As your video alluded to at the start, much depends on what you are going to photograph. I predominantly shoot wildlife and for that some distance is almost inevitable: either because moving to get up close and personal might frighten off the subject, or it might attack you - for example, shooting grizzly bears, moose or wolves that are among my favourite subjects. On that theme another reason for choosing the right tool for the job, especially when shooting wild animals is the danger it puts the photographer in. Years ago, I was travelling through the Canadian Trans Canada highway and came across a bunch of cars pulled off to the side of the road. That meant that there was some wildlife in view. When I investigated I saw a black bear with four cubs, which immediately suggested that she had two orphans as bears rarely give birth to more than two offspring. They were browsing about 120m away from the road and a woman was throwing food to them to get them to come closer so she could get them on her cellphone. She was encouraged by another couple using a camera with a pretty short FL lens. The bears came within 10m of them while I was protesting at their behaviour. They rejoined that they wanted to get a good shot to post. The problem is one cannot outrun a bear and even a black bear is dangerous and often fatal if it feels its cubs are in any way in danger. I got back in the car just before a ranger pulled up. When she saw what was going on she stopped that behaviour immediately, pulled out a shotgun and shot the female - with special soft pellets that would sting but not harm the bear. The bears took off, and as she gave the offenders a citation for over $1,000, she explained that bating a bear would likely end badly for the bear and/or the human as bears would quickly associate humans with food. She hated doing that to the bear - it was not its fault, but she had to make it avoid humans. I have also seen people with the lenses that are not long enough getting very close to grizzlies, and they WILL eat you, or certainly tear you apart if startled or feel threatened. My point is the lens is a tool that is specific to the job. While it may be great to get intimate with human subjects, don't ever try it with wild animals.
To me personally, the best vessel through which I can channel my creativity in order to create the photography which currently grabs my attention the most is the 50mm lens. It is not per sé better than any other lens, it’s just what works best for me and to be quite frank it’s what’s worked best for me for quite some time now. I don’t really even think about focal length anymore. I just grab either one of two cameras fitted with a 50 and this allows my to think about the photo instead of the gear. Very important to me.
I’ve had this realization as well. I have 18mm - 800mm covered with thousands spent on pro level lenses. In the past couple years most just sit there and been thinking I could get rid of all except two primes that i absolutely love using
I ended up with a 40mm almost by accident. When I bought my first mirrorless camera, I wanted a manual 35mm lens. At the time, Voigtlander only had a 35mm f1.4 that didn’t get great reviews and their 40mm f1.2 was the lens people were excited about. I ended up with the 40mm simply for the better rendering and now it is my favourite street photography lens and focal length. Easy to get more depth of field than a 50mm but can also easily create more of a shallow depth like a 50mm if I want. Great for zone focusing also.
Starting off in photography I made the mistake by listening or should I say recommendations from other photographers,saying you need this lens and this lens, and now I have more equipment than sense , and all I had to do was go out take an image enjoy the photography and what it is all about, and when I do go out I have six lenses two cameras tripod filters remote shutters the works , because I like to photograph different things, and the serenity,the feeling of being in my own bubble to take the image I want ,gives me the sense of accomplishment, and the fact I carry all this equipment in my backpack means I will never miss the opportunity of an image, they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder ,but what is beauty when it is categorised, or mistaken, for something else, from I started photography I have had my eyes opened to everything no matter what the subject.
I am shooting street and cityscapes. After many years of experimentation I ended up with one and only lens: TTArtisan 23mm f/1.4 (APS-C). The 35mm equivalent is the best “one lens for everything” choice. And one thing I learned is: don’t waste money for unnecessary things. I had numerous L or GM lenses in the past but I was never satisfied. The AF lenses are only for fast situations and are always hit or miss. To the contrary, I spend my money on three MF vintage style lenses that costs way less and are better (on build and image quality): TTArtisan is the one I am using 80% of the time, the Voigtländer 35mm f/1.4 classic and the Meyer Optik Trioplan 35mm f/2.8 II for artistic purposes. The experience of manual aperture and MF lenses is unmatchable!
Thank you for mentioning Roger Deakins. I think he changed how we look at motion picture, and therefore photography, more than we know. To me he put a human factor in lenses. He took picking a lens for capturing to picking the lens that captivates so to speak.
I began with the 50mm that came with my first ever camera (a Canon AE1 Program) in the mid 1980's. I shot with it for a decade (and nothing else) and carried it all over the world. Now I shoot with only two. A Summilux 50 and a Summilux 35.
I believe the first lens you pick sticks with you. For example, my 1st lens was 50mm on APSC camera. Hence, 80 85mm sticked with me; I keep getting back to 85 for everything even landscape, street, portrait.
What you say in this UA-cam video - is so important! Indeed, on my travels to, particularly, camera clubs delivering my talks - I try to encourage photographers to just go out in the world with a lens that conveys ‘your vision’. But with a Prime Lens - NOT a zoom lens! Not one taker or tryout my challenge! Today, very few photographers will venture out to the wide world with One Prime Lens, One Camera! I was lucky, from back in the day (80s) to start from this point! Basically, developing a vision and ‘seeing’ the landscape perspective through the chosen lens. In my case it was the 21 mm followed by (when I could afford it) 135 mm lens! Such a valuable grounding to what followed in my ‘photographic career’! Excellent suit of videos! Look forward to more ‘talking points’!
Congratulations on being named as a staff member of Frames Magazine. I saw it in the newsletter last week. I am eager to read your comments in the future issues.
Thanks for your work, Alex, and thanks youtube for give us the opportunity to learn from you and to enjoy your thoughts. You remind me my teacher 25 years ago at the Photo School. I follow some photographc channels, most of them about gear and reviewes of gear, cameras, lenses... but at the end, your channel is the one I really enjoy. Keep om going! Btw: My favourite lens (nowadays, at list) 23mm (35mm FF equivalent). The perfect mix between being close but with a wide perspective of the scene.
To be honest, I haven't heard of Roger Deakins, but when looking at his IMDB page, I was surprised which movies with him as cinematographer I have seen. I notice a pattern here: All of which I saw I remember the feel about how good the cinematography was: Skyfall, No country for old men, Blade Runner 2049, A beautiful mind, The Shawshank Redemption and many more.
I see the world in very different focal lengths. I see it very wide when I look for interesting perspectives, lines, forms and geometry. I see it very narrow when I look for structure, details, simplicity and contrast. I also see it in normal focal length when I look to capture the authenticity of a scene or subject. It's a blessing and a curse. I never grow bored and I can shoot one small space several times and come up with something new every single time. But I need to invest in many different lenses to accommodate this style of photography.
