Dawid Loubser
Member
As a bit of a "side project" I have been limiting myself to a single focal length and aperture for about six months now quite regularly. This is possibly the most boring combination imaginable: 50mm and f/3.5.
"Limiting myself", in that the lens goes no faster than this, I almost never stop it down, and I ain't getting another lens for my Leica M3. "Personal Endurance", as in, how far can I really go with this combination?
All output is printed in the darkroom, so naturally the volumes are low, but it's extremely interesting to note how versatile this combination really is. It may even be the most versatile fixed focal length and aperture possible: Based purely on Camera-->Subject-->Background distance, one can either get very decent subject isolation, or very deep depth of field. Take for example these images, which I remind the viewer, have all been shot at 50mm f/3.5:
Roderick
Mousse Beam
Cowboy Passenger
Streaks in the bottom level
Few are particularly impressive resolution-wise (have to use slow hand-held shutter speeds indoors with this combination) but, if any of you are feeling in a rut, I challenge you to find your slowest 50mm lens, and shoot with it exclusively, also perhaps with one film speed, for a couple of months. Think about it, for hand-held use (with a Leica M body, you can go pretty slow), it means you can only photograph in light that suit shutter speeds between 1/15s or so to 1/1000s. Still, that's around seven stops - it covers most situations you'll encounter, and B&W film's insane dynamic range will have to cover the rest.
For most of this "personal challenge", I have been using Kodak TMY2-400 (amazing stuff). For the last roll, I switched to Ilford Pan F+, but with this particular combination will not be repeating it once the roll is done. ISO50 is just too slow for f/3.5 - it's much better in my Olympus OM gear where I have f/2.0 from 21mm through 250mm. ISO400 is much more workable, and on a 12x16in print, TMY2-400 appears just as grainless as Pan F (what an achievement!) - even though few films have the exquisite tone/contrast curve of Pan F.
I know many rangefinder aficionados (of which I am not one) will rather recommend a 35mm f/2.0 or something, but a 50/3.5 suits my needs and vision (and camera!) better.
P.S. How many lenses do you have that takes 27mm filters? This is an extremely compact (collapsible) lens, jewel-like, but with terrible ergonomics: http://cschu.redirectme.net:443/mirrored/cameraquest/www.cameraquest.com/jpg6/VC10153.jpg
"Limiting myself", in that the lens goes no faster than this, I almost never stop it down, and I ain't getting another lens for my Leica M3. "Personal Endurance", as in, how far can I really go with this combination?
All output is printed in the darkroom, so naturally the volumes are low, but it's extremely interesting to note how versatile this combination really is. It may even be the most versatile fixed focal length and aperture possible: Based purely on Camera-->Subject-->Background distance, one can either get very decent subject isolation, or very deep depth of field. Take for example these images, which I remind the viewer, have all been shot at 50mm f/3.5:
Roderick
Mousse Beam
Cowboy Passenger
Streaks in the bottom level
Few are particularly impressive resolution-wise (have to use slow hand-held shutter speeds indoors with this combination) but, if any of you are feeling in a rut, I challenge you to find your slowest 50mm lens, and shoot with it exclusively, also perhaps with one film speed, for a couple of months. Think about it, for hand-held use (with a Leica M body, you can go pretty slow), it means you can only photograph in light that suit shutter speeds between 1/15s or so to 1/1000s. Still, that's around seven stops - it covers most situations you'll encounter, and B&W film's insane dynamic range will have to cover the rest.
For most of this "personal challenge", I have been using Kodak TMY2-400 (amazing stuff). For the last roll, I switched to Ilford Pan F+, but with this particular combination will not be repeating it once the roll is done. ISO50 is just too slow for f/3.5 - it's much better in my Olympus OM gear where I have f/2.0 from 21mm through 250mm. ISO400 is much more workable, and on a 12x16in print, TMY2-400 appears just as grainless as Pan F (what an achievement!) - even though few films have the exquisite tone/contrast curve of Pan F.
I know many rangefinder aficionados (of which I am not one) will rather recommend a 35mm f/2.0 or something, but a 50/3.5 suits my needs and vision (and camera!) better.
P.S. How many lenses do you have that takes 27mm filters? This is an extremely compact (collapsible) lens, jewel-like, but with terrible ergonomics: http://cschu.redirectme.net:443/mirrored/cameraquest/www.cameraquest.com/jpg6/VC10153.jpg