One Camera, One Lens?

[Sean Reid]

Chris Kresser recently wrote: "So time has been one challenge for me. The other is choice. I am one of those people, it seems, that doesn't do well with a lot of choices. I've purposely restricted myself to one DSLR and three prime lenses because of this. But even then, this still feels like too much. I've heard some photography teachers suggest an experiment of choosing only one lens and working with it for a period of time, whether a month or a year. This appeals to me very much, and I have an intuitive sense that it would be a powerful exercise."

What are people's thoughts on this?

Cheers,

Sean

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

One camera, one lens, in hand

One commenter on TOP after Mitch's article this morning pointed out that having a camera small enough to always be with him hadn't proved to be enough to get his juices and vision flowing. The camera had to be in his hand, not in a belt pouch or pocket. In the same way, having several lenses available to my mind is first of all a logistical complication. Maybe with 25+ years of newspaper photography behind me, I would have mastered by now the art of changing film while running, or of digging another lens out of a well-stuffed bag and changing lenses without losing the moment that called for the change. But my life didn't go that way, and I have never developed those skills.

Even with multiple cameras to eliminate lens-changing-- a description of Gene Smith carrying five cameras on straps of various lengths, around his neck and on both shoulders comes to mind -- most solutions to the logistics still leave the photographer looking more obvious and feeling less mobile.

I find I can choose a lens that should be right for the subject at hand but I still spend a lot of shots getting the fit between that field of view and the scene in front of me to strengthen. So I would not want to be restricted to one lens for life, but I don't want more than one for an hour, either.

scott

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Sean,

Chris has touched on a very important issue.

Chris, wherever you are!

I personally think that the easy access to a myriad of lenses damages us a photographers since we do not get to the numerous rooms of possibilities that one lens for an extended period will provide. I own a lot of lenses. However for the last 2 years 99% of all my DSLR photographs have been with one 50mm lens. It happens to be the 50 1.2 L from Canon, but previously it was the 50mm Pentax Super multicoated Takumar that I used exclusively for 5 years or the 35mm Kodak lens on the Retinette iB which was my lens for another 5 years.

If course, for fashion shoots, runway, weddings, wildlife a special zoom lens came out very often, but this was work.

I feel just using one lens is like having a wife and kids one is devoted too and gets so much back in return. One cannot get that just by being a socialite! Each aperture change and shutter speed provides a different way of writing the image on the film or sensor. With one film camera one digital rangefinder or DSLR (of any make) there is already enough creative possibility to get lost in than you ever good exhaust.

If, OTOH, you are shooting from the sidelines in a hockey game, you'll need a fast DSLR and a fast long lens.

So what is your own intent? I think only you can know that. In Tim Ashley's pictures of that grand salon with peeling walls and the old clock, lens choice with his 1DsII was very important perhaps. I do not know. The end result speaks for itself.

One thing one can do is to try it out. Shoot with just one lens for a month for your self, not for a job. Look at the images. Did it help you express what you needed to or you miss your zoom lens or having ability to switch on the fly.

One thing you are stuck with is that distance to the subject is the one thing that defines perspective. So one works within that limitation.

I wouldn't think about this, just try it out as no one has a ruler in their pocket with your own values and needs engraved on it!

Asher

Now for large landscapes I use an 8x10, but that is another matter.

 

[Sean Reid]

Hi Sean,

Chris has touched on a very important issue.

Chris, wherever you are!

I personally think that the easy access to a myriad of lenses damages us a photographers since we do not get to the numerous rooms of possibilities that one lens for an extended period will provide. I own a lot of lenses. However for the last 2 years 99% of all my DSLR photographs have been with one 50mm lens. It happens to be the 50 1.2 L from Canon, but previously it was the 50mm Pentax Super multicoated Takumar that I used exclusively for 5 years or the 35mm Kodak lens on the Retinette iB which was my lens for another 5 years.