The emotional distance is always a consideration, as well as what the lens adds or subtracts to the intent. Showing every pore on a face might be needed for a dermatology image, but for a portrait a 3 element Cooke lens that adds softness might be preferred.
FUJIFILM 35mm1.4 is my most used lens. The XF18mmf2 is the character lens and my XF55-200mm has made me the best prints. I'd love a manual 35mm for my Fujifilm and so far the 7artisans 35mm1.2 mark2 is my favourite of the bunch.
When I bought my first gear (about 35 years ago) I had a 28 an 85 and an 180, then for a journey to Patagonia I added a 20mm. But lately I changed it all for the zoom 18/350, since I was mainly photographing my kids. And today I'm mainly using my phone and its super wide angle.
I just this week bought a Pentax MV 35mm film camera. They only made this for a year , '79 - '80. It does have lens interchangeability but it came with a 50 mm and I will likely not use any other lens with this camera. It is basically an aperture priority camera with 100x flash sync and Bulb. I will have to shoot it some to get comfortable with working inside the camera's set up. I think it will be fun... but then, photography is supposed to be fun!
Great idea to bring Deakins into the conversation, to me he really brings "photography" into the role of director of photography in cinema and know how to build a great shot through composition and camera work. Good to know he also know when to restrain himself to let his striking visual hit even more !
Recently I got 70-200 gm2, it’s a beast and you can contain more foreground in your frame or different composition which is awesome . with 35mm 1.4 gm and 50mm 1.4 sigma added ,it’s a great portrait combo for my family , I also have Sony 85mm 1.8 for street photography practice to improve my skill . I am very pleased with those lens so far !
Cool! Which lens is that? Can we see some of your shots somewhere? I just started using the Jupiter 8 lens myself, so far I am very very pleased with it.
My lens of choice is a Sigma 100mm-400mm I enjoy keeping a distance, and yes-I do wait for the subject to look at me before taking the photo-they can either allow me to take the photo or say no-no harm, no foul.
I’m lame and typically use a standard zoom because I like having access to 35, 50 and 75 in the same lens. But if I am using a prime I almost always gravitate toward a 50 or 75. This is a big change for me since Covid hit. Prior to Covid I was all about wide angle shallow depth of field for street. However, people in the US have been getting beyond grumpy if they catch me snapping a picture with them in it, so I’d rather not deal with that and tend to keep my distance now. As it turns out though, since I have really been leaning into a more telephoto style of shooting, I actually think I like having the greater compositional control 50 and 75 afford for both street and landscape over using wider angle lenses. Sometimes forced change opens up new possibilities 🤷♂️
It's an interesting thought. I've found that my favorite lens is my cheap 24mm Canon f/2.8 EF-S lens. I love how it "feels" on the eyes. I find I use it for everything.
Sometimes it seems like telepathy. I shoot Nikon and Olympus and, recently, have been getting a great deal of enjoyment from my Olympus Pen-F with a Panasonic Leica 15mm f/1.7 prime. The lens is sharp as heck, the 'package' with the Pen-F is lightweight and nimble and is yielding some delightful images. I have a trip to NYC coming up and I'm leaning strongly to the M43 system although I might use my OM-1 instead of the Pen-F because of its terrific low light capabilities. Thank you for yet another great dose of inspiration and instruction, Alex. Cheers!
You should try the Panasonic 9mm f1.7 too. I use it on my PEN-F and it performs great. Relatively cheep too, lightweight and small for such a fast wide angle.
Street photography is the best way to learn about your camera lenses composition and yourself. What focal length? Any. As long as it’s a prime and you take only one lens out with you. The one you enjoy shooting with the most. And every time use a different focal length. Normally it’s a 35mm. However I’ve taken some of my favourite street shots with my 135mm.
I've been thinking about this lately. I remember reading an interview about how Nick Brandt got his photos to seem so much more intimiate than typical wildlife photos of Africa. A big part of his answer was that he didn’t use really use tele lenses. He was literally closer to them. I noticed to weddings I show. In one I took the speeches with a 50mm FF equiv, and with another I took them with a 75mm FF equiv. Comparing them I notice that I just feel like I'm closer in the second one. I don't think one is worse than the other, but they have very different vibes. It's making my consider getting slightly wider focal lengths and just get closer, at least for some kinds of photography. Thanks for making these great videos with very thoughtful reflection on things.
Something I've noticed as I've become a better photographer (I'm never there btw)... I've changed. I was such an introvert and so uncertain, so I would use a telephoto (135mm) to isolate and simplify. I've gotten more confident, I've trained my mind to build a story around it. I can widen out, and now, a 35mm rarely leaves my Xpro1.
Yeah. A good and an interesting approach. I will change the lens on one of my DSLR's to wide angle but still shoot the same subjects that now use an 85mm on.
I think we often transport the feelings/memories WE had when taking a photo of a certain place or whatever and that's why we believe some of our own pics are so incredibly good while others who have not been there at the same time do not have those memories and because of that they judge our pics by what they are as a photo so the greatness is often lost. If we fail to transport in the picture (and not in our memory) what made that moment special we are left with maybe nice but not great photos, IMO.
I migrated gradually from 85 and 50 mm crop sensor equivalents to 35 and now a 28mm on a full frame. Though the 35 is probably the sweet spot for street photography. My 28 mm is a better and lighter lens (crucial when your lugging around a DSLR) and I love the compositional challenge of the 28.
I've went through many many lenses over the years, nailed down the couple that I like the looks of the most and I'm going to get rid of all the other ones that I only ever use once every blood moon. I hope less choice will help me get out and about more. Got 3 cameras for 3 different things and just keep 1 lens for each of them. All of those lenses are at least 30 years old :D
I will add this. I shoot food, eateries etc. I was asked by someone coming up if they could join me as an assistant. I asked people if I could do this when I started and was told no thanks. I saw this a chance to do for someone what I wished someone did for me. After all the food was set out etc, they asked me what what angle I was going use. I said two angles. One from the height an average persons head would be at walking towards the table, the other from their head height when seated. Their next question was about aperture and depth. I asked them to take a close up selfie with the phone light and HDR turned off. Look at your own eye. What aperture is your pupil within your iris? It looks to be about F2.8-3ish. They had never heard of this before. The more I asked others if this is what they did, the more I realised that no one did this. To me it made sense. I know the convention is to choose what will get what you want in focus, but my approach is that this is a very human scene. We are the only animal that eats this way. I'm just showing it how a human would reasonably see it. Brighter places get smaller aperture, darker places get more. Its just how the eye works.
the boring nifty fifty gives great results, the 135 mmf 2 is never boring, the results look stunning. The 50mm is also great for street photo's (not too close)
When I made the jump from a point-and-shoot to a Nikon DSLR, the seller threw in a 70-300mm zoom, which was OK enought. I went out with a friend who shoots with a very similar model camera and he had a lovely Nikkor 35mm prime on his. We swapped cameras for a chunk of the afternoon and I knew after half a dozen frames that the 35mm had to go on my shopping list. Five years later, I still shoot 90% of my stuff with the 35mm. It just feels how I see.
