50mm prime or 50mm on an 18-55. Dilemma + Dilemma.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hero

I think mentioning Henri Cartier-Bresson is a bit of a moot point here, since most advances in zoom-lens technology that made them fit for day to day use happened late in his career and after his retirement.

---

Hero - I think you have missed the point. Cartier-Bresson chose a very unobtrusive, small camera, with a tiny, obsolete lens that he covered in black tape. He used in a very anonymous manner to create some absolutely outstanding images. He did not even use the relatively small contemporary 50mm lenses that were available to him. He did not generally use the 35mm or the 90mm or the 135mm lens that were available to him on his camera. Film SLRs were certainly on the market when he was active, yet he did not go there. No magnificent Rollei TLR or Hasselblad cameras either. I rather suspect a zoom lens would not have been on his camera, that would have been out of character.

When I head downtown to take pictures, I will usually take my crop-frame camera with a fixed 35mm lens so I don't stick out. Sometimes I just head out with a cheap old point and shoot. That way I am anonymous. If I throw my f/2.8 70-200mm lens on my D800, I get totally different shots, because this gear make people aware that I am taking their picture.

Technology is not important; the results are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hero

I think mentioning Henri Cartier-Bresson is a bit of a moot point here, since most advances in zoom-lens technology that made them fit for day to day use happened late in his career and after his retirement.

---

Or after he died? August 22, 1908 - August 3, 2004.

Zoom lenses have really come into their own (quality-wise) in the past half dozen years or so.

The 17-55 was the first really good zoom lens for an APS-C Canon DSLR, and it's image quality rivaled that of many primes. It was introduced in 2006.

I bought the 24-105 with my 30D six years ago; it was introduced in October 2005.

I wonder if HCB had a chance to use these lenses? ;)

The OP's lens missed being a 17-55 by one mm.:) I seriously believe that if he had the 17-55, he mightn't have started this thread.

Glenn

I totally agree Glenn - development of cast (glass and plastic) asymmetrical elements, the availability of commodity high index and low dispersion glass and breakthroughs in thin-film coatings really turned the the high-priced zoom lens into a mass produced commodity item that could challange fixed lens image quality. This technology really came into its own in the last 6 or 7 years.

Prior to that, aspherical lens elements were painstaking hand made and the specialty glass was extremely expensive. These elements were only found in very high end pro lenses.

Glenn, Manfred, I was thinking about the late 70's and early 80's when zoomlenses first became affordable for the average hobbyist. The zoom my brother had back then (think it was a canon 70-200 or something thereabouts) wasn't bad regarding image-quality, it was just awfully slow/dark.

And whether I missed the point or not, I was just pondering on if Henri had lived and worked today, would he have still used a camera (any camera) with a fixed focal length lens?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hero

Glenn, Manfred, I was thinking about the late 70's and early 80's when zoomlenses first became affordable for the average hobbyist. The zoom my brother had back then (think it was a canon 70-200 or something thereabouts) wasn't bad regarding image-quality, it was just awfully slow/dark.

And whether I missed the point or not, I was just pondering on if Henri had lived and worked today, would he have still used a camera (any camera) with a fixed focal length lens?

---

We will never know:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hero

Glenn, Manfred, I was thinking about the late 70's and early 80's when zoomlenses first became affordable for the average hobbyist. The zoom my brother had back then (think it was a canon 70-200 or something thereabouts) wasn't bad regarding image-quality, it was just awfully slow/dark.

And whether I missed the point or not, I was just pondering on if Henri had lived and worked today, would he have still used a camera (any camera) with a fixed focal length lens?

---

While we will never know for sure, we do know that the technology was available for Leicas in 1968 as they markteted an Angenieux zoom lens for use with their cameras. This was a still in the period where he was shooting actively.

