JohnM
Well-known
If I can get all of you to swear that you will not buy another piece of a camera equipment for the rest of the year, I will be able to roll through the used camera market like a tsunami. I got a "WTB" list a mile long and you folks are just in my way!
So, let's light this rocket - everyone pledge to make do with what you have until I'm good and ready for you to re-enter the marketplace. Who's first?!
So, let's light this rocket - everyone pledge to make do with what you have until I'm good and ready for you to re-enter the marketplace. Who's first?!
R
RML
Guest
Not me. I'm going to a large photography market here in Holland tomorrow. Maybe after I've come back I'll make that pledge. 
Besides, usually I'm simply restricted by my personal finances.
Besides, usually I'm simply restricted by my personal finances.
I have one rule: if I cannot pay for it out of my "camera fund", I do not get it. i will part with some treasures if there is something that I want bad, like the SP. Currently, the fund is good so I am locked and loaded for strafing runs at EBay and camera shows.
AndColor
Member
Photography, I believe is less about the lens and more about the eyes, hands and heart of the photographer and his/her subject. Still, a Leica lens provides ready access to all the other senses. It is a brilliant tool.
Anyone in the SF Bay Area may want to check out this site <www.fotovision.org>
They are a newly formed group of long time friends and collegues. They are doing their own classes, since UC Extension is doing less and less in applied arts. (bad sign of bad times) Anyway, I took a class with two of the people last fall and found it invaluable. Classes aren't cheap - but neither is film and processing. For less than the price of a new lens...
Anyone in the SF Bay Area may want to check out this site <www.fotovision.org>
They are a newly formed group of long time friends and collegues. They are doing their own classes, since UC Extension is doing less and less in applied arts. (bad sign of bad times) Anyway, I took a class with two of the people last fall and found it invaluable. Classes aren't cheap - but neither is film and processing. For less than the price of a new lens...
Last edited:
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
What happens to me is that I like to have some kind of equipment in my hands, and wonder how and where I could use it. But, overall, I believe I can take the challenge. After all, my own "camera fund" is kinda depleted...
back alley
IMAGES
camera fund?
what a great idea!
i usually just take it out of the rent money!
joe
what a great idea!
i usually just take it out of the rent money!
joe
"Take it out of the rent money" huh Joe? As an apartment operator that makes me shudder! Hey, I could just take money for camera gear out of the maintenance fund... Hmmm.
But, like Richard, I have to be good, and that means disciplined. I made a lot of acquisitions in 2003, and I do use and enjoy that gear. I was restrained over the Winter and then had a brief buying fling this Spring. That will have to be that for a while.
But my resolve is helped by my shift toward medium format. Makes it increasingly hard to justify lenses for Leicas and other 35mm gear. Then I run into a brick wall on more MF stuff because I'm well-equipped and there isn't really much else I could get in my chosen areas.
I have been thinking too of the issue Richard raised about gear acquisition as a substitute for dedication to picture taking. Amounts to trying to buy photographic success.
Then having a lot of gear means an excess of choices when it comes time to burn some film, and sometimes for gear-head reasons rather than esthetic reasons. Well, maybe that's not necessarily bad...
There were a lot of interesting public events around here today, so last night I was thinking what camera(s) and film I'd take and shoot. I just got the little Pentax 110 film wind repaired, so that would be good to test, along with the used-once 20-40 zoom. Awful tiny film though; if something's worth shooting, isn't it worth larger film? Ok, how about trying that "new" 135/3.5 for the Olympus OM? Or the CLA'd but not-yet-used Pentax 24/2.8. And I haven't used the CV 25/4 in a while, but I should work more with the 50/2.5 I just got. And on and on. For better pics, I'd surely be better off thinking of what fits the event.
There's a saying in shooting, "Beware the man with only one gun; he's likely to use it well." Probably applies to cameras too, as becoming thoroughly familiar with a limited bag, and then devoting full attention to the visual possibilities around us, is likely to be a good thing.
Of course this assumes that the esthetic side of photography is the main interest, while there are those of us for whom the gear and its history and/or inner mechanics are the focus of interest. But, oh, the budget strain!