When I started I had a Minolta X300 with a 50mm f1.7 and a 28mm f2.8. Frankly I got on with the 50 the most. These days I’ve been trying to find my perfect 50 at a not too crazy price and for now it seems to be a 40mm f1.2 Voigtlander, which is pretty good. However, the point on the effect of the intimacy of a scene is absolutely right.
@@smith507 That's exactly what shooting primes is all about : adapting. And also knowing what you can do easily and what you can't with the primes you use.
On the Frames cover, I disagree some with you on it being flat. With the slight diagonal line in the image, it seems to draw the eye up and out and, for me, gives a feeling of depth. I am struggling right now over my choice of a single lens for my X-Pro2 in my retirement. I have for literally decades used fast zooms for both work and some pleasure. Right now I have a single prime lens on the camera but am toying with renting the 18-135mm lens to see if I like it. For a while I used a 18-200mm zoom on my digital Nikons for street/travel shooting and really got a sense of enjoyment out of being able to see photographically from wide to tele images. I might just rent one and see if I like it.
I have 3 primes, but without a very specific purpose in mind, ... zoom lens. I am a walkabout photographer. I see something interesting, I frame/compose the shot by zooming in/out and click.
If I had to choose and could only take one lens it would be a 40 mm 2 or the 28mm 2.8. Those are my mostly used lenses on 35mm photography as well for analog as well as digital. For portraits and on the beach for people I like the 90mm 2 and for animals the 135mm 2.8. I actually preferred the 50mm over the years but now I like the 40mm much more. The 35 mm is - when I shoot with two cameras - the lens on the one that doesn’t carry the 40mm. On Medium-Format I actually do mostly use the 85mm … Always good light!
28mm 1.7 on my Leica is the most fun I’ve ever had, I think my images on a 35 and 50 were better but I used those for such a long time. I’m still perfecting the 28 and can’t see that I’ll go back.
I got a 60mm FF macro a while back and it's my favorite for both macro and general nature. Now I'm moving to micro four thirds and plan to limit myself to 3 primes. My 60mm (120 effective) macro, a wide 12mm (24 effective), and now I'm angsting about what my middle lens should be.
18, 24, 35, 150mm (ff equivalent). All fixed focal lengths, all for my PEN-F. Geared towards wide angle, with the telelens for specials. Moving away from zoomlenses was the best thing ever.
The "right" lens of course depends on the situation and no one FL is suitable for other than a relatively narrow range of images. Cropping or "zooming with your feet" (when that's even possible) is very different from as using a longer lens. I've always wanted as few limitations as practical, so only a "full-range" system would do. Micro Four Thirds gave me the ability to easily carry a 16-800 EFL range of lenses virtually anywhere, so I've always got the "right" lens for the situation (with no significant compromises and many advantages over larger systems). Of course, things can happen fast, so if there's no time to change lenses, it's nice to have a "bridge" camera with a wide zoom range as well, so you rarely miss a shot because you didn't have the right FL. That said, I often leave one lens on for hours (maybe a 70-200 EFL for woodland or 16-36 in an urban setting). As you point out, there are some (albeit relatively rare for most people) cases where you need a really sharp lens, so I do favor "pro" glass to keep my options open, but I often soften images and/or add grain in post to avoid that overly-sharp "digital" look (just as analog music sounds better than digital, film just looks better to me--I just want to avoid the chemicals). You obviously address this with a Holga in hand.
I have a huge confusion that had those photos you have shown be appreciated among hundreds of similar thematic compositions by unknown photographers without naming the celebrated photographer who had taken those images! I have seen so many gem of a piece on internet that go unnoticed. I feel the problem is once a photo is picked by some magazine or some prominent judge and they declare it to be outstanding, we generally accept it like that and keep on trying to find reasons to validate it. It is quite a subjective matter where the name of the photographer should come second. Very few people are there to say that any specific photograph by any famous photographer could have been better. Its the Brand that confuses me.
Great video but I don't think the 3 films shown when introducing Roger Deakins had different cinematographers. I think the first film is 'There will be Blood', with cinematography being done by Robert Elswit, The second I would guess is 'The Grand Budapest hotel', with cinematographer Robert Yeoman and the last is 'Mad Max Fury Road' with the cinematography being done by John Seale. Roger Deakins is of course a legend and certainly ranks amongst the greatest cinematographer in history. Personally, I choose the lens I am going to use by what I want from an image. I love certain lenses but if that lens doesn't suit the looking that I am going for, I generally won't use it.
I've never had a prime lens, but I'm taking a black and white class where we're using film, so I got out my old AE-1 and bought a "new" 50mm. So this will be interesting.
I feel this is overthinking it. f someone says 'meh' when we show them a photo the chances are that the composition, colour harmony (if in colour), light, expression, timing and so on are much bigger issues than the choice of focal length.
My current favourite lens (I'm doing a portrait project) is my Z85mm f/1.8. I love the way it renders the image and the immediacy it brings. BTW - thanks for the Roger Deakins images. I've never seen his stills. Surprise, surprise - they're REALLY good!
Lens choice is a lot more than just focal length though. When I go out with my camera I don't just think about focal length but the character of a lens. I might consider taking one of my vintage lenses because it's not just a prime lens of a certain length, but also because the character of that particular lens is something I want to work with. Modern lenses are so clinically perfect and lacking in character. There's really nothing to tell a Nikon apart from a Canon or Sony lens, or any other brand. No individual personality.
I found a 28-280 (35 mm equivalent) for my Panasonic and that is my personality. My wide angle and my 50mm prime ( for low light) challenge me. I like the mixture.
I think we all were there and thought, we need more, expensive and of course, only Prime Lenses. After many Years, and serval old and New Glasses for my beloved GX80, I have found "my" Lens, so to speak. An 30 mm (60 mm Full frame) Macro. Not only it feels exactly like you said, as an extension of may own Vision, but it's also a Lens I can get really close to Thinks I'm curious about. In short, it's a Lens I'm enjoying.
