really good deal import deal on ebay and figured I had nothing to lose in trying it before getting the 20... the lens handled and performed just fine!

I bought the P14 just because it was $140 from Korea, but don't use it that much. I think the corners are mushier than from the 17, but the center sharper... really, these are tiny little inexpensive pancake lenses! I wasn't expecting Summicron quality... just nice little lenses!

Also, the reality it is that when I make prints, I can hang them next to my Oly 45 prints and whatever differences in IQ there is vanish... it still comes down to how good a photo I've taken, not the lens.

Actually, in the end, I was shooting Kodak BW400CN exclusively and with the cheap Walgreen's proof and developing and only scanning the photos I wanted to do something with, I didn't think cost or labor were really prohibitive. I would have remained a "film only" guy for a long time had the scanner not broken. I don't like my Epson 4990, even for MF.

"Going digital" pushed me into color photography and that was revolutionary. I'm really enjoying the jump! The last time I took my Polaroid 360 out and loaded it with b&w film, I just wasn't into it. Funny how you can so radically change how you see things.

Thanks for the compliment on my photo essays! 🙂

 

[Pioneer]

Over 80% of my 35mm photography is done with a 50mm lens.

 

[Bill Clark]

I select the prime based on what type of photography I'll be doing.

For portraits, I usually use for 35mm or digital a 135 telephoto or 85mm telephoto for individuals or a few folks or if I'm outdoors and I have the room to get far enough away. For medium format I will use either 80mm or 150mm lens.

I do have a few wide angle primes that I will sometimes use depending on the situation.

 

[Range-rover]

It really depends on the times 2 thing, I wanted a 28 or close to that and the 14mm
Pana fit the bill so I been using that for everything and now with the Pana GX-1 it's
a great kit.

Range

 

[narsuitus]

I usually mount the lens I think I will use on a body and put the other lenses I think I may need in the camera bag.

For general subjects, that means mounting a 20mm f/1.7 lens on the body and carrying a 14mm f/2.5 and the 45mm f/1.8 in the bag.

On those rare occasions when I may need a longer focal length, I will carry a 45-200mm f/4 to f/5.6.

If I need something wider than 14mm, I will leave the micro 4/3 at home and take my SLR with a wider wide-angle.

If I need something longer than 200mm, I will leave the micro 4/3 at home and take my SLR with a longer telephoto.

If I only need to carry one lens, I will leave the micro 4/3 at home and take compact digital camera with a fast fixed zoom lens (Canon G15).

https://flic.kr/p/ckY6NG

 

[Spanik]

I never go out with only a single lens. Sometimes I end up using only one lens, sometimes I use for almost every other shot another lens.

 

[mh2000]

I never go out with only a single lens. Sometimes I end up using only one lens, sometimes I use for almost every other shot another lens.

Since they are so small, I almost never go out without 2 other primes in a little side pouch, but they are rarely used. Had the Oly 25 been available when I got into m43, I probably never would have bought my other 3 primes... well, maybe the 45... or again, if it had been available when I got the 45, probably the Sigma 60 instead (when I was shooting Leica-R, I had a Summicron-R 50 and Elmarit-R 135 and loved that as my kit).

 

[Godfrey]

Trial and error. Over many years of shooting, I find I like to leave my cameras in a "ready to go" state with a*fast normal-ish lens fitted. And most of the time when I grab the bag to go shooting, I leave it in place.

Whether that's a 35, 40, or 50 on 35mm format, a 21 or a 40 on APS-C, a 25 on FourThirds ... depends on what's available. I happen to like both 21 and 40 on APS-C as normal-ish, all three of those focal lengths on 35 FF, and the Summilux 25 on FourThirds is just right.

My second lens for nearly all cameras EXCEPT the Leica M9 is a portrait tele: 45 on FourThirds, 90 on APS-C, 90 on 35FF. For some reason, on the M9 what I always seem to want when I don't want the 50 is a 28.

Again, trial and error—and long habituation—rules the selection process. There are times when I get into a long lens mode (90/135/180 on 35FF and equivalents), and other times when I get into a wide mood (20/24-ish on 35FF). But those are*the exceptional moments rather than the rule.

G

That was my response in May 2014. Three quarters of a year later, and about 90% of my photos for the past three months have been made with a Leica X ... with just a 35mm equivalent lens. And I'm loving it. 🙂

G

 

[BNLee]

If you are talking in terms of choosing before buying, none of the above!😛 I tend to have a bad habit of thinking that the lens should fill in the blanks of the focal lengths I do not own, means it should sit in like a range of UNO's!

However if you are talking in terms of picking one for shooting, I will usually grab the lens that I have been leaving out lately.

Whereas if I am going for a trip, I always have a dilemma of "what lens should I bring!?"