One camera, one lens, challenge

[Jims]

Well, I thought about this a lot and have adopted this approach a few months back now...

Found an interesting few articles on the subject and this one stuck out in particular, as I'm really just a casual hobbyist with my photography I thought I'd give it a go.

http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2...-and-one-lens/

I have the kit lense that came with my camera and have not even used it once yet. Sticking with my Zeiss 55 f1.8
And Sony A7 I plan on sticking with it for as long as I can to 'make' me learn how to shoot with a fixed focal length.

Any one else tried anything like this, how did you find it?

[Shadowman]

I do it quite often, usually event dependent and I always wish I had another lens with me when I do. But you improvise and if you teach yourself to fill the frame it often works out well; unless there is a gully between you and your subject.

[Hans]

Yes, I did do a couple of months with a CV 20mm f3.5 on a D90 (35mm eq. of 30mm FL) and loved the freedom it gave me and instinctive framing it developed. I felt that during that time I took some of the most meaningful photographs I have ever taken. I do it frequently now. I've also done it with a 35mm on crop sensor. I think it is a good exercise especially while learning photography.

I went to Nepal with a 35mm, 50mm, 100mm and the CV20mm but shot about 95% with the 20mm since I was so familiar with it by then. I pretty much only ever take one prime anywhere these days. I found it a very interesting concept to follow for a few months and I think it led me to cutting my lens lineup to 4 prime lenses, though I could easily get by with 2 (say, the Fuji 35/2 and 18/2)

Go for it, see what happens and tells us what you learned and how it affected your photography.
Regards, Pete

[LePetomane]

It is a fun exercise. I have done it with my Zeiss 32mm f/1.8 a few times. It forces you to look at objects from different angles and distances. I had a discussion on this very thing with street photographer Valerie Jardin. She refers to it as "the power of limitations."

I would think that it would be difficult to do with a specialized lens such as an ultra wide angle or long telephoto. Your 55mm lens is close to the focal length of the human eye which would make it a good place to start. Enjoy!!

[Black Pearl]

Jim it puzzles me greatly (worries me even) that you have a lens that you say you have never used.

Why?

Why wouldn't you want to use a perfectly good lens that will allow you to expand your creativity almost certainly allowing you to capture a whole different range of shots? I would wager you would learn far faster and build a far more comprehensive knowledge on how to craft a good photograph if you understood intimately the way focal lengths alter the way an image can be crafted. I often wander about with just one lens on my Fuji but that is because I have been shooting the same area while out with the dog for years and years and years so the camera is with me because I might want to take a few pictures. The thought of ONLY ever using one lens regardless of what I want to shoot sends shudders through me. As a photographer I want to understand my gear and how to best use each individual item but I also want to be free to capture and craft as many different images as I possibly can.

[John 2]

I would have to agree with Robin. I bought a fixed focal length (18mm) lens camera before our recent trip to Canada (Fuji X70) purely because the Fuji outfit I normally use is a bit too large to be pocketable and I anticipated that there would be occasions when an armful of gear would be inappropriate. About half of the images I returned with were made using the X70. I managed some reasonable captures but there were so many occasion when having "seen" a potential shot, I wished that I had the focal length to make the most of it. Consequently, I found the one lens concept limiting rather than empowering. If it's all you have, it most certainly should not stop you being creative but in my experience, nor should it be an end in itself.

[DanK]

I have to agree with Robin and John. I grew up in the era of primes-only (zooms weren't high quality then), and for a long time, I had only two: 50mm and 135mm. I have no desire whatever to go back. In fact, the only primes I now own are my macro lenses, and even with zooms, I often carry two or more, unless I know in advance what I am going to shoot.

I can see that having just one focal length would be an interesting exercise once in a while--to go into a setting and force yourself to view things differently to accommodate the lack of other focal lengths. However, I would end up missing the large majority of images that I ended up wanting to capture.

For example, I recently spent over a week in Norway, taking the train north from Oslo and the Hurtigruten ferry back down to Bergen. It was absolutely stunning. For various reasons, I didn't take my real gear, instead taking my little Lumix LS-100. That has a zoom, 24-70 mm FF equivalent. Even with that zoom, I missed a sizable proportion of the shots I wanted. It was just too short. Yes, it forced me to be creative and try with 70mm what I wanted to shoot at 200mm, but the results were mostly mediocre at best. I have put almost none of them on my website. If I had carried my FF with my walk-around 24-105 and my 70-200, I would have had the flexibility to capture most of them.