If course, for fashion shoots, runway, weddings, wildlife a special zoom lens came out very often, but this was work.

I feel just using one lens is like having a wife and kids one is devoted too and gets so much back in return. One cannot get that just by being a socialite! Each aperture change and shutter speed provides a different way of writing the image on the film or sensor. With one film camera one digital rangefinder or DSLR (of any make) there is already enough creative possibility to get lost in than you ever good exhaust.

If, OTOH, you are shooting from the sidelines in a hockey game, you'll need a fast DSLR and a fast long lens.

So what is your own intent? I think only you can know that. In Tim Ashley's pictures of that grand salon with peeling walls and the old clock, lens choice with his 1DsII was very important perhaps. I do not know. The end result speaks for itself.

One thing one can do is to try it out. Shoot with just one lens for a month for your self, not for a job. Look at the images. Did it help you express what you needed to or you miss your zoom lens or having ability to switch on the fly.

One thing you are stuck with is that distance to the subject is the one thing that defines perspective. So one works within that limitation.

I wouldn't think about this, just try it out as no one has a ruler in their pocket with your own values and needs engraved on it!

Asher

Now for large landscapes I use an 8x10, but that is another matter.

I think that's a good idea, even if one starts out trying it for a day, then a week, etc.

With the hockey game, I think it depends on what kind of picture one is making. I'd tend to shoot with an RF camera and a 28 or 35.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Per Ofverbeck]

Chris Kresser recently wrote: "So time has been one challenge for me. The other is choice. I am one of those people, it seems, that doesn't do well with a lot of choices. I've purposely restricted myself to one DSLR and three prime lenses because of this. But even then, this still feels like too much. I've heard some photography teachers suggest an experiment of choosing only one lens and working with it for a period of time, whether a month or a year. This appeals to me very much, and I have an intuitive sense that it would be a powerful exercise."

What are people's thoughts on this?

Cheers,

Sean

Well, first of all i think this is very individual. Looking at other artists, we find some like Mondriaan who restrict their means of expression to the utmost; then others like Picasso who kept using several different "cameras" throughout his entire career. Photography is no different, really; every one has to define his/her own photography, and these will all be different (thankfully....).

As for carrying one camera with one lens, I tried that for many years before digital: a submini Tessina, a Leica IIIG with collapsible Elmar, even a Rollei TLR, and I always longed for the lenses left back home (and the results showed it, I´m afraid).

Then came digital, and after a couple of false starts I got a Canon G3 with a good zoom; a camera I could carry all the time, and that could do different fields of view, even macro. I have to say that my entire output improved immensely, and I sold everything else. A Digilux 2 replaced the Canon, and it remains my favourite (I do own a Nikon D200 and recently bought a Dlux 3) to this day.

I acknowledge the wisdom of setting the zoom to one focal length that fits the situation, and to leave it there while exploring the possibilities (the Digilux is very suitable for that; one can set the focal length even with the camera turned off) instead of just zooming away from where you happen to stand, but I do want to have the options available when I really need them.

As I said at first, this is individual, and I´m not suggesting that my approach is by any means the best one for anyone else. My point is just that one should try different approaches and find the preferred one. And if it happens to be different from others, so be it. Your IMAGES should be different from other people´s, why not your toolbox?

 

[Asher Kelman]

Per,

Those Canon G3 digicams apart from some correctable chromatic aberration at the wide end were marvelous and even now a great find.

 

[Per Ofverbeck]

Per,

Those Canon G3 digicams apart from some correctable chromatic aberration at the wide end were marvelous and even now a great find.

Indeed they were, and the articulated screen allowed many shot from unusual angles. Never felt like "upgrading" it to any newer Canon G, but once I saw the Digilux I was sold...

But my G3 stays in my cupboard; not for sale....

 

[Tim Ashley]

Per,

Those Canon G3 digicams apart from some correctable chromatic aberration at the wide end were marvelous and even now a great find.

