Mike Johnson's liteny of lenses <g>

newspaperguy

Well-known
Local time
7:20 PM
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
1,525
Location
Southern Maryland US of A
(Mike is the much-missed former editor of Photo Techniques magazine.
This is an exerpt from his quarterly subscription publication 37th Frame
that was released on photo.net.

Not RF, but I thought y'all would enjoy.

Rick 😎



USES AND APPLICATIONS OF 35mm LENSES By Mike Johnston

Fisheye: No known uses, except to illustrate fisheye effects in photo how-to books.

Ultra-wide rectilinears wider than 19mm: Occasional interiors. Also used to stump gearheads trying to find stuff to photograph with the things.

Ultra-wide-angle (19, 20, 21, or 24mm): One of the four of five essential lenses for pros, broadly useful for artists and accomplished amateurs. Used for landscapes, interiors, street shooting, crowd shots, etc. Also used by bored amateurs as the next thing to covet for purchase. Despite the ubiquity of this focal length, relatively few photographers are practiced enough or visually acute enough to use this type of lens effectively; lots more people own these than do good work with them. See Brian Bowers’ Leica books for a rare example of a scenic photographer who actually sees well with a 21mm.

Ultra-wide-angle zoom (wide end 20mm or wider): useful for when the photographer would like to carry one heavy lens instead of three light ones, or has a breezy, devil-may-care attitude towards flare effects. Secondary “CYA” lens for pros who aren’t great with wide angles in the first place. (Exceptions do exist.) Also sometimes paired with a fast 80-200mm zoom as a professional’s only two lenses.

Wide angles: Now that 24mm is more often lumped with 20mm and 35mm has become an alternative “normal” focal length, this class has contracted down to one fixed focal length, 28mm. Useful as a do-anything lens (especially for street and art photography, photojournalism, faux photojournalism, and environmental portraits) where a wide “look” is desired, and/or to complement a 50mm main lens, and/or for pressing into service in place of a super-wide when the photographer does not own same.

Shift lenses: Buildings. Used for the overcorrection of convergence caused by perspective.

Ditto, but with tilt: Ditto above, plus landscapes with tons of foreground and tables laden with food.

All-purpose 28-200mm zoom lenses: Bad snapshots. Also great for making five rolls of film last a whole year. All-purpose = no purpose.

Wide normal primes (35mm): Alternative normal. Often, the thing replaced by a zoom. Easiest focal length to shoot with. Best focal length for Leicas.

Not really "wide" by today's standards, 35mm is an alternative normal. Leica M6, 35mm pre-ASPH., Ilford XP-2.

“Pancake” Tessar-types, usually 45mm: Good for lightening the burden of photographers who would rather not carry an SLR at all.

Normal/standard (50mm): Useful for taking photographs, if you have a thick skin. When used exclusively, classic “hair shirt” lens for disciplining oneself needlessly. Strangely, when in skilled hands, can mimic moderate wide angles as well as short telephotos. According to one far Eastern expert, lower yield of usable shots than 35mm lens, but higher yield of great shots. Second best focal length for a Leica.

Standard 55–58mm: Shows you use a really, really old camera. [Like us? rb]

Macros/micros: Flowers, bugs, eyeballs, eyelashes, small products, tchotchkes. Dew-covered spider webs, frost patterns on windowpanes. Great hobby lenses, as macro photographers are among the only happy photo enthusiasts. Also much utilized by photography buffs who like to test lenses.

Superfast normals (ƒ/1, ƒ/1.2): Used for people who like limited depth of field, as well as for people who like to complain about limited depth of field. Also, especially when aspherical elements are involved, an effective way to vaporize excess cash for almost no good reason.

Standard zooms (35-70mm, 28-105mm, 35-135mm, etc.): Used for taking pictures in bright light—mainly snapshots, scenics, cars, travel pictures, semi-naked women, underexposed pictures, and pictures blasted by uncontrolled on-camera flash. Evidently very useful for clichés. Sometimes used to remove interchangeability feature from interchangeable-lens cameras.

Fast medium zooms: For pros, bread-and-butter lenses. For amateurs, often left at home rather than lugged around all day. If very expensive, big, and heavy, may be almost as good and almost as fast at any given focal length as cheap fixed primes. Good for making both hobbyists and their portrait subjects feel self-conscious.

Short teles (75, 77, 80, 85, 90, 100, or 105mm): Portraits, tight landscapes, headshots, beauty and glamor. In skilled hands, can be used for general and art photography, photojournalism. Essential.

135mm prime: Little owned, less used. Became a standard 35mm focal length when rangefinders were the main camera type because it’s the longest focal length that is feasible on a rangefinder. Now vestigial, like a male’s nipples.

Fast 180mm or 200mm prime: Longest general use lens for photojournalism. Sports, beauty, auto races, surveillance in film noire.

Slow 180mm or 200mm prime: Lightweight and easy to carry. May project a certain “image,” i.e. that you are poor or cheap.