You have to be quirky these days to shoot Pentax, but of you do, you are rewarded with then equally Quirky 31mm, 43mm and 77mm FA Ltds, - of which I carry all three on the street, but mostly use the 31mm which is a real sweet spot to me for inclusion vs isolation, which is what framing is all about.
I use the usual lens, all good for shooting higher end corporate branding jobs, but I build extra time to use my Zeiss 85mm manual focus to get a possible extra magical shot...its like driving a Ferrari down a dead end street, risky but exhilarating.
Little duck. Quack quack. This is exactly the mix of insight I needed tonight! In all seriousness, great food for thought. Thank you. I've been having a bit of a lens existential crisis this winter.
Some of the old Panavision lenses are more valuable than new one's. Directors use them for their look. They do not have all the finesse or ease of use than new ones, but it takes some more time.
I'm glad you changed the clickbait titles and thumbnails. This is much better. Your content is also presented a bit better, you've made changes. I enjoy the different photographers sections, although I miss how your voice changes when you quote somebody :D I was a regular but at some point got repetitive and clickbait. Your videos even stopped popping up. Now they did show again. I guess positive change makes a difference. Please make many more insightful and relatable content as you do! Cheers!
Your "crazy chicken" is a common ring-necked pheasant. 😂 As one who frequently shoots birds, that is definitely one genre that (almost) always requires sharpness and detail. But even then, not always if you're being "artsy". I think more of "what lens for the job" rather than "what lens for the shooter" because different scenes are optimized by different lenses. But even then you'll develop preferences with experience.
I don't like analysing things too much TBH, as I feel that it detracts from the fun and the ' mystique ' of photography, but for me a 35mm lens whether for my Leica M cameras or Nikon DSLRs is how I see the world around me in one glance. I can work with 50, but I feel that I am always pushing myself with it, and I also use longer FLs if and when needed to suit the composition, but I don't walk around the streets with a 75mm or 85mm lens attached. The funny thing is that with MF cameras I lean mor etowards the longer 100mm FL.
Roger Deakins, as an example, worked with one thing that most street photographers don't. Permission to record somebody's image. To quote a recent experience of mine. "You take my photo with that thing and I'll shove it up your nose!" And that was by a guy also carrying a camera.
This all seems to be under the assumption that photographers only use one single prime lens. Nowadays, this is not the case. There is of course one exception - 24mm on smartphones.
I have worked in the industry for almost 20 years. Deakins isn't criminally underrated, he's revered as a cinematic god. I'd call him the Michael Jordan of Cinematography, but he's not retired.. Maybe he's the Lebron haha
The lens also depends on the format. Most amateur photographers shoot 35 mm and have never shot medium or large format. These formats are where you really see differences if you really know photography! Ex; I can tell from a printed photograph what format was used from 35mm 120mm 4x5 or 8x10!
Will someone like your photograph, and take time to explore it? One thing, not addressed here, is that many people are not interested in, or not seeing art. Their view of what is around them being so different than the photographer, or painter is so much different, you may never understand why what you are showing someone is not accepted as well done. They might look for how sharp something is, or how realistic is may be, and have absolutely no need for any art. As time goes by, what is "in" today, might be something seen as silly, or tacky tomorrow, so beware of popular, as compared to timeless art. My new found love is that of street photography, so I am trying my best to hone the skills, while enjoying the moment. " Life is once. Forever. " Henri Cartier-Bresson once said. I tend to gravitate towards the use of 50mm, as the geometry renders well, with easy composing and lack of distortions. Will also be using 35mm and 28mm to see if it works, and can be tamed from distortions and disruptions. At times, I feel I have bruised the scene when in close, while other times it works out well. And shooting to the edge is fine, until distortion sets in -- alway how far can one go. And keeping the camera at the level -- a challenge indeed, unless one sees the wonky distortions as artful -- hey, it can work too. Once a month, or two, taking 85mm or more lens out, is not a bad option, and a great challenge. Are you a 50mm, 35mm or 28mm person, is often the question. What if you see things in differing ways depending on the environment you are within? What then? All lengths work. I might be more the 50mm guy. Take care, Loren Schwiderski
I love 50 for everyday. I love 90 for portraits and headshots and I love 35 for environmental portraits.
85 1.4 for portraits 😮💨😮💨😮💨
@@p1.vision I love 85mm f1.2
This tends to be the general consensus, however many people, me included, shoot with crop sensors, so the choices will be different
I love 28mm for everyday, but it's a 45mm equivalent on full frame, although the background compression is totally different than a 50mm on a ff
As your video alluded to at the start, much depends on what you are going to photograph. I predominantly shoot wildlife and for that some distance is almost inevitable: either because moving to get up close and personal might frighten off the subject, or it might attack you - for example, shooting grizzly bears, moose or wolves that are among my favourite subjects.
On that theme another reason for choosing the right tool for the job, especially when shooting wild animals is the danger it puts the photographer in. Years ago, I was travelling through the Canadian Trans Canada highway and came across a bunch of cars pulled off to the side of the road. That meant that there was some wildlife in view. When I investigated I saw a black bear with four cubs, which immediately suggested that she had two orphans as bears rarely give birth to more than two offspring. They were browsing about 120m away from the road and a woman was throwing food to them to get them to come closer so she could get them on her cellphone. She was encouraged by another couple using a camera with a pretty short FL lens. The bears came within 10m of them while I was protesting at their behaviour. They rejoined that they wanted to get a good shot to post.
The problem is one cannot outrun a bear and even a black bear is dangerous and often fatal if it feels its cubs are in any way in danger. I got back in the car just before a ranger pulled up. When she saw what was going on she stopped that behaviour immediately, pulled out a shotgun and shot the female - with special soft pellets that would sting but not harm the bear. The bears took off, and as she gave the offenders a citation for over $1,000, she explained that bating a bear would likely end badly for the bear and/or the human as bears would quickly associate humans with food. She hated doing that to the bear - it was not its fault, but she had to make it avoid humans.
I have also seen people with the lenses that are not long enough getting very close to grizzlies, and they WILL eat you, or certainly tear you apart if startled or feel threatened. My point is the lens is a tool that is specific to the job. While it may be great to get intimate with human subjects, don't ever try it with wild animals.