Asher, how very true. I still own one and use it from time to time. Everything about it is great apart from its IQ which is now starting to look its age but with a bit of tweaking...yum

If Sigma (or Canon) would make a camera with the G3's form factor and feature set, no shutter lag and the DP1's sensor I'd be one happy bunny...

Here's an old G3 shot:

I really really loved travelling with that camera and nothing else!

Best

Tim

 

[Sean Reid]

Per,

Those Canon G3 digicams apart from some correctable chromatic aberration at the wide end were marvelous and even now a great find.

Hi Asher,

My daughter has done a lot of work with a little Canon G2 that's been wonderful. I like it better than the G9, in some respects.

Cheers.

Sean

 

[Chris Kresser]

Hi everyone,

I just realized I wasn't subscribed to the three threads when they got split up. I've missed some interesting discussion!

All of your comments are right on. Of course this question is very personal, in that it depends largely on the preferences and needs of the photographer. I agree that being restricted to one lens indefinitely isn't necessarily a good idea; on the other hand, I bet that photographer would produce some amazing images after 20 years of working with the same lens.

My wife's first few lessons with one of her early piano teachers consisted of playing one note over and over again. It drove her absolutely nuts, but her sensitivity and expression increased dramatically after that. Why? Because she experienced firsthand how much even one note of music can say with the the right quality of attention.

Of course she didn't go on playing that single note forever. It was useful as an exercise, as a means to an end. This is part of what inspired me to consider the "single lens" exercise. Something I just know about myself by now is that too many choices can be a distraction. I'm not saying everyone shares this affliction, but I suffer from it for better or worse.

Right now I have a 5D with a 35/2 and 100/2. I use the 100 for portraits, and the 35 for almost everything else. So it's not like I'm drowning in lenses.

Lately I've been thinking of buying a GRD or GX100 (see the pocket cameras thread), and shooting exclusively with the compact for a period of time. Even if I got the GX100, I'd restrict myself to a particular focal length (probably 35) and get an optical viewfinder for that FL. This would satisfy my desire to try the "single lens" exercise for a period of time, and also address another desire I stated in the original post - to have a camera I can take everywhere with me.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Chris,

You 5D setup is great! The 35mm length was often one of two standard lengths for Leica shooters, that and 45-50mm. The 50mm lens is often ignored since the camaera usually came with it and was some hoe less favored. In fact some photographers called the 80mm Mamiya MF lens, (the MF equivalent of the 50mm lens or the 5D) the "Bar Mitzva lens". Why? Because one easily got the whole of a 10 person round table in a shot. Front people go behind the other side "Bang!" Norman/Lumedyne strobe goes and the picture is done; on to next table!

I love the 50mm lens as it is not to big but it can serve well for portraits and scenics. I rotate through the front entrance pupil for stitching landscapes!

So I'm in love with it.

The 28mm Summicron on the M8 is another perfect match! Just a little costly.

For your pocket, an SD800 series Canon digicam will not fail you!

If you have an extra $800 to spend the GRDII is fine, but really! Are you sure 28mm is what you want?

Asher

 

[Chris Kresser]

No, I'm not at all sure that 28mm is what I want! But I'm not sure it's NOT what I want either.

Since I already know and love the 35mm focal length, I've considered getting a GX100 and a Voigtlander 28/35 Mini. Of course I could use the other focal lengths when desired.

One of the main reasons I like the Ricoh cameras is the ability to add an OVF. I just can't stand composing with LCD screens. Maybe I can get over that with practice.

BTW, I'm only considering the GRD1 and GX100. They're around for about $400.

 

[Ian Gittler]

Nice work getting this new forum going, Sean. Thank you.