Hey, I could just take money for camera gear out of the maintenance fund... Hmmm.But, like Richard, I have to be good, and that means disciplined. I made a lot of acquisitions in 2003, and I do use and enjoy that gear. I was restrained over the Winter and then had a brief buying fling this Spring. That will have to be that for a while.
But my resolve is helped by my shift toward medium format. Makes it increasingly hard to justify lenses for Leicas and other 35mm gear. Then I run into a brick wall on more MF stuff because I'm well-equipped and there isn't really much else I could get in my chosen areas.
I have been thinking too of the issue Richard raised about gear acquisition as a substitute for dedication to picture taking. Amounts to trying to buy photographic success.
Then having a lot of gear means an excess of choices when it comes time to burn some film, and sometimes for gear-head reasons rather than esthetic reasons. Well, maybe that's not necessarily bad...
There were a lot of interesting public events around here today, so last night I was thinking what camera(s) and film I'd take and shoot. I just got the little Pentax 110 film wind repaired, so that would be good to test, along with the used-once 20-40 zoom. Awful tiny film though; if something's worth shooting, isn't it worth larger film? Ok, how about trying that "new" 135/3.5 for the Olympus OM? Or the CLA'd but not-yet-used Pentax 24/2.8. And I haven't used the CV 25/4 in a while, but I should work more with the 50/2.5 I just got. And on and on. For better pics, I'd surely be better off thinking of what fits the event.
There's a saying in shooting, "Beware the man with only one gun; he's likely to use it well." Probably applies to cameras too, as becoming thoroughly familiar with a limited bag, and then devoting full attention to the visual possibilities around us, is likely to be a good thing.
Of course this assumes that the esthetic side of photography is the main interest, while there are those of us for whom the gear and its history and/or inner mechanics are the focus of interest. But, oh, the budget strain!
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Interesting idea. I hope you will manage to resist temptations
As a sidenote, I've found that the less often I change lenses (on an SLR), the more I like the resulting images. It does not have to be the 50mm, of course, it can be any fixed-focal. I guess i just need some time (or, actually, some frames, like 10-15)to get used to the perspective of the lens that I snap on the body.
Does anybody else have a similar feeling, or it's just me again?
As a sidenote, I've found that the less often I change lenses (on an SLR), the more I like the resulting images. It does not have to be the 50mm, of course, it can be any fixed-focal. I guess i just need some time (or, actually, some frames, like 10-15)to get used to the perspective of the lens that I snap on the body.
Does anybody else have a similar feeling, or it's just me again?
U
unfocuzed
Guest
Question about the whole 50mm deal how come they aren't favored by some? I don't know about lenses but isn't 50mm about the same as what your eyes can see. I personally got a nikon n80 with a 50mm last year for graduation and only had that for a year till it was stolen. I produced some good images and liked it a lot as i had to use my feet and frame the pictures better and not be able to zoom ina nd out and such.
Personally the 50mm idea is great and a wonderful "all around" only focal length lens to have.
Just my 2cents.
Personally the 50mm idea is great and a wonderful "all around" only focal length lens to have.
Just my 2cents.
AndColor
Member
the 50mm is my walking away favorite. I have a 75 as well, it is superb for portraits but not as versital as the 50. the 50 is much smaller too, so if you are spending a day carrying gear and shooting, the 50 is a lot less to lug around. I also think it's a more subject-friendly lens. You're not sticking a big piece of glass in someone's face, it's more subtle. A few years ago I traveled to Romainia and almost every good shot (portraits) was made w. the 50. Unless you're doing lots of architectural images, close in, a 50 is a lot of lens. IMHO.
I don't know that I would say that 50mm lenses are not favored as much as I would say that they are not used. I will venture to guess that most film SLRs are sold now as kits with normal zooms. With the kit lens covering the 50mm focal length, surely most folks don't buy a 50. Unfocuzed, like you for many years I walked around with my EOS 10s and a 50/1.8 and was very happy. I think that this is one reason why I am so satisfied using RF cameras. I don't do macro, sport or telephoto photography, so using a RF camera with excellent lenses is all that I need.