To me personally, the best vessel through which I can channel my creativity in order to create the photography which currently grabs my attention the most is the 50mm lens. It is not per sé better than any other lens, it’s just what works best for me and to be quite frank it’s what’s worked best for me for quite some time now. I don’t really even think about focal length anymore. I just grab either one of two cameras fitted with a 50 and this allows my to think about the photo instead of the gear. Very important to me.
I’ve had this realization as well. I have 18mm - 800mm covered with thousands spent on pro level lenses. In the past couple years most just sit there and been thinking I could get rid of all except two primes that i absolutely love using
I ended up with a 40mm almost by accident. When I bought my first mirrorless camera, I wanted a manual 35mm lens. At the time, Voigtlander only had a 35mm f1.4 that didn’t get great reviews and their 40mm f1.2 was the lens people were excited about. I ended up with the 40mm simply for the better rendering and now it is my favourite street photography lens and focal length. Easy to get more depth of field than a 50mm but can also easily create more of a shallow depth like a 50mm if I want. Great for zone focusing also.
I'm on the Voitlander 58/1.4 myself. Have the Zeiss distagon 35/2 for wider. I heard the 40mm is a stunner also
Starting off in photography I made the mistake by listening or should I say recommendations from other photographers,saying you need this lens and this lens, and now I have more equipment than sense , and all I had to do was go out take an image enjoy the photography and what it is all about, and when I do go out I have six lenses two cameras tripod filters remote shutters the works , because I like to photograph different things, and the serenity,the feeling of being in my own bubble to take the image I want ,gives me the sense of accomplishment, and the fact I carry all this equipment in my backpack means I will never miss the opportunity of an image, they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder ,but what is beauty when it is categorised, or mistaken, for something else, from I started photography I have had my eyes opened to everything no matter what the subject.
Oh my
I am shooting street and cityscapes. After many years of experimentation I ended up with one and only lens: TTArtisan 23mm f/1.4 (APS-C). The 35mm equivalent is the best “one lens for everything” choice. And one thing I learned is: don’t waste money for unnecessary things. I had numerous L or GM lenses in the past but I was never satisfied. The AF lenses are only for fast situations and are always hit or miss. To the contrary, I spend my money on three MF vintage style lenses that costs way less and are better (on build and image quality): TTArtisan is the one I am using 80% of the time, the Voigtländer 35mm f/1.4 classic and the Meyer Optik Trioplan 35mm f/2.8 II for artistic purposes. The experience of manual aperture and MF lenses is unmatchable!
Thank you for mentioning Roger Deakins. I think he changed how we look at motion picture, and therefore photography, more than we know. To me he put a human factor in lenses. He took picking a lens for capturing to picking the lens that captivates so to speak.
I began with the 50mm that came with my first ever camera (a Canon AE1 Program) in the mid 1980's. I shot with it for a decade (and nothing else) and carried it all over the world.
Now I shoot with only two. A Summilux 50 and a Summilux 35.
I believe the first lens you pick sticks with you. For example, my 1st lens was 50mm on APSC camera. Hence, 80 85mm sticked with me; I keep getting back to 85 for everything even landscape, street, portrait.
It is the same with me, totally agree with what you wrote!
What you say in this UA-cam video - is so important! Indeed, on my travels to, particularly, camera clubs delivering my talks - I try to encourage photographers to just go out in the world with a lens that conveys ‘your vision’. But with a Prime Lens - NOT a zoom lens! Not one taker or tryout my challenge!
Today, very few photographers will venture out to the wide world with One Prime Lens, One Camera! I was lucky, from back in the day (80s) to start from this point! Basically, developing a vision and ‘seeing’ the landscape perspective through the chosen lens. In my case it was the 21 mm followed by (when I could afford it) 135 mm lens! Such a valuable grounding to what followed in my ‘photographic career’!
Excellent suit of videos! Look forward to more ‘talking points’!
My pleasure. I really appreciate you taking the time to watch.
Congratulations on being named as a staff member of Frames Magazine. I saw it in the newsletter last week. I am eager to read your comments in the future issues.
Thanks for your work, Alex, and thanks youtube for give us the opportunity to learn from you and to enjoy your thoughts. You remind me my teacher 25 years ago at the Photo School. I follow some photographc channels, most of them about gear and reviewes of gear, cameras, lenses... but at the end, your channel is the one I really enjoy. Keep om going!
Btw: My favourite lens (nowadays, at list) 23mm (35mm FF equivalent). The perfect mix between being close but with a wide perspective of the scene.
My pleasure!
40mm still my favorite since I bought a Nikkor 43-86 for Nikon FM2 in 1990. Soooo many good things that rock about 40mm.
The black and whites of flowers are great!
To be honest, I haven't heard of Roger Deakins, but when looking at his IMDB page, I was surprised which movies with him as cinematographer I have seen. I notice a pattern here: All of which I saw I remember the feel about how good the cinematography was: Skyfall, No country for old men, Blade Runner 2049, A beautiful mind, The Shawshank Redemption and many more.
As a photographer, how can you not know cinematographers?
I see the world in very different focal lengths. I see it very wide when I look for interesting perspectives, lines, forms and geometry. I see it very narrow when I look for structure, details, simplicity and contrast. I also see it in normal focal length when I look to capture the authenticity of a scene or subject. It's a blessing and a curse. I never grow bored and I can shoot one small space several times and come up with something new every single time. But I need to invest in many different lenses to accommodate this style of photography.
The emotional distance is always a consideration, as well as what the lens adds or subtracts to the intent. Showing every pore on a face might be needed for a dermatology image, but for a portrait a 3 element Cooke lens that adds softness might be preferred.
Good point
FUJIFILM 35mm1.4 is my most used lens. The XF18mmf2 is the character lens and my XF55-200mm has made me the best prints. I'd love a manual 35mm for my Fujifilm and so far the 7artisans 35mm1.2 mark2 is my favourite of the bunch.
When I bought my first gear (about 35 years ago) I had a 28 an 85 and an 180, then for a journey to Patagonia I added a 20mm.
But lately I changed it all for the zoom 18/350, since I was mainly photographing my kids.
And today I'm mainly using my phone and its super wide angle.
I just this week bought a Pentax MV 35mm film camera. They only made this for a year , '79 - '80. It does have lens interchangeability but it came with a 50 mm and I will likely not use any other lens with this camera. It is basically an aperture priority camera with 100x flash sync and Bulb. I will have to shoot it some to get comfortable with working inside the camera's set up. I think it will be fun... but then, photography is supposed to be fun!
Great idea to bring Deakins into the conversation, to me he really brings "photography" into the role of director of photography in cinema and know how to build a great shot through composition and camera work. Good to know he also know when to restrain himself to let his striking visual hit even more !