 

[Ian Gittler]

Regarding the minimal set-up concept, I call it drilling down the variables. In those situations where I'm somehow more successful than others where I'm kind of waffling, the difference is usually that the zen(ish) mindset has extended beyond what gear I am using to pretty much every aspect of taking the picture, and ultimately to the composition itself, beyond whether or not I'm using a Hexar with a fixed lens. I don't begrudge anyone's idea of what tools he or she deems necessary to facilitate pursuing a vision.

An argument can be made that any static system offers an opportunity to experiment with making pictures within the confines of a "limited" vocabulary — whether that system is a Hexar or a Canon with a bag of lenses or an H3D tethered to an 8-core Apple or an M4P with a fast 50. I once read that Norman Mailer composed a list of words from his own vocabulary — hundreds of words long — for the purpose of denying himself the usage of those words while writing The Executioner's Song, in order to locate the perfect pitch for his characters' voices. The novel is a gargantuan, nuanced achievement that still leaves me baffled (especially the first 300 pages). I'd love to see that list one day. I have to admit, when working on a long-term book project years ago, there's a part of me that believes a more drilled-down vocabulary regarding the equipment I used to make those pictures may have helped .... maybe even immensely.

That said, after committing myself to small sensor cameras on a couple of recent assignments (one was a travel piece about Paris using only the GX100) and then, exasperated by those limitations, doing a few gigs with D3's and D300's (so convinced was I that it was the better way to go), the truth is I can't claim that the higher-res, super-responsive pro gear was necessarily "the answer". Different, definitely. But part of me missed many aspects of the Ricoh shooting experience and results.

 

[Kathy Rappaport]

a week at 50 mm - a life at 50.

A few years back I took a class from Carlan Tapp on finding your photographic voice. Yes, we did the fixed focal length assigment for a full week (the class was a full week). I chose my 50 2.5 macro lens.

After that week, I wanted no other lens on my then Elan 7E. After my love affair with the G2 (now in Camera Heaven due to making it a gift to a family member with kids) I bought the 10d and moved to the 20-35 almost always at 35. Not long after I ended up with the 5d and finally the 50 1.2; And...a class I took for a week ended up with using that 50 1.2 for almost the full class. I am going on a 3 week trip next month. I want to travel very light. Last trip I had the 50 1.2 and the 70-200 and the 24-105 - almost always used at about 50mm... I bought the 50 1.8 to take (although I will probably end up with the 50 1.2 in my bag so I don't have any regrets) and a 28-300 just in case. I guess I could shoot only at 35 or 50 or 85 and be happy forever.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

.... I am going on a 3 week trip next month. I want to travel very light. Last trip I had the 50 1.2 and the 70-200 and the 24-105 - almost always used at about 50mm... .

Hi Kathy,

For the two days we'll spend together during your visit, you can always borrow my lenses in case you do not bring yours .

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Learning to live with a Canon G9

Hi folks,

This is a very interesting question, with a lot of interesting answers already provided.
We'll be visiting Western USA in July and we'll drive through places such as LA, Grand Canyon, Las Vegas, Bryce, Yosemite, San Francisco, Big Sur and finally New York.
As one can imagine, this is a unique photography opportunity for an amateur like me and I was definitely going to take my 5D along with 3 lenses. However, in order to travel light and not to hamper my wife and daughter during the trip, I am now considering taking only a Canon G9 with me. I bought this camera a week ago and have been using it continously since then in order to get to terms with it. The essential questions are, of course, will I dare to do this (ie take only the G9 along) and will I be terribly sorry for leaving my 5D behind? The answer is yet blowing in the wind (LOL).

 

[Per Ofverbeck]

Regarding the minimal set-up concept, I call it drilling down the variables. In those situations where I'm somehow more successful than others where I'm kind of waffling, the difference is usually that the zen(ish) mindset has extended beyond what gear I am using to pretty much every aspect of taking the picture....

Well, I was waiting for the word "Zen" here...;-) it usually crops up whenever minimal setup ideas are vented. A novice is ordered by his master to do just one thing for literally years on end, waiting for that mindset to slowly grow out of sheer drudgery. Eugen Herrigel in "Zen in the Art of Archery" is an excellent description.

