mainly one lens shooters...what makes them tick?

[back alley]

this has been an excellent discussion and i must say that i appreciate the many thoughtful comments.

i have realized that because i am mostly a street shooter that my choice of lenses is highly impacted by a 'walk down the street' viewpoint. i am too slow with a longer lens for enjoyable shooting and at times i love the ultra wides because of the quickness of a point and shoot set up. i most enjoy the normal 35 to 50 range of lenses because it affords me the opportunity to be involved in the action and in the decision making process of what my image will look like.
when money allows, i plan on getting another 15 and probably a 75 as well...for occasional use and 'just to have them nearby'.
i think when out on a planned shooting day that i will carry both bodies with the 28 and 40 attached and when just 'carrying' i will use the 40 alone.

as an aside...this discussion proves to me one of the benefits of forums like rff...a level headed discussion, based on member's experience can lead to a common sense sharing of ideas that can help people sort out issues connected to both gear and image making.

 

[ferider]

I never understood why the famous photographers you mention, Joe, or all those single lens shooters speaking up in this thread, use interchangeable lens cameras in the first place. Or why (maybe with the exception of the Rollei TLR), only cameras with interchangeable lenses are labeled "pro".

Seriously, there are technical advantages to fixed lens mount cameras. Why are most of them labeled P&S ?

 

[paulfish4570]

"my problems are (1) before i go out to shoot, I "what if . . " myself to death with imagined scenarios and what equipment needed to deal with them all and (2) if I have a bag full of stuff with me, my brain chokes on "which this and which that should I use"."

Amen to that Dave. On my deer rifles, I always much prefer a simple, fixed-power 4x or 2.5x scope rather than fancy variables. I'd constantly fiddle with a variable, going from, say, 3x to 6 x back to 4x then to 9x. just can't leave well enough alone ... 🙂

 

[wlewisiii]

I almost never use anything other than a 50 on 35mm.

LF, OTOH, I'll change the glass at the drop of a hat. Mostly because doing the two foot zoom with a view camera is much more difficult than it is with a IIIf...

 

[wlewisiii]

Amen to that Dave. On my deer rifles, I always much prefer a simple, fixed-power 4x or 2.5x scope rather than fancy variables. I'd constantly fiddle with a variable, going from, say, 3x to 6 x back to 4x then to 9x. just can't leave well enough alone ... 🙂

I actually dislike having to deal with any scope while shooting. I even had a gunsmith add fixed sights to my new Marlin so I could use it without a scope. It's the fiddle factor that you mention but also simply the narrowing of vision that comes from using a scope - you're blind to everything else around you. Rather like the difference between a RF & a SLR. Both have their place but I'd prefer iron sights & an RF almost every time.

 

[paulfish4570]

wlewis, if i could see iron sights well in the woods in light on either side of midday, i'd go with 'em, too. a scope ruins the lines and carryability of any rifle. my eyes are six months short of 60, still plenty good outside of four feet, but no good in rifle sight distance, even with a peep. ah, the joys of getting older ...

 

[wlewisiii]

wlewis, if i could see iron sights well in the woods in light on either side of midday, i'd go with 'em, too. a scope ruins the lines and carryability of any rifle. my eyes are six months short of 60, still plenty good outside of four feet, but no good in rifle sight distance, even with a peep. ah, the joys of getting older ...

Oh, I hear you. My eyes are not what they used to be either, but I started with farsightedness so I had a small advantage that was then wiped out by my astigmatism. Still, if I keep my glasses clean, I can still use my irons at ranges appropriate to the woods of northern Wisconsin where 200 meters is an insanely long shot. 😀

 

[paulfish4570]

I'm thinking I need some new glasses, come to think of it.

 

[LeicaFan]

I've never been the type to carry around multiple lenses.

Give me a fast 50 and I'm good to go. 🙂

 

[semilog]

Paul and wlewis — I haven't been hunting in a looong time. You guys are making me hungry for venison & smoked duck!

 

[Vics]

Well, I guess firstly there are lots of not so famous photogs who only use one lens. I think that photography is one of those arts where simplicity of method just produces better results. Back in the sixties I knew a few pro PJs who invariably told me that one could shoot any assignment (news) with a 35mm lens. When shooting a story, one just doesn't have the time to sit and think about such niceties as focal length. That said, the PJ of the 21st century just uses one lens most of the time on his/her DSLR, usually a wide zoom, or in a combat situation, a long zoom. "economy of method" seems to be what good pics are all about.

 

[bo_lorentzen]

Vic,

"economy of method"

Great definition, untimately more time to think about composing, getting one self to the right spot, and recognizing the right moment to push the shutter.


Bo

www.bophoto.typepad.com