mh2000
Well-known
This is just perhaps to start a discussion on how we shoot.
The other day I had to hang some older m43 prints. They were all taken with the Oly 17/2.8. I really like the photos a lot. It got me thinking.
Over the years I always went for a normal lens. It is always felt really easy for me to find shots with a normal lens. It is easy. Photos just seem to fall into the frame. Is that ok? Is that a reason to just keep shooting a normal lens.
Since buying the Sigma 30 last year, I've probably shot a minimum of 90% of my photos with this lens.
When I accidentally first bought into the m43 system, I did so on a whim and wasn't aware that at the time there was no normal prime available for it. Actually, it never even crossed my mind that anyone would come out with a high end system and not offer a normal lens. Anyway, I bought the 17 (was hard choice between the cheap 17 and the 20, but I ended up with the 17) and ended up doing all my shooting with the 17. I took it as a challenge and took many photos that I am proud of.
Now, with the 17mm prints on my wall, and me liking them and the perspective, it has me thinking, should I push myself to shoot my 17 more? Wondering what other people think.
The other day I had to hang some older m43 prints. They were all taken with the Oly 17/2.8. I really like the photos a lot. It got me thinking.
Over the years I always went for a normal lens. It is always felt really easy for me to find shots with a normal lens. It is easy. Photos just seem to fall into the frame. Is that ok? Is that a reason to just keep shooting a normal lens.
Since buying the Sigma 30 last year, I've probably shot a minimum of 90% of my photos with this lens.
When I accidentally first bought into the m43 system, I did so on a whim and wasn't aware that at the time there was no normal prime available for it. Actually, it never even crossed my mind that anyone would come out with a high end system and not offer a normal lens. Anyway, I bought the 17 (was hard choice between the cheap 17 and the 20, but I ended up with the 17) and ended up doing all my shooting with the 17. I took it as a challenge and took many photos that I am proud of.
Now, with the 17mm prints on my wall, and me liking them and the perspective, it has me thinking, should I push myself to shoot my 17 more? Wondering what other people think.
Use whatever gets you out the door to photograph. Honestly, I used to be really big on using one lens (35mm or 50mm) ...did it for many years. However, now I use what is best for what I want to accomplish. Now I, at the very least, leave the house with 2 focal lengths.
rbelyell
Well-known
if youre comparing 35mm to 50mm fov and are calling 50 'normal', dont! theres nothing 'normal' about 50mm vis a vis anything having to do with human vision. that it, wrongly, is considered 'normal' is an historical accident. stop paying attention to dogma and nonesense, to what others say youre 'supposed' to do, and shoot what you like. photography is not a torture test and is not judged on a universal immutable set of criteria. people strive their whole lives to find any part of any endeavor that 'just falls into place', so consider yourself lucky you have. as zen-masters say 'get out of your own way'.
tony
tony
mh2000
Well-known
HuH??? So I used the common term "normal" for the focal length of lens that I always find most comfortable and easy to shoot. Why has that triggered this argument in your mind?
Over the years, I've heard more people say that the "normal" lens is boring. Even Ansel Adams has said negative things about the FL.
Anyway, it was about getting out and experiencing life through photography and whether to go -- zen like -- with the flow of what seemed easiest or whether to push you boundaries a little. Shooting a 35mm eq. FL length lens is not a huge push for me anyway.
mh2000
Well-known
The joy of m43 is that I can carry a lot more lenses with me than I ever use. I pretty much never leave the house without my 14, 17, 30 and 45! I just almost never shoot anything other than the 30.
rbelyell
Well-known
obviously either ive misunderstood you or you me. my point was simply that you should shoot what feels natural. if you want to push yourself, push to do better with the FL that feels best, and not to push yourself out of that fl.
mh2000
Well-known
No problem!
I guess my quandery is that when I was forced to shoot my 17 (because of lack of available "normal" primes for m43) that I took a number of really good photos that because of the FL were slightly outside my comfort zone. In reviewing the photos I am seeing things that I like and that I wouldn't have captured had I owned a normal lens for the camera at the time and now I'm partially feeling I should force myself to shoot the 17 more, even though the 30 is just so easy to use. The same goes for the 45. I've taken lots of good photos with it, but when I go back to the 30 it's just a huge relief.
Maybe I'm just thinking about things too much!
rbelyell
Well-known
it sounds to me that you like the wider look better: 30 over 45 and 17 over 30. i am the same way most of the time. my suggestion is just shoot with the 17 for a month or so. the 45 is small. so maybe just bring it along with you in a coat pocket. see if you reach for it, and if so, how often and in what circumstances. make mental notes about your experiences. i think this excercize will tell you a great deal about what you really like, when and why.
biomed
Veteran
I go along with whatever lens feels the best to you. I seem to use one particular focal length for a period of time and the switch to another. My typical kit is a GX7, 14/2.5, 25/1.4 and tripod. If I am going to be out for a while the whole collection goes into the back of the car in a hard case. I do use an adapted 50mm (Voigtländer 50/1.5 or 50/2.5) and a Voigtländer 75/2.5 quite often. I have looked at the Sigma 60, but have never really considered purchasing it.
Mike
Mike