Where I feel this analogy falls apart when discussing "Western" arts, however, is what´s the ultimate goal, and who sets that goal for you. A Zen master in any of the classical arts wasn´t supposed to find new paths or define new goals: he should paint bamboo the way bamboo was always painted, only even better, or he should hit the target unfailingly with his arrows. Had Eugen Herrigel tried to put his arrows in an interesting new pattern on the wall behind the target instead of scoring a bullseye, Master Awa would have rebuked him strongly and forced him to go back a year or two in his "schedule".

Most of us, however, aren´t content with working in that way; we do WANT to "try an interesting new pattern" in our work, and too much rigidity in selecting one´s tools is a hindrance to that. I am not saying that our goals for art are in any way superior to the Zen goals (which come from religious roots), nor that they are superior to ours. One´s preferences are a product of our cultural framework, as well as our own mindset.

And that´s my point: the Zen way is intended to lead (eventually) to Zen goals. Most of our goals are to be found in a different direction.

 

[Michael Fontana]

>One Camera, One Lens?<

a very good idea to start feeling what I call the °image-space° of a lens.
The term might not be 100% correct, but missing a better one.

On assignment, I try alwith to use the same lens, as it fits the entire serie nicely together.
You don't have that with zoomin-zoomout...

 

[Kathy Rappaport]

When I went to London last (my first visi there), I had been travelling for two weeks with My Three Travellers (24-105-50 1.2 and 70-200) and was weary of carrying all that gear every day. The three days I spent in London were with the S80 as my digicam. Some of those images were as worthy of my gallery as the others taken during that trip.

During one trip with my G2 to the Canadian Maritimes, I forgot the batteries to the G2; Bought a disposable point and shoot to take photos at Peggy's Cove in Nova Scotia; I use this story a lot when people check out my images from there - it's the photographer's eye that is the most important piece of equipment combined with light and a good subject to shoot.

Cem, We can talk about lenses - thinking about the best time for our intercontinental chat later.

 

[Ian Gittler]

Hi folks,
will I dare to do this (ie take only the G9 along) and will I be terribly sorry for leaving my 5D behind?.

The G9 is cool, and for a lot of situations on your wonderful-sounding journey, it's ease of handling and depth-of-field-for-days will facilitate making fantastic pictures. That said, the 5D is a great camera. If budget allows, you might consider buying an L-series fixed-aperture wide-to-medium zoom as a "compromise", sparing yourself a bit of bulk and the constant mental fatigue of second-guessing your decision. Whether of not you acquire a new lens, I still think it's worth taking both cameras. Highway One between San Francisco and Big Sur may be my favorite drive ever, and I end up repeating that sentiment every time I've done it.

 

[Ray West]

Hi Cem,

You will keep the G9, and give the 5d to your daughter ;-). Just take the G9, spare batteries, car and mains charger, cards and hyperdrive - that will be enough. Buy postcards at the tourist spots. It is a family holiday, look at the scenery, enjoy the breeze, not worry about a stable tripod. Do it right, you'll be surprised what toys you can buy when you get back home. ;-) ;-)

I think the thrust of the op question is more concerned with a fixed focus lens, not a zoom. If it is a question of capturing what you see, and if a 35mm camera, then I think it needs to be focal length of 58mm, or thereabouts. It is all about composition, and camera settings, not zooming in and out, spraying away.

With digital, you lose nothing but time, if you use only one lens for a month or so, and who knows what _you_ may get in return. ;-)

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Kathy Rappaport]

My favorite spot in all the world is driving up the California 1 from Santa Barbara to Monterey; I cannot imagine doing that drive with only a G9; However, I have that opportunity as frequently as I want since I live off the 101 just south of Ventura; It's a weekend trip for me;

If I could only do that trip once in a life time, I could not do it without the 24-105 or my 12-24 and the 70-200 minimum - maybe even a 100-400.

