One M body One Lens...

M

moreammo

Established
Local time
3:31 AM
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
139
So last week i posted asking about what i should do to stick with two lens... which ones yada yada... i made a different decision. sold both of those (a couple Zeiss lenses) and got a good used 50 Cron. i think i'm going to shoot with one lens and one body for at least a year, maybe next year i'll change it out for 28 or something... any one done this; doing this?

sounds intriguing, so i'm going to give it a try.
 
Good luck with your endeavour.

Personally, I choose not to limit myself with arbitrary restrictions.
 
My walk around/always have it with me camera is a 50 cron collapsable on an M2 body.

Certainly works for me. When I have a photo assignment, I may use a different camera and combination. But I really like having one "trusty" camera and lens combo that I have with me all the time.

And eons ago, when I was first learning photography, for the first couple of years all I had was a Canon TX with a 50mm f1.8 lens. Never felt restricted. Also had a "two feet zoom". When I wanted to go telephoto, I walked closer, when I wanted to go wide, I walked further away.

Best,
-Tim
 
I say do it - Getting comfortable with 1 focal length will enable you to make way better photographs than having other lengths available 'just because'.

With me it's a 35mm lens.
 
All I can afford is a M6 with a 50 cron, so yeah I do it. Pretty much every camera I've had has had a 50 on it or was fixed like a my rolleiflex tlr. Just do it and don't worry. Though I've never seen the need to make a rule against getting another lens, just no money!
 
For quite a few years, the only lenses I had were a collapsible Summicron and a 28. The 50 was the one I used the most, by far. Now I have far too many lenses, but all I usually carry is a 50 and a 24. It's surprising how much zooming you can do with your feet.
 
Different focal lengths allow one to achieve the framing (subject size) one wants, with the perspective (relationship between foreground, mid ground, and background elements) one wants. Limiting oneself to a single focal length is useful for learning purposes, but it places restrictions on ones control over image elements. Zooming with ones feet does not replace the control given by different focal lengths.

I'm by no means trying to talk anyone out of doing what they want to do, such as limiting themselves to a single lens, I'm just explaining why I don't, and why zooming with ones feet is not a satisfactory solution for me when I want complete control over the picture elements.
 
I shoot M2 and DR Cron most of the time, sometimes I shoot my other M2 with Elmar 50mm f/2.8 when I need different speed (3200).
It's fun. It's discipline. It's fun.
I say do it!
 
i like the one camera one lens thing in theory...but for real life i would want at least 2 lenses.
i am liking the 25 more and more and finding it easier to use. same with the 50...never a favourite but really growing on me lately.
 
My goal is about understanding the one focal length. getting to the point where i "see" that focal length... so 50mm should be easy to achieve :) I am hoping that by simplifying my M system down to a single body and lens i will get to know those two very well... Mind you i am talking about my rangefinder, the camera i carry with me. i still have a Canon system for "work" photos; i use quotes because i am not a pro, but i am working on it :)
 
Since I've started my photographic project (as I wrote in the related topic "One camera one lens dear diary") I'm sticking to my Leica M2 and summicron 40c filed down to show 35mm framelines for the next 11 months al least.
 
Never something I tried intentionally, but for about 6 months a while back, I shot only with my M6 & a 50mm. Personally, for myself do not seeing as shooting with one lens for a year that restrictive, as long as I can choose the lens. Should be an interesting year for you, constraints can often be creative fuel.
 
FrankS said:
Good luck with your endeavour.

Personally, I choose not to limit myself with arbitrary restrictions.
Click to expand...

Well, sacrifice should always be in pursuit of a goal. No point sacrificing if you feel there is nothing worthwhile to gain from it.
 
FrankS said:
I'm just explaining why I don't, and why zooming with ones feet is not a satisfactory solution for me when I want complete control over the picture elements.
Click to expand...

Frank,

All excellent points, but much of it depends on what type of photography you do. If and when I am working in a studio, I use the focal length lens that gives me the perspective, etc. that I (or more likely my client) want. I would certainly not shoot landscape with a telephoto. So there are specific focal lengths that are needed, or at least desired, for different types of shooting.

I am a documentary photographer by desire (the other stuff pays the bills) and I have found that very few documentary photos that I admire, were in any way effected by the focal length of the lens used to take them. It's all about being there, connecting with the subject, experiencing what is going on, and recording that on film (or digital). I want my camera/lens to be an extension of myself and as unobtrusive as possible, which is one of the reasons I use a Leica M. Changing lenses to get different focal lengths completely intrudes on a moment and completely takes my focus off where it supposed to be, the subject.

Best,
-Tim
 
moreammo said:
So last week i posted asking about what i should do to stick with two lens... which ones yada yada... i made a different decision. sold both of those (a couple Zeiss lenses) and got a good used 50 Cron. i think i'm going to shoot with one lens and one body for at least a year, maybe next year i'll change it out for 28 or something... any one done this; doing this?

sounds intriguing, so i'm going to give it a try.
Click to expand...

I shot with nothing but a 50 from 1998 up until last year, when I added a 35, but I still love the look of the 50mm pictures, so I use both quite a bit. Remember that the vast majority of the iconic pictures of the 20th century were made with a "normal" lens.
 
Since I use a IIIf which has the Leica thread mount it is time consuming to change lenses and finders and therefore I rarely change lenses. And in any case, I almost never carry more than a 50 and a 28 with me.

When not traveling I only use the 50 but have the 28 tucked away just in case I have to use it - such as an "all in" in an interior. When traveling, the 28 is on the camera and the 50 is tucked away just in case - such as for a portrait although it is rarely used.
 
Timmyjoe said:
I would certainly not shoot landscape with a telephoto.
Click to expand...
Why? So your distant subject can be lost in a 90*FOV of nothingness? If your subject lends its self to a longer lens use it! Far too many people follow the guideline of "wides for landscapes" too rigidly and wind up with photos that are full of nothing when a closer view of the actual subject would be beneficial. Or worse they miss the shot altogether when standing in front of a scene that is emotionally moving because they cant figure out how to capture it with the wide angle lens like the rules said to.

As penance for making such a silly statement you should do it. What do you have to loose? The extra baggage of preconceived notions is all I can think of. Maybe a few frames of film until you find something you like...

PS: Please don't restrict yourself to telephoto lenses in this exercise. Feel free to use a long lens with a simple optical design. In fact you should use a simple lens as penance for abusing the term telephoto, but I'l let it slide if you don't have one handy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom