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

[Mike Buckley]

Of all the criticisms I've seen of Cartier-Bresson, missing out on good shots is most definitely new to me.

[dubaiphil]

It can also introduce unacceptable degrees of perspective distortion as the ratio of sizes between foreground and background objects changes.

Using a zoom, which is not optimised for any particular focal length in its repertoire can also result in distortion of a different kind, especially at the wide end.

Just saying...

[Colin Southern]

With such a balanced view, Colin, which primes are you thinking of selling?!?!?!?!?!

I wouldn't sell any of them, because they're specialist lenses that do things my zooms can't, eg

14mm (on FF camera)



85mm/1.2 (with ISO Maxed @ shutterspeed at absolute minimum)



TS-E 90mm (with extention tube) (primarily for close-focusing for art reproduction & product photography)



135mm/F2

[Colin Southern]

Of all the criticisms I've seen of Cartier-Bresson, missing out on good shots is most definitely new to me.

He had some damn fine shots for sure -- but ONLY ones that suited his preferred length. How limiting is that? About as limiting as a taxi driver who only drives on avenues, and won't go down streets, lanes, roads, or freeways.

[Colin Southern]

Using a zoom, which is not optimised for any particular focal length in its repertoire can also result in distortion of a different kind, especially at the wide end.

Just saying...

Which is easily corrected in post-production. In reality it just isn't an issue.

[dubaiphil]

Which is easily corrected in post-production. In reality it just isn't an issue.

Try telling that to a Sigma 10-20mm owner

[Melkus]

I whis I had never brough up the name Henri Cartier-Bresson For me I still like using a 50mm or 35mm lens because whenever you look through a 50mm or 35mm lens, it doesn’t appear as if there is any magnification or other distortion. It is exactly like looking through your own eyes.

[rtbaum]

I think that there nothing wrong with using the starter zooms to develop your style are beneficial. After a period of time, you will find that you are using certain focal lengths quite a bit. You can then consider purchasing a prime in that focal length. As an example, I started with the Tamron 18-270 on the Nikon D90, it has been great for a general lens for wandering around and shooting general landscapes, family gatherings, outdoor pet photos, whatever strikes my fancy. I knew that I tend to shoot almost exclusively nature images. My next lens was a Tamron 90mm macro, this prime lens has allowed me to specialize in wildflowers and just happens to be a pretty good portrait lens and the fact that it is a f2.8, it allowed me to shoot in low light conditions a lttle more effectively. It is interesting to note that using the prime introduced me different interests, I discovered that I enjoyed taking candids of people enjoying themselves at local festivals. The 18-270 is somewhat lacking at the long end, I just never seemed to have enough reach to capture that powerful image of the deer in the meadow or speed to capture the bald eagle soaring along the north shore of Lake Superior. My most recent purfchase was an old Sigma 400mm f5.6 which is currently allowing me to follow another photographic path.


( I post this photo merely to illustrate a point, not to hijack this thread)

I think that the use of primes is 'specialized', allowing one to isolate the subject in ways not possible with the zoom and will further one's knowledge in the field of photography.

I think that you will know when to move to primes and what prime(s), when your zooms are not meeting your needs.

My advice at this time would be to foster relationships with other photographers using lenses compatible with your body and swap lenses. There may be photography clubs in your area to meet others, I would explore this option.

Please continue posting here on CiC, I think that your journey helps many others on this site. I think that you show quite a bit of talent.

[Thlayle]

Since I have similar constraints, I can tell you my experience:

I shoot with a Canon T2i, which is I believe the 550D. It came with kit lenses, including the 18-55mm zoom with auto-focus and image stabilization. This camera is my entry into DSLR and I bought it less than a year ago. After a few months with it, I decided to purchase the "plastic fantastic" (thank you very much for the term!) since I wanted to see if a dedicated prime with a faster quality would offer some improvements with low light situations. The 50mm f/1.8 II lens fit right into my budget.

To address your questions:

a) Here I will refer to the already posted, "everything looks right" comment. Right away I loved the shots I was getting with this lens. It performs very nicely in low light situation and it allows faster shutter speeds, also making it a great lens for a variety of situations. So, yes there's quite a few shots you can get with it that you can't do as well with the slower 18-55mm.

b) No more nasty should be your result with substituting this for you 70-300mm lens. You should be able to get shots with less grain and better sharpness.

c) I can relate to this: having a prime 50mm forces you do have to work more at composition. I find it easier to take quick shots with my other lenses and worry less about composition since I can do that in the processing later. There's theoretically no reason why you can't do this same work at developing composition with the zoom lenses. Still, there's a lot to be said on "the difference between theory and reality."

d) Myself, I wouldn't be happy with it as my walk around but on the other hand, now that I have it I won't leave it home!

This lens is a well worthwhile addition to your gear bag. On the other hand, I don't think I would be happy not having auto-focus. So my bottom line is: get the plastic-fantastic, sell off your 18-5mm and swap it out with another zoom with auto-focus.

[Mike Buckley]

He had some damn fine shots for sure -- but ONLY ones that suited his preferred length. How limiting is that? About as limiting as a taxi driver who only drives on avenues, and won't go down streets, lanes, roads, or freeways.

Another criticism of Cartier-Bresson that is new to me -- that his shots were limiting. If you were a photojournalist in the 1930's, 40's and 50's, what focal lengths would you have used? Comparing a painter turned photographer turned painter and his choice of tools for making an image to a taxi driver and his choice of where to drive just doesn't seem analogous to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

EDIT: I see that you edited your post to exclude the reference to a taxi driver. Good decision!

[rpcrowe]

No inanimate device "MAKES" you pay attention to framing and composition. It is the computer between your ears that is connected to your eyes that allows you to pay attention to these matters. I shoot most of my images usig zoom lenses and I am always cognizent of my framing and composition.

IMO, the very first lens that a DSLR photographer should consider is a decent mid range zoom lens. Ife is working with an 18-55mm kit lens which has lost its auto focus ability. There could possibly be other problems with that lens also. Even if the lens works decently in manual focus mode, Ife's camera is not optimized for manual focus (most DSLR cameras are not).

I suspect that Ife's 18-55mm lens may very well be the older, non IS version. If so, the IQ of the IS version is considerably better.

I would strongly suggest that a mid range zoom with working auto focus should be a priority purchase before a 50mm f/1.8 ii is considered. I assume that the prices of these two lenses in Nigeria might be comparable.

[Manfred M]

I tend to be on the same page as Phil regarding primes versus zooms, certainly as a learning tool.

I took a landscape photography course shortly after I bought my first DSLR. I thought it would be useful in transitioning from a film camera, to a digital camera with far more bells and whistles and controls that I was used to dealing with. For the very first class assigment, we were restricted to using a single prime lens (for those that did not have a prime lens, the zoom had to be shot from a single focal lenth setting.

This made perfect sense to me, because it forces the photographer to move around and work the subject, rather than standing there with both feet planted in one spot, using the zoom to compose. Even today, I go out every so often and shoot with a prime only, just to keep my composition skills tuned up.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Phil,

You know I love your photos and I always look forward to seeing them and clearly by your results, you know your stuff, but I do think a couple of things you said here may mis-lead some and confirm incorrect myths in the minds of others.

You know what I mean - zooming with your feet rather than with the lens, and all that!

You cannot "zoom" with your feet - you can only zoom by cropping, using digital zoom (same thing), or changing the focal length of the lens.

Once you start walking back and fore with respect to the subject you are changing the 'perspective' of the shot - I'm talking about changing the relative sizes of near and far things. The results are not the same as zooming.

Also, with a 50mm you can stitch a panorama together to represent far more accurately what the eye can see, rather than using an ultra wide angle which will accentuate depth in the image.

The depth will only be accentuated if the viewpoint is changed - i.e. the camera is moved closer to the subject.
True - an UWA will tempt people to shoot from closer to their subjects - but it is not the focal length doing the accentuating.

I don't have half the photographic experience you have, but I believe (hope ) I have a firm understanding of the theory on this aspect of photography.

I believe, but haven't tried it because I don't yet have a UWA, that a stitched panorama shot from the exact same point as a UWA shot will have the same perspective. The stitching software may struggle with anything quite near the camera though, unless the shots are very carefully taken, rotating the view about the lens' optical centre, which is unlikely for anyone starting out in photography. An uncorrected UWA lens shot may well distort things more than a stitched series of 50mm shots though, but they are always corrected for things like that automatically, so therefore should the UWA shot be (distortion corrected).


I use zooms almost exclusively, but when I am shooting (especially architectural subjects), I consider the perspective (and I'm talking about the relative sizes of near and far things that form part of the subject) separately from zooming to frame/compose the image, they are - or should be - two separate considerations in the composition of an image. For one I walk back and fore and for the other I zoom.


I certainly agree with this though;

Having said all that, IMO a 50mm prime would be far too limiting on a crop sensor body

(I have one and rarely use it)

... and I also thought your earlier suggestion of going out and shooting a whole day at a single focal length (on a kit zoom lens) was a very valid educational tool.

Yours sincerely,

[jcuknz]

Of all the criticisms I've seen of Cartier-Bresson, missing out on good shots is most definitely new to me.

We will never know becuase he missed them ?
My reaction is that one gets used to going for shots that your gear permits, such as when I used my Rollieflex, but now with a zoom I find I frequently look with a 'telephoto' eye and rarely consider the perspective involved ... it is the framing that is the first consideration. Likewise with my first digital and on holiday I simply ignored shots that didn't suit its x2 zoom.
So I think it is likely HCB didn't miss shots for the lack of a range of lenses becuase firstly he wasn't continually changing lenses and secondly because he didn't take shots that his gear couldn't take. I'm thinking of the story of him walking in a group and being the speaker .. and snapping a shot without interuption to his flow of speech according to another member of the group.
I gather he gave his PP team quite a few heartaches The fast automatic camera is a wonderful invention.