 

[Jeff Jacques]

Kathy,

I've done that drive as well and agree with you that it would be hard to have just one lens. But for that type of "event" a couple of lenses makes perfect sense.
For every day use though I think simplicity lends itself to greater utility.
When I'm carrying my M8 I typically only carry 1 lens, unless it's an occasion where I know I'll have different needs.
Cheers,
J

 

[Jeff Jacques]

Kathy,

I've done that drive as well and agree with you that it would be hard to have just one lens. But for that type of "event" a couple of lenses makes perfect sense.
For every day use though I think simplicity lends itself to greater utility.
When I'm carrying my M8 I typically only carry 1 lens, unless it's an occasion where I know I'll have different needs.
Cheers,
J

 

[Ted Johnson]

Well, first of all i think this is very individual. Looking at other artists, we find some like Mondriaan who restrict their means of expression to the utmost; then others like Picasso who kept using several different "cameras" throughout his entire career. Photography is no different, really; every one has to define his/her own photography, and these will all be different (thankfully....).

As for carrying one camera with one lens, I tried that for many years before digital: a submini Tessina, a Leica IIIG with collapsible Elmar, even a Rollei TLR, and I always longed for the lenses left back home (and the results showed it, I´m afraid).

Then came digital, and after a couple of false starts I got a Canon G3 with a good zoom; a camera I could carry all the time, and that could do different fields of view, even macro. I have to say that my entire output improved immensely, and I sold everything else. A Digilux 2 replaced the Canon, and it remains my favourite (I do own a Nikon D200 and recently bought a Dlux 3) to this day.

I acknowledge the wisdom of setting the zoom to one focal length that fits the situation, and to leave it there while exploring the possibilities (the Digilux is very suitable for that; one can set the focal length even with the camera turned off) instead of just zooming away from where you happen to stand, but I do want to have the options available when I really need them.

As I said at first, this is individual, and I´m not suggesting that my approach is by any means the best one for anyone else. My point is just that one should try different approaches and find the preferred one. And if it happens to be different from others, so be it. Your IMAGES should be different from other people´s, why not your toolbox?

Per, I share your view on not ever having the right lens in hand. I have far too many lenses, and not enough (at the same time) for my Nikon D200. Like you, I find myself favoring my Digilux 2 as my favorite take anywhere camera, for many of the same reasons. My little GX100 is similar, but doesn't share the better ergonomics of the Leica.

Can we apply Chris's ideas to one camera instead of one lens? I guess, but it certainly is a cop-out as far as the creative discipline the one lens philosophy requires. I guess I'm too old for that technique, though, so I lug my cameras and lenses around wherever I go.

 

[Nolan Sinclair]

So time has been one challenge for me. The other is choice. I am one of those people, it seems, that doesn't do well with a lot of choices. I've purposely restricted myself to one DSLR and three prime lenses because of this. But even then, this still feels like too much. I've heard some photography teachers suggest an experiment of choosing only one lens and working with it for a period of time, whether a month or a year. This appeals to me very much, and I have an intuitive sense that it would be a powerful exercise.

What are people's thoughts on this?

I was originally put onto to the idea in the similar fashion. I think it was Mike Johnston who I read poo-pooing zooms in favor of primes for new students of photography. It put the idea in my head and I tried it out for a while and never went back. Primes really worked for me.

Next was some fumbling with the focal length; I had a 50mm for my D70s that was a little too long (75mm EFOV, I think?) and then a GR Digital (28mm EFOV) which was too wide. The middle ground proved to be what I was looking for.

One camera one lens is how I shoot 95% of the time these days. I have a 35mm lens on an M8 (46mm or so EFOV if I'm not mistaken) and I love the perspective. I made the purchase back in November, and my heart quickly told me that I'd never want another lens ever again.

