One Lens and Leica theory

[robertcambab]

I am considering the proposal of the one lens, a Leica and one type of film for a year theory. I currently have a voigtlander 75mm and 25 mm and a jupiter III 50mm all in use on my Leica IIIf . I would think the 50mm would be the most versatile lens for the period (I will have a thrash for 6 months though - not a year as suggested) and think B&W may be the best choice of film. I would be interested if anyone else has tried this and what comments they may have regards the choices listed.

 

[Roger Hicks]

When I was 19, I got my first Leica, a IIIa with a 50/3,5. I couldn't afford another lens. For much of my university career, therefore, I had, yes, a Leica and one lens, though it was later supplemented by a 90/4. I shot a mixture of FP3 (I got 800 feet of outdated film free) and slides.

I also owned a Pentax with a standard lens and a zoom. I used them very little (too inconvenient to carry, compared with the IIIa) but I did use them occasionally: I wasn't being doctrinare about it. For that matter, I also used a Minolta 16 sometimes.

Which is why I think the 'one Leica, one lens' idea is bloody awful advice. If it comes naturally to take most of your pictures that way, as it did to me, then do it. Otherwise, forcing yourself to live someone else's fantasy is about as feeble an idea as I have ever heard in my entire life.

Whatever happens, don't be doctrinaire about it, and don't agonize about it. Worrying about something else -- anything else, especially something you don't have to worry about -- is a short cut to bad pictures.

Today, I have several Leicas and several lenses. Sure, I could live with one body and a 35mm lens. For decades, the vast majority of my pictures were taken with one body and one lens (though I used other bodies and lenses when I saw fit). But going to one body and one lens wouldn't teach me a damn' thing now, because I've already had access to other kit.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

I guess the best known "one camera, one lens" pro is David Harvey. It was a Leica with a 35mm (and rarely a 28mm). But, according to Harvey, his choice was purely practical. He was shooting everything with Kodachrome (a very slow film), and having to shoot wide open most of the time, so the fast 35mm lens gave him the lens speed he needed wide open with more apparent DOF than a longer lens, which he also needed.

I say that to note that most "iconic" shooters who went the one camera, one lens route were doing it more out of practical necessity rather than philosophical purity. 🙂

 

[damien.murphy]

Depends on if it works for you, I suspect. A lot of people shoot well with just a single camera and lens, others prefer to use a variety of kit.

Shooting with just a 50mm lens for a year would not be a big stretch for me as I'm a 50mm shooter in the main, as things are, but find it would limit some of the fun of photography for me. I do see the benefit of spending extended amounts of time with your kit until it almost becomes second nature, however, and usually only take one body and lens out with me when shooting.

This has been a great way for me to learn the kit I use, and can for example approximate with decent accuracy what my 50mm will frame without having to bring the camera to my eye.

 

[jordanstarr]

...It depends on the type of photographer you are and what you're doing. I think the "one lens, one camera" theory is great for photographers who are shooting street and want to be discrete and light-weight so they can be as invisible as they can, taking the most natural photos they can of people who don't notice the photographer or pass them off as "just a tourist".

Fortunately I've had the experience of meeting one great photographer and printmaster who uses a Leica M6 with a Summilux 35mm f1.4 for all of his work and has for over a decade and that's it. For him it works because he shoots almost exclusively street photography. It's amazing what you can do with just one lens when you "master it". A 35mm in the right hands can be a 28mm or a 50mm lens. Subsequently, a 28mm in the right hands can make 24mm-35mm photos, a 50mm lens can do 35mm-65mm shots and so on. (don't get technical on me about focal length science, I've simply observed the different "effects" one can get from one lens on full frame, uncropped prints).


Personally, I've never been a fan of telephoto lenses and the ultra-wide shots I get rarely make my portfolio. So, I have these long and short lenses that never get used. I've started thinning out the heard because it makes sense with my style of photography. I use a 35 and 50mm lens for 99% of my work on a 35mm rangefinder or SLR. I have a 21 and 28mm that rarely see the light.

HOWEVER, I couldn't imagine being a landscape/nature photographer with just one camera, one lens, especially when you can learn how to use various ones effectively. It might help if one wants to travel light, but an extra lens is hardly a pain. Different lenses and cameras add different elements of complexity to photography, which can make it more interesting in a sense.

But, some of the best photographers I've ever seen take one or two lenses and one body in favor of mastering one system, to think and visualize in terms of just that one lens.

 

[lawrence]

Restricting yourself to one camera and one lens can be good if you are trying to narrow down your work to a particular style. Using many different focal lengths in a series of photographs that can be quite disruptive but if I were to restrict myself to a single lens it would be 35mm rather than 50mm. Personally I think you should try it.

 

[damien.murphy]

Exactly.
A one camera/one lens exercise can be a fundamental experience for learning your gear and training your eye, for a beginner.

It can also be useful exercise for experienced shooters getting lost with too much gear, a "getting back to basics".

True, but more than just a learning/ de-cluttering tool, it can also be a preferred way of working too, at least personally speaking. A single M and lens for me allows me to focus more on what I'm shooting, than if I had the option of a number of focal lengths, or another camera, which I find a distraction for my shooting.

I use a 35 and 50mm lens for 99% of my work on a 35mm rangefinder or SLR.