Recently I got 70-200 gm2, it’s a beast and you can contain more foreground in your frame or different composition which is awesome . with 35mm 1.4 gm and 50mm 1.4 sigma added ,it’s a great portrait combo for my family , I also have Sony 85mm 1.8 for street photography practice to improve my skill . I am very pleased with those lens so far !
Congrats! The 70-200 is a far dream for now 😂
Ive recently started shooting portraits on a USSR 300mm lens, stunning imagery and has a real cool eliptical element around the edges
Cool! Which lens is that? Can we see some of your shots somewhere? I just started using the Jupiter 8 lens myself, so far I am very very pleased with it.
My lens of choice is a Sigma 100mm-400mm I enjoy keeping a distance, and yes-I do wait for the subject to look at me before taking the photo-they can either allow me to take the photo or say no-no harm, no foul.
I’m lame and typically use a standard zoom because I like having access to 35, 50 and 75 in the same lens. But if I am using a prime I almost always gravitate toward a 50 or 75. This is a big change for me since Covid hit. Prior to Covid I was all about wide angle shallow depth of field for street. However, people in the US have been getting beyond grumpy if they catch me snapping a picture with them in it, so I’d rather not deal with that and tend to keep my distance now. As it turns out though, since I have really been leaning into a more telephoto style of shooting, I actually think I like having the greater compositional control 50 and 75 afford for both street and landscape over using wider angle lenses. Sometimes forced change opens up new possibilities 🤷♂️
Great subject Alex. Roger Deakins is spot on when it comes to the perspective of what the photographer's minds eye sees through the lens.
love watching your videos.
My lens is a paintbrush. Lot of what I am learning isn't in art, but learning how to see.
Thanks for watching
It's an interesting thought. I've found that my favorite lens is my cheap 24mm Canon f/2.8 EF-S lens. I love how it "feels" on the eyes. I find I use it for everything.
That's a really nice lens😀
i bought that lens two months ago and its my most used since then, and it pairs very well with 250d
Sometimes it seems like telepathy. I shoot Nikon and Olympus and, recently, have been getting a great deal of enjoyment from my Olympus Pen-F with a Panasonic Leica 15mm f/1.7 prime. The lens is sharp as heck, the 'package' with the Pen-F is lightweight and nimble and is yielding some delightful images. I have a trip to NYC coming up and I'm leaning strongly to the M43 system although I might use my OM-1 instead of the Pen-F because of its terrific low light capabilities. Thank you for yet another great dose of inspiration and instruction, Alex. Cheers!
You should try the Panasonic 9mm f1.7 too. I use it on my PEN-F and it performs great. Relatively cheep too, lightweight and small for such a fast wide angle.
Thank you.
Street photography is the best way to learn about your camera lenses composition and yourself. What focal length? Any. As long as it’s a prime and you take only one lens out with you. The one you enjoy shooting with the most. And every time use a different focal length. Normally it’s a 35mm. However I’ve taken some of my favourite street shots with my 135mm.
Thank you for bringing back your beautiful background music
I've been thinking about this lately. I remember reading an interview about how Nick Brandt got his photos to seem so much more intimiate than typical wildlife photos of Africa. A big part of his answer was that he didn’t use really use tele lenses. He was literally closer to them.
I noticed to weddings I show. In one I took the speeches with a 50mm FF equiv, and with another I took them with a 75mm FF equiv. Comparing them I notice that I just feel like I'm closer in the second one. I don't think one is worse than the other, but they have very different vibes. It's making my consider getting slightly wider focal lengths and just get closer, at least for some kinds of photography.
Thanks for making these great videos with very thoughtful reflection on things.
Thanks for watching
Something I've noticed as I've become a better photographer (I'm never there btw)... I've changed. I was such an introvert and so uncertain, so I would use a telephoto (135mm) to isolate and simplify.
I've gotten more confident, I've trained my mind to build a story around it. I can widen out, and now, a 35mm rarely leaves my Xpro1.
This Winter I've been shooting almost exclusively with a 35mm prime on an APS-C body. Will that carry over into Spring and beyond? We shall see.
Yeah. A good and an interesting approach. I will change the lens on one of my DSLR's to wide angle but still shoot the same subjects that now use an 85mm on.
I think we often transport the feelings/memories WE had when taking a photo of a certain place or whatever and that's why we believe some of our own pics are so incredibly good while others who have not been there at the same time do not have those memories and because of that they judge our pics by what they are as a photo so the greatness is often lost. If we fail to transport in the picture (and not in our memory) what made that moment special we are left with maybe nice but not great photos, IMO.
I migrated gradually from 85 and 50 mm crop sensor equivalents to 35 and now a 28mm on a full frame. Though the 35 is probably the sweet spot for street photography. My 28 mm is a better and lighter lens (crucial when your lugging around a DSLR) and I love the compositional challenge of the 28.
I've went through many many lenses over the years, nailed down the couple that I like the looks of the most and I'm going to get rid of all the other ones that I only ever use once every blood moon. I hope less choice will help me get out and about more. Got 3 cameras for 3 different things and just keep 1 lens for each of them. All of those lenses are at least 30 years old :D
I will add this. I shoot food, eateries etc. I was asked by someone coming up if they could join me as an assistant. I asked people if I could do this when I started and was told no thanks. I saw this a chance to do for someone what I wished someone did for me. After all the food was set out etc, they asked me what what angle I was going use. I said two angles. One from the height an average persons head would be at walking towards the table, the other from their head height when seated. Their next question was about aperture and depth. I asked them to take a close up selfie with the phone light and HDR turned off. Look at your own eye. What aperture is your pupil within your iris? It looks to be about F2.8-3ish. They had never heard of this before. The more I asked others if this is what they did, the more I realised that no one did this. To me it made sense. I know the convention is to choose what will get what you want in focus, but my approach is that this is a very human scene. We are the only animal that eats this way. I'm just showing it how a human would reasonably see it. Brighter places get smaller aperture, darker places get more. Its just how the eye works.
Very informative ❤️
the boring nifty fifty gives great results, the 135 mmf 2 is never boring, the results look stunning. The 50mm is also great for street photo's (not too close)
Thanks for the video. As usual, you have given me information to think about. One thing though, I don't have a personality.
When I made the jump from a point-and-shoot to a Nikon DSLR, the seller threw in a 70-300mm zoom, which was OK enought. I went out with a friend who shoots with a very similar model camera and he had a lovely Nikkor 35mm prime on his. We swapped cameras for a chunk of the afternoon and I knew after half a dozen frames that the 35mm had to go on my shopping list.