Standard telephoto zoom (70 or 80 to 180, 200, or 210): Whether slow or fast, indispensable for most photographers, amateur or pro. Used for all kinds of action, activity, fashion, portrait, headshot, reportage, sports, wildlife, landscape, and nature photography. Covers all the telephoto range most photographers ever need, at least until they become afflicted by the terrible urge to photograph birds.

IS (Canon) or VR (Nikon) standard telephoto zoom: Same as above, but for photographers who drink lotsa coffee and/or do crank.

Fast 300mm: Fashion, catalog, runway, sports, nature, air shows. Important lens for pros, also for nature photographers. Tough for amateurs unless shooting surreptitious faces in crowds or critters. Status symbol. As fashion, looks grand when accessorizing a photo vest.

Super-telephoto zooms (to 300mm or more on long end): For adjusting FOV when standpoint is constrained. Replaces several heavy primes. Sometimes pressed into service by amateurs who have burr up ass about having all focal lengths “covered.”

400mm: Critters, sports, and birds. Landscapes, if you’re a nut. Also good for photographing football games when you don’t want the picture to show a dang thing about what’s going on.

500mm: Critters and birds. Money laundering: can be bought and sold to placate wife about questionable expenses. “But I sold one of my lenses to pay for it, honey, honest.”

600mm: Critters.

1200mm: No known uses.

- Mike Johnston
 
Last edited:
Seriously, he has described the 40mm as the perfect focal length for him (Oddly, it is not in his list). Despite this, his favorite lens is a 50mm Pentax. He also feels that the 35mm (not the 40??) is the perfect focal length for a Leica.

What was the question again?
 
I've seen this list before. He's certainly got his tongue firmly in cheek, but with a hefty dose of realism tossed in as well.

My only disagreement is minor. The 135mm lens has more utility than he gives credit. I learned photography on an SLR, and I use my 135mm more than most rangefinder shooters because the long lens is one of my favorite styles. With cropping as necessary, it substitutes for the old 70-210 zoom. Also, even with an SLR, the 135 can be a great option just because it's so small and light compared to the 180mm or 200mm alternative.
 
jan normandale said:
alrighty then... so what did he say he liked again?? Just asking.

Jan

35mm, 50mm, and short tele (70-105mm) primes. I happen to agree.

I believe the piece was meant to be funny and sarcastic, and to illustrate a remarkable lack of humor among stuffed shirts with favorite/expensive 'sacred cow' lenses.

I also find that a short/normal zoom on my DSLR is quite useful for travel. 28-80, despite being gored by his wit on that topic. [shrug] So what? [/shrug]

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
VinceC said:
I've seen this list before. He's certainly got his tongue firmly in cheek, but with a hefty dose of realism tossed in as well.

My only disagreement is minor. The 135mm lens has more utility than he gives credit. I learned photography on an SLR, and I use my 135mm more than most rangefinder shooters because the long lens is one of my favorite styles. With cropping as necessary, it substitutes for the old 70-210 zoom. Also, even with an SLR, the 135 can be a great option just because it's so small and light compared to the 180mm or 200mm alternative.

I also value my 135's. Got a small army of them, due to GAS attacks and the fact that everybody made 'em and few want 'em.

Funny thing to me is that even the people who 'get' the humor lose the smile when their pet lens gets gored. People are so emotionally invested in their equipment and their choices.

Whatever, I'm happy with my choices and don't care who likes 'em.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
I dunno. I didn't really lose my smile with his very telling observations about the 135. One of the reasons I like it is because it's everyone else's castoff and is priced accordingly. I've always had a soft spot for orphans.
 
Hilarious post, thanks for bringing it to our attention! Having lived the "I only use one camera and a 50mm lens" hair-shirt lifestyle I had a good laugh.

Speaking for myself, although I'm sure I'm not alone in this, most of my reasons for recently going from SLR to RF were covered here (unintentionally?)

1. Zooms never look as good as primes and defeat much of the purpose of an interchangeable lens mount
2. Fast lenses are smaller, cheaper and better when you leave the SLR world
3. Ultra-wide, wide, normal and short-tele are the easiest lens to take great pictures with, and generally the best of these are found for RFs

In this digital age when the body you use is of ever greater importance (the madness!) it's interesting to realize that the lenses you want/need can be enough to drive some of us to a totally different kind of camera.

Now if only I could afford a bunch of fast Leica lenses...

Brad
 
VinceC said:
I dunno. I didn't really lose my smile with his very telling observations about the 135. One of the reasons I like it is because it's everyone else's castoff and is priced accordingly. I've always had a soft spot for orphans.

Hey, I'm with you! But have you not noticed that no one seems to care to be told what others think about their choice in lenses, unless that person agrees with them and praises their choice? Go, lemmings, go.

It applies to everything photographic. Here's an example...