Unfortunately, that would prevent me from shooting my friends from the stands at the fights, so I did some research and picked up a 90mm that's proved itself useful from time to time. I used it last weekend to photograph the wife being tattooed (in combination with the 35mm) and then the next day at the fights. I don't remember the time I used it before that.

I've discovered a consistency I like that comes with shooting with a single lens, and more specifically a single focal length. Specific to the lens are familiarity with it's ergonomics and the image it draws, and specific to the focal length is the ability to eyeball the picture before you bring the camera to your eye. Although it's more a specific to primes than all lenses, I like the consistency of a single perspective throughout the majority of photos I make.

It sounds a little crazy, but the CV 35mm f/2.5 is all I need and want to use. I never feel like I miss a shot.

I'll probably pick up a Summilux one day for the extra speed, but I'm in no hurry whatsoever.

 

[Daniel Chow]

Playing a single note on a piano everyday is at first boring, but after a while the proverbial necessity is the mother of invention kicks in and you find different and creative ways to play that note. You will hit the key very softly to very hard. If you hit the key very softly, then find varying degrees of softness. You'll also find varying degrees of speed in between hits - you'll hit the key and pause till the it reaches the end of the note or quickly hit the key again before it gets the chance to diminish. So, I don't feel using only one lens as a limitation, instead, it helps me be more creative with how I choose to picture my subjects.

I have several lenses, and a couple of them are zooms. Sometimes I find that having so many at my disposal distracting. It's like going to an international buffet table. I'd have trouble making up my mind which I'd like to try, so I pile the food on my dish and then gorging myself instead of enjoying the different ingredients that make up the dish.

Anyway, I've notice that I'm always either using one end or the other end of the zoom, and never in between. If I'm using one end of the zoom, then I'd unconsciously leave it this way and forget about the other end of the zoom. Even when I've several prime lenses with me, I'd pick one and eventually forget about the others. Of course a pianist can't forget about the other keys on the keyboard, but even a pianist have a favorite scale on the keyboard - low, middle, or high. So, for me, I habitually reach for the middle range - 28, 50, or 75. I'd think about what I'd like to make, make a judgement call, choose a lens and use it as creatively as I could. It's quite the same approach as when a painter decides on her color palette, and brushes.

 

[Michael Fontana]

........
I've discovered a consistency I like that comes with shooting with a single lens, and more specifically a single focal length. Specific to the lens are familiarity with it's ergonomics and the image it draws, and specific to the focal length is the ability to eyeball the picture before you bring the camera to your eye. Although it's more a specific to primes than all lenses, I like the consistency of a single perspective throughout the majority of photos I make. .......

Nolan, that's a very good point, and I know exactly, what you mean.
"Smelling" the lens image is very nice...

Let me make a little correction: perspective is not made by the focal lenghts, but the camera position. So a crop from a a wide angle has ecaxtly the same perspective as a tele!

The different °foreground to background relationship° - I call it °image-space° - draws a important line between the different angles of the lenses.

It's not alwith possible to use just one lens; beeing in a small room with the idea to show it entirely, p.e. makes it hard. But still keeping the choice of lenses on 2 focal lenghts trough a entire serie - a 28 mm & 50 mm on FF, just a example - produce a nice interplay of two °visions°.

One solution to keep the °foreground to background relationship° constant is stitching; while enlarging the FOV, the °image-space° remains identical. It works....

 

[Sean Reid]

out the majority of photos I make.

It sounds a little crazy, but the CV 35mm f/2.5 is all I need and want to use. I never feel like I miss a shot.

Hi Nolan,

It doesn't sound that crazy to me. I recently did six weeks of intensive shooting using that exact combination (M8 and CV 35/2.5) for most of the work. A couple of years ago, I shot a whole feature for the Robb Report using just an R-D1 and a Canon 28/2.8 LTM.

Cheers,

Sean