Five years later, I still shoot 90% of my stuff with the 35mm. It just feels how I see.
When I started I had a Minolta X300 with a 50mm f1.7 and a 28mm f2.8. Frankly I got on with the 50 the most. These days I’ve been trying to find my perfect 50 at a not too crazy price and for now it seems to be a 40mm f1.2 Voigtlander, which is pretty good. However, the point on the effect of the intimacy of a scene is absolutely right.
Using primes helped me so much!!!
Using the right focal length for the right message or the right story to tell.
How about not having the "right" focal length with you at the moment and having to adapt with a different focal length?
@@smith507 That's exactly what shooting primes is all about : adapting.
And also knowing what you can do easily and what you can't with the primes you use.
Brilliant! Thank you!
I don't believe that I ever saw one of Roger Deacon's films, but that 2 minute clip was gold!
On the Frames cover, I disagree some with you on it being flat. With the slight diagonal line in the image, it seems to draw the eye up and out and, for me, gives a feeling of depth.
I am struggling right now over my choice of a single lens for my X-Pro2 in my retirement. I have for literally decades used fast zooms for both work and some pleasure. Right now I have a single prime lens on the camera but am toying with renting the 18-135mm lens to see if I like it. For a while I used a 18-200mm zoom on my digital Nikons for street/travel shooting and really got a sense of enjoyment out of being able to see photographically from wide to tele images. I might just rent one and see if I like it.
I have 3 primes, but without a very specific purpose in mind, ... zoom lens. I am a walkabout photographer. I see something interesting, I frame/compose the shot by zooming in/out and click.
If I had to choose and could only take one lens it would be a 40 mm 2 or the 28mm 2.8. Those are my mostly used lenses on 35mm photography as well for analog as well as digital.
For portraits and on the beach for people I like the 90mm 2 and for animals the 135mm 2.8.
I actually preferred the 50mm over the years but now I like the 40mm much more.
The 35 mm is - when I shoot with two cameras - the lens on the one that doesn’t carry the 40mm.
On Medium-Format I actually do mostly use the 85mm …
Always good light!
I saved up for a used Nikon 24-70 g lens. I generally keep it at 45-50mm, but I like having the option to go a little wider or a little tele.
I like to use vintage lenses on my Sony a6000. I like the character or personality I get from the lenses.
28mm 1.7 on my Leica is the most fun I’ve ever had, I think my images on a 35 and 50 were better but I used those for such a long time. I’m still perfecting the 28 and can’t see that I’ll go back.
I got a 60mm FF macro a while back and it's my favorite for both macro and general nature.
Now I'm moving to micro four thirds and plan to limit myself to 3 primes. My 60mm (120 effective) macro, a wide 12mm (24 effective), and now I'm angsting about what my middle lens should be.
18, 24, 35, 150mm (ff equivalent). All fixed focal lengths, all for my PEN-F. Geared towards wide angle, with the telelens for specials. Moving away from zoomlenses was the best thing ever.
The "right" lens of course depends on the situation and no one FL is suitable for other than a relatively narrow range of images. Cropping or "zooming with your feet" (when that's even possible) is very different from as using a longer lens. I've always wanted as few limitations as practical, so only a "full-range" system would do. Micro Four Thirds gave me the ability to easily carry a 16-800 EFL range of lenses virtually anywhere, so I've always got the "right" lens for the situation (with no significant compromises and many advantages over larger systems). Of course, things can happen fast, so if there's no time to change lenses, it's nice to have a "bridge" camera with a wide zoom range as well, so you rarely miss a shot because you didn't have the right FL. That said, I often leave one lens on for hours (maybe a 70-200 EFL for woodland or 16-36 in an urban setting).
As you point out, there are some (albeit relatively rare for most people) cases where you need a really sharp lens, so I do favor "pro" glass to keep my options open, but I often soften images and/or add grain in post to avoid that overly-sharp "digital" look (just as analog music sounds better than digital, film just looks better to me--I just want to avoid the chemicals). You obviously address this with a Holga in hand.
I like to fill the frame. I like prime lenses and prefer 50mm, 90mm, 150mm. I like to step back and observe from afar.
400mm minium, but if im feeling extra shy i put on my 800mm. Dont see others doing it down the Barbican and Oxford St so I must be unique.
I have a huge confusion that had those photos you have shown be appreciated among hundreds of similar thematic compositions by unknown photographers without naming the celebrated photographer who had taken those images! I have seen so many gem of a piece on internet that go unnoticed. I feel the problem is once a photo is picked by some magazine or some prominent judge and they declare it to be outstanding, we generally accept it like that and keep on trying to find reasons to validate it. It is quite a subjective matter where the name of the photographer should come second. Very few people are there to say that any specific photograph by any famous photographer could have been better. Its the Brand that confuses me.
Great video but I don't think the 3 films shown when introducing Roger Deakins had different cinematographers. I think the first film is 'There will be Blood', with cinematography being done by Robert Elswit, The second I would guess is 'The Grand Budapest hotel', with cinematographer Robert Yeoman and the last is 'Mad Max Fury Road' with the cinematography being done by John Seale.
Roger Deakins is of course a legend and certainly ranks amongst the greatest cinematographer in history.
Personally, I choose the lens I am going to use by what I want from an image. I love certain lenses but if that lens doesn't suit the looking that I am going for, I generally won't use it.
Thank you for the correction.
I use a fixed 28mm camera for street and walk around stuff. Otherwise I use 50mm equiv. for most stuff.
So, it seems like the lens choice comes down to the desired separation of the subject from the background.
I've never had a prime lens, but I'm taking a black and white class where we're using film, so I got out my old AE-1 and bought a "new" 50mm. So this will be interesting.
Thank you. All the best. 👍📷😎
Thanks for watching
I feel this is overthinking it. f someone says 'meh' when we show them a photo the chances are that the composition, colour harmony (if in colour), light, expression, timing and so on are much bigger issues than the choice of focal length.
My current favourite lens (I'm doing a portrait project) is my Z85mm f/1.8. I love the way it renders the image and the immediacy it brings.
BTW - thanks for the Roger Deakins images. I've never seen his stills. Surprise, surprise - they're REALLY good!
Lens choice is a lot more than just focal length though. When I go out with my camera I don't just think about focal length but the character of a lens. I might consider taking one of my vintage lenses because it's not just a prime lens of a certain length, but also because the character of that particular lens is something I want to work with. Modern lenses are so clinically perfect and lacking in character. There's really nothing to tell a Nikon apart from a Canon or Sony lens, or any other brand. No individual personality.