A few years back, Sigma started selling their SD9 DSLR with the much-maligned Foveon chip. The criticism of the Sigma was rapid and stinging. One of the 'major faults' of the camera was the fact that it only saved files in 'raw' mode. Raw was too slow. Raw was wasteful of memory space. Raw was not necessary. Raw required the use of Sigma's software to decode the proprietary format, so no downloading directly to printers or viewing on the TV.

Flash forward a couple of years. Now, people are starting to catch on that the various raw formats, although awkward and proprietary, solve a lot of problems, notably with white level setting and the absence of jpeg compression artifacting. People are starting to do a lot of their 'best' shooting in raw formats and converting later. Raw is hot, raw is great. Everybody who shoots 'serious' digital shoots raw.

But mention that just a few years ago, they ripped Sigma a new one for sticking to the raw format, and it's like someone waved a small turd under their nose. No sense of humor, no comments, just pursed lips and angry expressions and an abrupt change of subject. (Watch - someone will jump in now and mention everything ELSE that the Sigma DSLRs sucked at, like the 'raw' criticism never existed at all.)

It's the same for lenses. Like you, I make my own decisions. Hey, sometimes the 'common wisdom' is right - but more often, people buy what everyone says is great because everyone says it is great. Then they say it is great too - when chances are, they would not know the best from the worst by their usual critical method, which is mostly squinting at a fuzzy 4x6 print.

But I'll stop now - chances are, I've made someone mad again.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
For classic SLR's, good 28/2.8's, fast 50's (under f2) and sharp 135/2.8's seem very easy and cheap to come by. 35's & 75-105 primes are harder to come by, not very hard, but just seems less available or not cheap... thank goodness for m42 J9's.

On classic RF's, 35's, 50's & 85's seems the most common, cheap and mostly good too, of course mostly thanks to FSU glass for Kiev & LTM. I seem to notice that 135's are even _more_ ignored by RF users than SLR users, probably because of the need for aux finders, parallax etc.

I personally find his comments on wides and ultra-wides to be very true. I'm trying to learn how to use/see with 24mm and wider lenses.

500, 600 and 1200 are all good for birds. I use a DSLR w/ a 500mm, and I'm constantly cropping down to 1/4 frame or less, so I'm cropping down to a 1200mm FOV quite often. Of course, I can't possibly justify the cost. The Canon 1200/5.6 is in the $100,000 range but mind you a Russian 1000/10 is in the $100 range 🙂.
 
MJ's articles have always been good reading. He is very opinionated, but that is a nice change from the reviews you see in most (US) photo magazines. Sadly, SMP is now gone, and my local Barnes and Noble seems to have stopped importing B/W Photography.
 
A witty, funny presentation, IMO. He spoofs a lot of gassy photographers who reckon they're the only ones who really "get it". Taken the right way, it's actually very funny.

I personally don't think any one needs to "defend" their choice of optics. If you want to shoot distant subjects with an 8mm fisheye lens and then explain what can't actually be seen when you show the pictures to someone, that's fine with me.

Use what you have and enjoy the experience. That's all the reason you need.

Walker
 
Kin Lau said:
500, 600 and 1200 are all good for birds. I use a DSLR w/ a 500mm, and I'm constantly cropping down to 1/4 frame or less, so I'm cropping down to a 1200mm FOV quite often. Of course, I can't possibly justify the cost. The Canon 1200/5.6 is in the $100,000 range but mind you a Russian 1000/10 is in the $100 range 🙂.

I just "won" an MTO-500mm f/8 mirror lens on ebay and sent the money yesterday. It's in "excellent" condition with four filters, an M42 mount and in a fitted wooden case...... all for $77 + $15 shipping. I already have the 1000mm MTO f/10 lens and it's quite sharp. Most dealers want a whole lot more for either lens than they cost on ebay and they're actually a bargain.

Walker
 
>>If you want to shoot distant subjects with an 8mm fisheye lens and then explain what can't actually be seen when you show the pictures to someone, that's fine with me.<<

One of my favorite travel pix is my "unParis" shot. I've never been to central Paris but once found myself on the ring motorway surrounding the city and, using my 50mm lens, snapped a shot of the Eiffel Tower from about seven miles away.
 
doubs43 said:
I just "won" an MTO-500mm f/8 mirror lens on ebay and sent the money yesterday. It's in "excellent" condition with four filters, an M42 mount and in a fitted wooden case...... all for $77 + $15 shipping. I already have the 1000mm MTO f/10 lens and it's quite sharp. Most dealers want a whole lot more for either lens than they cost on ebay and they're actually a bargain.

Walker

I have the 500/8, and it's very sharp. Contrast is so-so, and the bokeh is an acquired taste 🙂, but it was my main birding lense until the Sigma 170-500.
 
In the '80s and early '90s, the 500 mirror lenses were very common with photojournalists and the awards photos were filled with "donut-ring" bokeh. I suspect the lenses fell out of favor with digital SLRs and the 1.5 crop factor.
 
Back
Top Bottom