My Leitz f/4 70 - 210mm Vario-Elmar R, that I bought used in the late 1980s, cost me around the same amount of money as the f/2.8 70-200mm Nikkor that I picked up a couple of years ago. Add inflation to that, and it's not hard to figure out how much better and cheaper zoom lenses have gotten recently.

10 Things Henri Cartier-Bresson Can Teach You About Street Photography. At number 4 we see. "Stick to one lens"
Although Henri Cartier-Bresson shot with several different lenses while on-assignment working for Magnum, he would only shoot with a 50mm if he was shooting for himself. By being faithful to that lens for decades, the camera truly became “an extension of his eye”;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melkus

10 Things Henri Cartier-Bresson Can Teach You About Street Photography. At number 4 we see. "Stick to one lens"
Although Henri Cartier-Bresson shot with several different lenses while on-assignment working for Magnum, he would only shoot with a 50mm if he was shooting for himself. By being faithful to that lens for decades, the camera truly became “an extension of his eye”;)

---

I'm glad it worked out so well for him, but I just think it's so limiting it's insane. In my mind it's like sticking to only 1 TV channel - or model of car - or one route driving into town - or one hobby - or one friend - or one meal. Limiting and boring.

If I'd followed that advice I wouldn't have ANY of the photos in my gallery.

If your legs are controlling the results of your camera then you are holding it wrong.:D In this case, legs are just another tool to position the camera. The framing, the judgements and creativity is in the mind.

It looks like most of my thoughts have already been put forth but I’ll let this go anyway.

As others have indicated, Mr. Cartier-Bresson would have shot with only prime lenses because it's all that was available at the time. It was his conscious choice to stick to the 50 and by doing so maximized his familiarity to the point of not having to think about it. Good for him. What he did do was take many photos of the same thing for evaluation and throw out all but the best. He zoomed with his feet in close quarters street photography so I would have to agree that his using a prime is a moot point. We can’t talk to him but quotes indicate he did not want to influence the shot so I think he may have preferred the zoom or at least a longer one in some instances. He sent his negatives out for processing but I can pretty much guarantee that many others up until about 1999 did their own ‘zooming’ in the darkroom. Analyzing and adjusting the vertical and horizontal scope of view is one of the very first considerations in that process. Implying Henri or others stuck to single one-take images with SOOC results is nonsense.

As with many others I too started out with the basic kit we could afford and that kit in those days was an SLR with a 50mm lens. Subsequent cameras came with the same basic 50mm right up until my second last one which I suspect that when new, it too still came with the 50. 50's were standard solely for the reason that they best represented an acceptable focus range of our eyes. Professional level shops carried bodies and lenses but few of us could afford or even had local access to such an outlet.

Learning the basics of photography is not relegated to a 50mm lens as your only tool. Could you, I or Henri have not learned just as much or even more with a 35mm? Or an 85? The camera, the light, and a few other aspects have equally contributing factors. Remember, prior to the DSLR we actually had to learn quite a bit about photography as the whole and “lessons learned” in the film world were expensive and time consuming so you learned quickly. You also need to consider his period in history. Photography was relegated to the wealthy and part of the allure of old photographs is their location, rarity and shots of a time that is strange to us. Certainly not the quality of the work in many examples. Another aspect of the time and unfamiliarity with photographers can be seen in many old photographs. Try getting really close to strangers and taking shots like Henri’s ‘Alicante, Spain 1932’ today and you’re more likely to get a punch in the mouth. I watched a clip not too long ago about some street photographer jumping in the faces of people on the street to capture their reactions. He’s no master and everyone just thought he was crazy.

If we are smart enough we can learn with any lens or other tool for that matter. The very first lens I bought on its own was a zoom which presents a whole new series of things to learn over and above the 50. With changes in focus, performance from one end of the range to the other and varying f-stops, I found it harder. One of the big things I learned at the time was not to buy another prime. Remember that not too long ago the differences between primes and zooms was more evident in the results. The engineering and technology of the glass, the coatings and the lenses themselves is more on an equal level in modern lens. Sure I've come to realize there are some instances when a prime might produce results a zoom can’t but it’s certainly not worth the cost of a 105 f2 DC to me. A professional portrait photographer perhaps but I see many today using the 70 – 200 with an equal amount of skill, results and accolades.