I found a 28-280 (35 mm equivalent) for my Panasonic and that is my personality. My wide angle and my 50mm prime ( for low light) challenge me. I like the mixture.
I think we all were there and thought, we need more, expensive and of course, only Prime Lenses.
After many Years, and serval old and New Glasses for my beloved GX80, I have found "my" Lens, so to speak.
An 30 mm (60 mm Full frame) Macro. Not only it feels exactly like you said, as an extension of may own Vision, but it's also a Lens I can get really close to Thinks I'm curious about.
In short, it's a Lens I'm enjoying.
At one time, 50mm on full frame was my favorite lens. I find now that I shoot with a 28mm more often than not.
You have to be quirky these days to shoot Pentax, but of you do, you are rewarded with then equally Quirky 31mm, 43mm and 77mm FA Ltds, - of which I carry all three on the street, but mostly use the 31mm which is a real sweet spot to me for inclusion vs isolation, which is what framing is all about.
I use the usual lens, all good for shooting higher end corporate branding jobs, but I build extra time to use my Zeiss 85mm manual focus to get a possible extra magical shot...its like driving a Ferrari down a dead end street, risky but exhilarating.
Little duck. Quack quack. This is exactly the mix of insight I needed tonight! In all seriousness, great food for thought. Thank you. I've been having a bit of a lens existential crisis this winter.
Thanks for watching
…do you think the choice of camera has the same (or similar) impact in taking photos? Great video, once again, thank you!
Thank you for watching
Some of the old Panavision lenses are more valuable than new one's. Directors use them for their look. They do not have all the finesse or ease of use than new ones, but it takes some more time.
My favorite is 18mm on my Canon M50 which is 28mm in full frame.
I always love your insight!!
Thank you
I'm glad you changed the clickbait titles and thumbnails. This is much better. Your content is also presented a bit better, you've made changes. I enjoy the different photographers sections, although I miss how your voice changes when you quote somebody :D
I was a regular but at some point got repetitive and clickbait. Your videos even stopped popping up. Now they did show again. I guess positive change makes a difference. Please make many more insightful and relatable content as you do! Cheers!
Hi Martin.
Thanks for watching and coming back to the channel.
Hope to see more of your comments :D
Which lens is better for the portrait and fashion photography that I can both take full body photos and portrait and street photography as well
Depending on your format - something like a 50mm on a full frame ould be good.
Your "crazy chicken" is a common ring-necked pheasant. 😂 As one who frequently shoots birds, that is definitely one genre that (almost) always requires sharpness and detail. But even then, not always if you're being "artsy". I think more of "what lens for the job" rather than "what lens for the shooter" because different scenes are optimized by different lenses. But even then you'll develop preferences with experience.
I don't like analysing things too much TBH, as I feel that it detracts from the fun and the ' mystique ' of photography, but for me a 35mm lens whether for my Leica M cameras or Nikon DSLRs is how I see the world around me in one glance. I can work with 50, but I feel that I am always pushing myself with it, and I also use longer FLs if and when needed to suit the composition, but I don't walk around the streets with a 75mm or 85mm lens attached. The funny thing is that with MF cameras I lean mor etowards the longer 100mm FL.
Roger Deakins, as an example, worked with one thing that most street photographers don't. Permission to record somebody's image. To quote a recent experience of mine. "You take my photo with that thing and I'll shove it up your nose!" And that was by a guy also carrying a camera.
30mm sigma has not come off my Sony since I put it on a year ago
35mm for intimate portraits.
That’s why I could basically glue my 35mm f/1.4 to my camera. In 95% of all cases it would be just right. For the remaining 5% i use my 85mm and 24mm
I like 30-40mm primes. 50mm seems a bit too narrow, even though lots of people really like them.
This all seems to be under the assumption that photographers only use one single prime lens. Nowadays, this is not the case. There is of course one exception - 24mm on smartphones.
I only use a 50mm lens. I do this to challenge myself and to stop myself spending too much money on camera gear! 😆
I have worked in the industry for almost 20 years. Deakins isn't criminally underrated, he's revered as a cinematic god. I'd call him the Michael Jordan of Cinematography, but he's not retired.. Maybe he's the Lebron haha
Who's the photographer who made the photo in the thumbnail? Is it a Leica? 28mm?
There are a lot of different grey shades between failure and success.
very good video, thank you for the content :)
I bought Canon, I don't have lens choices. There are like 3 semi decent lenses under 1500$ in Canon RF system.
Sony 55mm all day it’s super sharp in photo and video
The lens also depends on the format. Most amateur photographers shoot 35 mm and have never shot medium or large format. These formats are where you really see differences if you really know photography! Ex; I can tell from a printed photograph what format was used from 35mm 120mm 4x5 or 8x10!
Trying to use tpe10 for read frames and it doesn’t work.
It's case sensitive - try it as uppercase
Will someone like your photograph, and take time to explore it? One thing, not addressed here, is that many people are not interested in, or not seeing art. Their view of what is around them being so different than the photographer, or painter is so much different, you may never understand why what you are showing someone is not accepted as well done. They might look for how sharp something is, or how realistic is may be, and have absolutely no need for any art. As time goes by, what is "in" today, might be something seen as silly, or tacky tomorrow, so beware of popular, as compared to timeless art. My new found love is that of street photography, so I am trying my best to hone the skills, while enjoying the moment. " Life is once. Forever. " Henri Cartier-Bresson once said. I tend to gravitate towards the use of 50mm, as the geometry renders well, with easy composing and lack of distortions. Will also be using 35mm and 28mm to see if it works, and can be tamed from distortions and disruptions. At times, I feel I have bruised the scene when in close, while other times it works out well. And shooting to the edge is fine, until distortion sets in -- alway how far can one go. And keeping the camera at the level -- a challenge indeed, unless one sees the wonky distortions as artful -- hey, it can work too. Once a month, or two, taking 85mm or more lens out, is not a bad option, and a great challenge. Are you a 50mm, 35mm or 28mm person, is often the question. What if you see things in differing ways depending on the environment you are within? What then? All lengths work. I might be more the 50mm guy. Take care, Loren Schwiderski
What about Stanley Kubrick my friend?
24-105 sigma, art series. Built like a Ukrainian tank and sharp as I want front to back.
Seen this on You Tube claims he is repairing a former film camera of Ansell Adams a Pentax MX (I think)
35mm SLR.... Just saying...
... Okay
Make sure to listen to the team deakins podcast!