I think that in general this tread can evolve and just say " I am going to stick with one lens." Some folks favoring a 35mm lens, or any other focal length, will be saying the same thing. They have a lens that they like and are going to stick with it.
I think that in general this tread can evolve and just say " I am going to stick with one lens." Some folks favoring a 35mm lens, or any other focal length, will be saying the same thing. They have a lens that they like and are going to stick with it.
R
Rich Silfver
Guest
Rover, you're absolutely right - "Surviving with just one lens" would have been a better title for the thread. Just happened to be that mine is the 50 - others are bound to have other favorites
Walked around downtown San Francisco today running some errands - and had a Mamiya Super Deluxe camera with me (wanting to run through the film in it (the first one in it..) - but nothing really grabbed me so I came home without taking as single photo. Maybe I can survive withone ANY lens
Walked around downtown San Francisco today running some errands - and had a Mamiya Super Deluxe camera with me (wanting to run through the film in it (the first one in it..) - but nothing really grabbed me so I came home without taking as single photo. Maybe I can survive withone ANY lens
Pherdinand, I think you're right; we sorta "calibrate" our view of the world to the lens on the camera and see picture possibilities in that way without even putting the camera to the eye.
UnF, as to the normality of the 50mm, I'll suggest that enlargements shot with the 50mm (on a 35mm camera) and viewed from a comfortable distance have a normal-looking perspective for the pictured objects.
To get that same normal looking perspective, wide-angle prints should be viewed proportionately closer than that comfortable distance, and telephoto prints from farther away. But that's not so comfortable. And the consequence of not doing so means that telephoto prints appear to have compressed perspective, and wide-angle prints seem to distort objects nearer the corners and edges.
Generally, a "normal" lens has a focal length about equal to the diagonal of the negative. You can calculate the diagonal by taking the square root of the sum of the squares of the lengths of the two sides. For standard 35mm, at 24x36mm frame size, the diagonal is 43mm.
Obviously, for smaller image formats like APS, half-frame 35, and digital chips, the diagonal will be smaller, and the normal lens will be shorter. A common thing among normal lenses is that, while the focal length is different for different film/sensor sizes, its angle of view is pretty constant at around 53 degrees.
If this forum chooses to have a "50mm theme" for some month, I hope it'll be a "Normal lens" theme to include 40mm through 55mm and the equivalent angles of view for other formats than 35. That would be 80mm to 110mm for 6x7 format, for instance. Maybe if the camera has a fixed 35mm lens that should be included too.
UnF, as to the normality of the 50mm, I'll suggest that enlargements shot with the 50mm (on a 35mm camera) and viewed from a comfortable distance have a normal-looking perspective for the pictured objects.
To get that same normal looking perspective, wide-angle prints should be viewed proportionately closer than that comfortable distance, and telephoto prints from farther away. But that's not so comfortable. And the consequence of not doing so means that telephoto prints appear to have compressed perspective, and wide-angle prints seem to distort objects nearer the corners and edges.
Generally, a "normal" lens has a focal length about equal to the diagonal of the negative. You can calculate the diagonal by taking the square root of the sum of the squares of the lengths of the two sides. For standard 35mm, at 24x36mm frame size, the diagonal is 43mm.
Obviously, for smaller image formats like APS, half-frame 35, and digital chips, the diagonal will be smaller, and the normal lens will be shorter. A common thing among normal lenses is that, while the focal length is different for different film/sensor sizes, its angle of view is pretty constant at around 53 degrees.
If this forum chooses to have a "50mm theme" for some month, I hope it'll be a "Normal lens" theme to include 40mm through 55mm and the equivalent angles of view for other formats than 35. That would be 80mm to 110mm for 6x7 format, for instance. Maybe if the camera has a fixed 35mm lens that should be included too.
back alley
IMAGES
no fears folks!
i've already added 'normal lens shots' to my list of possilble projects.
as always, flexibility and acceptance will be the key and if 35 is 'your normal' then so be it.
joe
i've already added 'normal lens shots' to my list of possilble projects.
as always, flexibility and acceptance will be the key and if 35 is 'your normal' then so be it.
joe
P
Peter
Guest
Here is an article www.photo.net/mjohnston/column57/ on photo.net that outline the different focal length of the 35mm format. Note that in the article the author feels that the 35mm focal length is the best for Leica (RF) and the second best is 50mm. I used to be a 50mm person until I found that 35mm is more versatile in a rangefinder camera.