What each of us uses for camera or lenses is a personal choice we each get our own gratification from. Whether it be functionality, cheers from peers, ego, whatever, none can claim to be better or more knowledgeable than you in the aspect of the pleasure you get from your photography. In today’s world, with the choices we have that he could not have conceived of, what would the beginning street photographer Mr Cartier-Bresson be using for his tools? Would he be wandering the streets of New York with the equally famous Jay Maisel and his usual 70–300 or backup 24–70?

Ife, this thread seems to have drifted from your original post. In these many pages you have some excellent responses and suggestions to your original questions. In your own comments I think you were already on your way to making the best decision for yourself and just wanted some assurance you weren’t missing some important piece of information. Hopefully you’re not more confused. Good luck and let us know how you did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

I'm glad it worked out so well for him, but I just think it's so limiting it's insane. In my mind it's like sticking to only 1 TV channel - or model of car - or one route driving into town - or one hobby - or one friend - or one meal. Limiting and boring.

If I'd followed that advice I wouldn't have ANY of the photos in my gallery.

---

I totally agree, but he was primarily and foremost an artist, not a technician. And some people don't take well to technology - some are still using film. ;) Perhaps he was one of "those".

The other comment that came to mind is that at one time (perhaps still), the 48 to 55 mm range of focal lengths was said to most closely match that of the human eye. When I bought my first 35 mm camera, it was a fixed lens Olympus with a 48 mm lens. My next twp cameras were an Asahi Pentax S and an Asahi Pentax SV - both with a 55 mm (so-called standard) lens. There are not many on this forum that are young enough to have been part of this.

Glenn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glenn NK

The other comment that came to mind is that at one time (perhaps still), the 48 to 55 mm range of focal lengths was said to most closely match that of the human eye.

---

People often say that - but I go through life using BOTH eyes, which gives me a different field of view to one eye ... perhaps the "same as" folks go through life with only 1 eye open! Go figure~!

Cyracles, if you're still reading this, did you get your 50mm or stick with the 18-55mm?

Thanks everyone.
Phil, I am fervently still reading this and will be getting the 50mm(because of the low light abilities) as soon as I am able to raise the money.

Glad we didn't lose you there! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dubaiphil

Glad we didn't lose you there! :)

---

This did get long and winded but a good read none the less. Now get that 50mm and get out there and starting shooting and lets see some photos:D

As an addition to posts #55 and #56 regarding AF vs. MF on (Canon) DSLR:

The Auto Focus System is located at the base of the camera and uses electronics and technology (which I shall not describe) but which, in most circumstances is very accurate to achieve focus, especially if the Centre AF Point is used and a CONTRAST EDGE can locked onto.

But on the other hand, when using Manual Focus, the Eye is used to achieve a VISUAL decision through the viewfinder.
The two systems are unconnected.

As well as the limiting factors of using Manual Focussing which have been already mentioned, other considerations are that the Visual Decision relies on:

 An exact placement of the focusing screen (and it NOT being slightly dislodged - this is more common that most would expect)
 Accurate eyesight
 Correct Dioptre Adjustment
 (negative) effects of - glare through the back of the viewfinder
 (negative) effects of – viewfinder darkness
 The Effective Aperture of the Focussing Screen (Note most modern DSLR screens are around f 2.8 or smaller, which makes it impossible to manually focus more accurately than that Effective Aperture


Considering these elements (especially the first and the last): Manual Focussing in most situations is generally more difficult than using Auto Focussing on DSLR Cameras.


Obviously this statement is a GENERALIZATION – for example - Manual Focussing can be very accurate using LIVE VIEW or when using an ANGLE FINDER, etc.

WW