[Colin Southern]

Another criticism of Cartier-Bresson that is new to me -- that his shots were limiting. If you were a photojournalist in the 1930's, 40's and 50's, what focal lengths would you have used? Comparing a painter turned photographer turned painter and his choice of tools for making an image to a taxi driver and his choice of where to drive just doesn't seem analogous to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

Mike,

Here's 2 examples of how CB would have been limited with only a 50mm lens ...

He and I were out shooting one day. He had only a 50mm lens - I had 400mm. I got this shot at 400mm



How would that shot have looked if shot at 50mm? Bloody awful (and alas, I didn't have my jetpack on me so I couldn't "zoom with my feet") (would probably have fried the bird anyway).

This was taken at 16mm ...



How did CB's version look? Well unfortunately, he only had his 50mm on him and - what we just say that "it wasn't a keeper".

If you only have a 50mm spanner then you're limited to working with 50mm nuts and bolts. If you have a complete collection of spanners or adjustable spanners you can work with whatever nuts and bolts you need to. One is limiting - the other is limitless.

[dubaiphil]

Hi Dave

I was quoting an over used phrase there - 'zooming with your feet'.

I've learnt by trial and error regarding stitching panoramas at different focal lengths. Say you are photographing some architecture from dead front - if you use a wide angle lens and overlap your shots correctly to stitch, when you approach the furthest parts of the building they will appear further away due to the added depth that a wide angle gives you. Therefore when you stitch, your horizontals which are above your eyeline will converge towards the horizon.

Similarly, if you stitch and have leading lines in your panorama, then the depth will be accentuated further.

Here's an example:

a 35mm panorama - note the depth that the leading lines on the right give to the image and the way the building gets smaller towards the far left corner



a 50mm panorama (travesty, on a zoom lens!). Note that the image still has convergence towards the minarets in the corners, but this is reduced by the focal length. I'm shooting something which is about 150m square here so unless I'm using a longer telephoto and many more shots in the panorama, I'm always going to have this happening



So just as a single shot with a telephoto lens compresses the image, so a stitch with a longer lens will flatten the final image and a stitch with a wide angle will add more depth, if you get what I mean.

So sometimes, when stitching a cityscape, if I'm using a 35mm I will end up with a slightly unnatural finished image. Sure, I can make sure my verticals are vertical with the software, but the focal length can play tricks with your mind on the final stitched result. Just to add to the psychedelia on this example, I'll add a little fluorescent blue uplighting - note that all the verticals are vertical, but the buildings seem to lean



Anyway, I digress

Don't buy a 50 until you're sure you like 50 - that's my opinion.

Otherwise you've bought yourself an expensive paperweight.

[Mike Buckley]

Here's 2 examples of how CB would have been limited with only a 50mm lens ...

Though your images are absolutely fabulous, your assumption is that Cartier-Bresson wouldn't have gotten equally good images at the exact same time photographing something that was more of a good fit with his camera system. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be thinking that using just one focal length is only a limition and that there is nothing to be gained by it. Considering that I have been married for 29 years (and you for 18 years), should we also assume that having just one partner is only a limitation? Of course not.

[Colin Southern]

Though your images are absolutely fabulous, your assumption is that Cartier-Bresson wouldn't have gotten equally good images at the exact same time photographing something that was more of a good fit with his camera system.

We'll never know what images he might have got -- but the point is, he wouldn't have got THOSE images. Maybe it's a difference in perspective; as a photographer I don't want to be limited to only being able to create images that only suit 1 focal length -- I want to be able to capture & record any scene that catches my eye (even if the ones that I might have made at 50mm may have been great images).

As I mentioned earlier, what focal lengths would you have used as a photojournalist in the 1930's, 40's and 50's? I'm guessing that the 400mm length that you used as an example probably wouldn't have been so ideal at the time.

I'm sure that I wouldn't have used 400mm as a photojournalist in the 30's to 50's - but - we're not in the 30's to 50's anymore; they didn't have the access to the high-performance zoom lenses that we do now. Perhaps another question would be "If CB was in his prime (pun intended!) in 2012, would he still stick to a single focal length"?

[dubaiphil]

He'd probably still have an M and a bag full of Summiluxes, or Summiluxi

And a Noctilux

A little more discreet than a 400 f2.8. I wouldn't want to be hand holding that and a Full Frame DSLR while waiting for a decisive moment. Cramp would set in first, I think

[dubaiphil]

Personally I blame Manfred's thought process.

Post image of pendulous African breasts, light the touch paper, and retire