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
I normally only take one lens with me when I go shooting, If you look at my posts in the gallery you will see that when I post multiple images they are typically from the same lens. I didn't use to do that though, I would take as many SLR lenses as I could fit in my bag and still only use one or two.
When I bought my Contax IIa all I had was the 50/ 1.5 sonnar and I made do, I think it made me focus more on what I was shooting.
We have all seen what you can do with your 50 'cron Richard, I don't think you will be limiting yourself, instead you will force us to follow your lead, man I hate when you do that
So I say go for it, we will all become better by it.
Todd
When I bought my Contax IIa all I had was the 50/ 1.5 sonnar and I made do, I think it made me focus more on what I was shooting.
We have all seen what you can do with your 50 'cron Richard, I don't think you will be limiting yourself, instead you will force us to follow your lead, man I hate when you do that
So I say go for it, we will all become better by it.
Todd
K
Kris
Guest
To restrict myself to a single 50mm lens is rather impossible. I sure love to take tightly cropped portraits, stage performance, close up of objects or animals, etc on top of photos of people.
My more reasonable approach is to have only one SLR body and one RF body. No lens with the same focal length goes for the same body i.e. can't have Nokton 50/1.5 and Skopar 50/2.5 at the same time.
If I manage to sell my SP, then I really own only one SLR with 50m and a tele zoom and one RF with 35, 50 and 75. I think I can live with this combo. Well maybe throw a tilt and shift lens for architectural shots but I need to eat only cookie crumbs for months before I can afford one.
My more reasonable approach is to have only one SLR body and one RF body. No lens with the same focal length goes for the same body i.e. can't have Nokton 50/1.5 and Skopar 50/2.5 at the same time.
If I manage to sell my SP, then I really own only one SLR with 50m and a tele zoom and one RF with 35, 50 and 75. I think I can live with this combo. Well maybe throw a tilt and shift lens for architectural shots but I need to eat only cookie crumbs for months before I can afford one.
In a "debate" on another forum a member asserted that it was impossible to make a lens faster than F1.2 for the Nikon F mount because of the max size of the rear element and distance to the focal plane. The Optical Engineers at work laughed at the reasoning, and one stopped and looked at me and said "Do you want me to have one made up? I have a contract with a custom shop..."
I have constrained myself to lenses that you do not have to have custom made.
I worked in a camera shop while going through University. I ate peanut butter for months when the Nikon F2a went on the blow-out sell price and I got another 15% off. I finished school with an F2a, Photomic F, Nikkormat FT2, and lenses. Still have the cameras 25 years later.
I have constrained myself to lenses that you do not have to have custom made.
I worked in a camera shop while going through University. I ate peanut butter for months when the Nikon F2a went on the blow-out sell price and I got another 15% off. I finished school with an F2a, Photomic F, Nikkormat FT2, and lenses. Still have the cameras 25 years later.
Last edited:
GeneW
Veteran
Well, those fixed-lens RF's really force you into this 'normal lens' mode... One of the things I've really been enjoying about toting around my GIII is not having to carry or think about additional lenses. Makes for light travelling and creative seeing.
This article will be old hat to most folks on this forum, but it's a good link to send to your SLR buddies:
http://www.vothphoto.com/spotlight/articles/forgotten-lens.htm
Gene
This article will be old hat to most folks on this forum, but it's a good link to send to your SLR buddies:
http://www.vothphoto.com/spotlight/articles/forgotten-lens.htm
Gene
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Interesting thread. The 50mm for me makes me work hard to use it, not a bad thing, but I like the 35mm more for ease of use. I guess I just see wide and if I have to work at using a focal length then I might as well use an 85/90mm lens. To me the 50mm is a jack of all trades and a master at none. If you are going to use only one lens then that is a good thing. The comparison to shooting is spot on in that you soon learn how to use only one lens well no matter what focal length. Too many lenses and not enough time. That is not a complaint but a happy situation. Any lens will do really.