Interestingly, I find the same for my own style of shooting, with most of my shooting revolving around the middle focal lengths.

 

[Ronald M]

Along with Roger, I had a fixed lens Waltz Envoy in college. Drove me bonkers. Within a month of graduation I was the proud owner of a Pentax Spotmatic kit with more than 6 lenses and even more later.

Later came Leicas, then RB67, then 4x5 Zone 6, and finally digital Nikons. Full sets of lens for them all naturally.

Yesterday took a walk in the fall woods with a Nikon D3, 60 2.8 and 35 4.0 PC adapted from Leica. That it.

When I carry Leica, it is a 50 2.8 last version and maybe a 35 version 4 and 90 4.0 current. Small and light being the key.

Looking back, I did quite well with a 50 only in college and appreciate it even more today. Too much gear and you get burdened. Zooms are for non thinkers.

Some swear by 35 mm, but that is not my vision. It is however my first pick of a wide lens.

35/50/90 is the best kit in the world. F1.4, 2.0, 2.8 depending on light you will encounter.

 

[dee]

I started with a fixed lens camera , then my 70s SLR with 50mm .
I never got on with a zoom , but did buy a 35mm and 135 mm- classic 'set ' at the time .

I bought my M8 and a CV 35 Color Scopar and enjoyed the challenge of just that one viewpoint .[ not that far from 50mm on the M8 ]

Not sure that I would like to do this everyday though !

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Actually, a zoom on a DSLR is a good way to find out what you are about focal length wise. Being a newspaper shooter, the standard 24-70 2.8 is on the DSLR much of the time, but when I look at the EXIF data over time, most of my photos were actually shot right around 50mm with the zoom. Not surprising, since that is what I shoot when I shoot primes on other cameras.

 

[xxloverxx]

I shot for half a year with a 50mm, a few months with a 35 then back to 50.

It's not too hard for me, as I mostly carry 1 camera and 1 lens with me for day-to-day shooting…even on vacation, I avoid taking a lot.

I find I can "see" in 50mm and wider, but very rarely longer. Not sure why — maybe my reaction's so slow that the subject's right in front of me before I realise it!

That I shoot with 1 lens is not only a choice, but a necessity —*I don't have any other focal length! (yet)

If I were doing what you're considering doing, I'd give you this advice: "try" (need to be careful with how I phrase this) to shoot with 50mm most of the time, but do not hesitate to switch to another FL if you get the urge to.
I don't really want to use the word "try", because I believe that, if you have the choice, take it. Some people will disagree with me, but IMO it's better to get the photo, doing whatever's needed, than not to get the photo but to live/suffer with the thought that "you tried and at least you didn't break any rules."

So if you're going to try it, start the day with a 50mm, but carry another lens with you (but "forget" about it — just don't think about it)

 

[John Lawrence]

I posted my feelings about this when this subject last came up. They're pretty much identical to those expressed by Roger Hicks.

John

 

[gravityassault]

Academic

Academic

I think the one camera one lens experiment is a bit too academic a discussion for people seriously interested in making pictures. If you are a photographer then your responsibility is to make the picture using whatever tools you have available.

Why in the world would you want to miss a shot, or compose something in one focal length knowing it would be better in another focal length, just for the sake of 'the rules' of one lens one camera. In my opinion this type of exercise is very similar to the endless conversations on bokeh and 'what is the best 50mm lens.' The best bokeh and the best lens are the one that you own and shoot with.

Writers write, photographers make pictures. Go out and make photographs of things you're passionate about, things that move you, things that stand out to you. Give the rest of us your take on the world and your surroundings via how you compose your images. Use whatever you have at your disposal without any worry at all about what everyone else is doing or their circumstances.

 

[ebino]

the reason most famous photographers use one focal length is because it gives them a consistent look which is very important when you play at that stage.

if you keep changing camera/lenses/film/sensor/post processing style and so on like underwear your work looks all over the place. you're a butterfly, which is not a good thing to be if you're a photographer.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

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?

Sir Hillary did on Mt Everest. He used a Kodak Retina. But he is more known as an explorer than a Photographer. Retina's are inexpensive these days. If you are going to use only one lens, might as well get a fixed-lens camera.

 

[ebino]

Alex Webb almost exclusively uses 35mm and his Istanbul book as well as his work on Mexican border were shot with a 35mm.

He said this in a lecture, which I was present.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

What I also remember about Sir Hillary and Kodak cameras, seeing a Kodak advertisement featuring him using a Retina IIIc with its interchangeable front modules for a 35-50-80 combination. But he used the non-interchangeable Retina I with a tessar lens for Everest.

 

[Mcary]

the reason most famous photographers use one focal length is because it gives them a consistent look which is very important when you play at that stage.

if you keep changing camera/lenses/film/sensor/post processing style and so on like underwear your work looks all over the place. you're a butterfly, which is not a good thing to be if you're a photographer.

To bad no one told W. Eugene Smith about this, maybe if he'd stuck to one camera and lens he might of been able to develop a consistent style.

 

[lawrence]

I think the one camera one lens experiment is a bit too academic a discussion for people seriously interested in making pictures.

No need to join in then, is there?

 

[ebino]

To bad no one told W. Eugene Smith about this, maybe if he'd stuck to one camera and lens he might of been able to develop a consistent style.

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