man and nature # 8 ~ return to an old habit
Monday, May 12, 2008 at 10:29AM 
Green • click to embiggenNot that you may have noticed here on the web, but I have a new camera and a new lens.
I purchased the camera for 2 primary reasons:
1) I wanted more pixels, in this case 15mp - almost 1.5x the number I have been using - in order to make big prints, 4×4 feet, of my decay and picture window series. I am running some direct comparison tests at 2×2 feet and there is some difference between 10 mp and 15 mp, but, frankly, not all that much at normal viewing distance. We'll see what happens at 4×4 feet.
2) I wanted to use a prime (non-zoom, single focal length) lens.
Before I got into digital capture, of all the lens I owned (35mm, medium format, large format) I only had 1 zoom lens - a Nikkor 43-86mm. It was common knowledge and wisdom that zoom lenses were always inferior to prime lens in sharpness, contrast, and speed. If you were a "serious" (and non-action/sports) shooter, you made pictures with prime lenses. End of story.
With the advent of digital capture and, to be accurate, far better glass and computer-assisted lens design and manufacture, zooms seemed to emerge as the lens of choice. Now, of all the digital capture lenses I own, only 1 is a prime - and that only since a week ago. And that only by switching brands to a manufacturer which seems to place a high value on prime lenses.
Why, you might wonder, do I want to shoot with a prime lens?
The answer is really quite simple - I like to keep it simple. IMO, and 1n my experience, picturing with a single focal length helps me, the photographer, focus on what I am seeing (and trying to convey) without having to be concerned at all with the mechanics of how I see it. The "mechanics" of my vision are locked in and there is a resultant visual consistency to my body of work.
There is little new about this approach. Very few, if any, bodies of Fine Art photography are made with or exhibit the use of obviously different focal length lenses.
So, here I am, once again, making pictures with just 1 lens, in this case, a 21mm f2.8 (35mm equivalent) and it "feels" good - just like old times.
How about you? Any prime lens picture makers in the audience?
Reader Comments (11)
Color me old fashioned, or is that just old? My digital switch was over 3 years back. My 4x5 sits on an old tripod in the living room. After some experimenting, I now carry 1 zoom and 9 primes. The zoom is in the bag because it's the best I can afford in the 18-20mm range. The primes are: 24, 28, 35, 55, 85, 105, 135, and 200. Some are quite old. The 9th prime is a '60s vintage 127mm f/4.7 Rodenstock Yearex on a tilt/shift bellows. A tripod is used 95% of the time and I work as slowly now as with 4x5 film.
Absolutely! I keep it simple. I have one zoom lens that is very good (it is my "telephoto" lens), but the rest are 35, 50, and 100 (macro) primes. I use the 35 and 50 most of the time (my camera is full-frame digital). They are clearly better than most zooms I've tried and offer advantages such as shallow depth of field when preferred and low-light work. And I find that using a prime lens forces me to visualize compositions more thoughtfully than a zoom would, and I rather enjoy that.
The interesting thing about my zoom lens is that I use it most of the time at one focal length - 200mm. It has image stabilization which helps when handholding at that length.
Here also. My single zoom is the 'kit' lens that came with the camera. Since then I've added a 50, 85 and 105 micro. Got the 105 first. Now I'm contemplating a 35. Also I don't use af much.
I'm the same. Have been shooting portraits with an 85mm prime for 18 months now. Hardly change lenses at all. I like it because after the first year I started basically seeing without bothering to put the camera up to my eye. The crop, distance from subject etc all became pretty much instinctive.
Meant I didn't fiddle with my camera so much when trying to make pictures and could focus more on the subject and talking to them.
When my wife and I shot film, every lens was prime, the 135 was my favorite. Today with digital, my wife loves her 55-200 and I like my 18-135mm but for birding I carry a Sigma 28-300 always cranked out to 300, I hate the lens but it is all I can afford. The Nikon lenses like a 300,400 or 500 cost the price of a small used car so I will have to wait.
We also use a Nikon P50 with a Stokes Spotting scope for digiscoping.
While I do some work with zooms (particularly ultra-wide work, there's no options for rectilinear lenses for modern cameras wider than 14mm) I do work primarily with primes, and almost all my film work is with primes.
I've no actual bias against zooms, the current lot can be absolutely superb optically. But I prefer the smaller size and (usually) larger aperture of primes as well as finding composition easier with prime lenses. In fact I have a distinct tendency to use my zooms as 'multi-prime' lenses, tending to use 2-3 focal lengths preset on the zoom rather than using the zoom to compose.
I love this photograph Mark. It's a beautiful blend of interesting shape and color--those fresh greens and yellows! What's going on in the crook of the tree? Is it a reflection or a strange illusion?
Thanks for the comments and feedback - much appreciated.
Mary - it's a strange illusion caused by a near-ish "veil" of branches and buds over a farther away small shed, and, I must add, it doesn't surprise me at all that you would notice this.
I use a 28mm for 90% of all my "Art" work. For snaps I use zooms. My reasons for using the 28mm are many, but like you, I like to keep things simple. Also, the 28mm is bright (1.8), very light, focus is quick and sharpness is very good. I mainly photograph people (in their environment) and buildings, so 28mm is a good compromise.
I'm going to stick up for the zooms.
First a pre-note: I do use primes, especially with film (135, 6x7, 4x5) and find them great for certain subjects but...
With a prime you are at the behest of the equipment. All the talk of "learning to see how the camera does" is just an excuse for being limited by equipment (i.e. it getting in the way).
I like zooms (good ones) because of the fine compositional control they give me. I can have a specific subject in mind and get the most out of the frame in composing it. I remove as much extraneous as possible.
Yes, sometime I can move to frame but not if I suddenly go from 28mm to 135mm, just can't run that fast. What if I'm on the edge of a cliff or beside a busy road (frequent occurrences, both)?
Zoom allows me complete freedom of expression, I decide precisely the subject and have the equipment match that vision, not the other way around.
Zoom allows me complete freedom of expression
That's largely the bit I don't like. I'm all about having a little box of constraints to fight my way out of, rather than a wide open, blank slate to get lost in. Primes are just one part of that, limiting myself enough that I have a hope of being creative, rather than just swamped by all that freedom.