[Manfred M]

One of the first assignments we had during a photography course I took at the local community college was exactly that:

Not only did we have to hand in 5 - 6 high quality images that used a single prime lens, the images all had to be of the same main subject and all the shots had to be taken within a 10m / 30ft of each other. It was a good exercise in forcing the students to be creative and very attentive to the opportunity that even such a highly restrictive approach in photography provides.

I do have a number of prime lenses, but each one was selected because of it being a special purpose lens or it had some characteristics that were not available in a zoom lens.

[NorthernFocus]

I've seen/heard of this sort of challenge. It seems interesting at face value assuming that it works for the subject matter that one shoots. I can see the logic in it teaching one to view scenes from different perspectives. However the corollary also exists. Exercised for too long it could also limit one to seeing the world through a single lens and ignoring all other possibilities. What a shame that would be

[xpatUSA]

It's a bit too much for me but I do agree with the philosophy to a great extent.

Currently, I have four cameras and I do get better on any one of them if I stick to it for a while. By co-incidence, my walk-around compact camera is APS-C (well, 1.7 crop) and does have a fixed 24.2mm actual focal length. Indeed it forces an older-style of shooting per the article referred to in the OP.

But then I do several separate kinds of shooting which, for me, indicates different gear. A glaring example is my DSLRs, one of which is permanently configured for my IR/full spectrum shooting. Another example is my macro/product shooting for which I'll use the camera with live view, fully articulating LCD and 10x manual focusing. The compact for walk-around as aforesaid. The other DSLR (Sigma SD10) is used for masochistic purposes - to prove occasionally that one can get a good shot with anything and, yes, when it was my only camera, my shooting was fairly good as opposed to now . .

[DanK]

One of the first assignments we had during a photography course I took at the local community college was exactly that:

Not only did we have to hand in 5 - 6 high quality images that used a single prime lens, the images all had to be of the same main subject and all the shots had to be taken within a 10m / 30ft of each other. It was a good exercise in forcing the students to be creative and very attentive to the opportunity that even such a highly restrictive approach in photography provides.

I do have a number of prime lenses, but each one was selected because of it being a special purpose lens or it had some characteristics that were not available in a zoom lens.

This makes sense to me: sticking with one lens in one situation to encourage one to look at things differently. But that is very different from limiting one's photography to a single lens for a substantial time.

But to each his own.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Manfred M]

I've read Eric Kim's article and would like to point out two things about him:

1. He is a street photographer; and

2. He shoots a film Leica MP (film camera) with a fixed 35mm lens.


Henri Cartier-Bresson also photographed with a 35mm film Leica rangefinder, although his favourite lens was the 50mm one. Although he is often referred to as a photojournalist, much of his work is really what we would refer to as street photography. When compared to a (D)SLR, the Leicas are small (unobtrusive) and quiet (no heavy mirror mechanism to make noise). SLR cameras did not really come into their own for a long time after Cartier-Bresson started shooting.

My take is that this choice makes sense if all you are doing is doing traditional street photography. If Eric Kim were a bit more up front about this, I would feel a lot better about what he has written, but as he has not, I would tend to be a bit suspicious about his motives.

There are a few other photographic genres where fixed lens cameras also shine - medium format cameras, which are primarily used in studio shooting and long lenses (300mm and longer focal lengths) with fast maximum apertures that are favoured by bird and sports photographers also tend to largely primes. Perspective control lenses, favoured in architectural and some landscape work, are also fixed focal length lenses.

For any other type of photography, with modern cameras that have good high ISO performance, I see little advantage to fixed focal length lenses. Let me also state that the four lenses I shoot with most frequently, are large, heavy and expensive and I know not every photographer is going to leap out and get them. Three of these are zooms and one of them is a special purpose fixed focal length perspective correcting lens.

When it comes to the Sony A7 with a f/1.8 55mm, I'm a bit in the same boat as Dan. I shot with a straight 50mm lens for a long time so understand its limitations. I own one and frankly it is the lens that I use least of all, because of its limitations in the types of photography that I do. I use it instead of a body cap on my camera, at least that was the idea when I first got it - the camera would be ready to shoot and compact for transport. I hardly ever do that...

[IzzieK]

Before I go out of the house for a trip or whatnot, I bring my bag with several lens in it. But having had the experience of using only what lens I have in my camera usually works out well. One lens, one camera is a good idea especially for someone like me who is stuck to being a professional beginner. Good idea.

[NorthernFocus]

... for someone like me who is stuck to being a professional beginner...

I think you just coined a new phrase, Izzie. I like it

I fear that any of us who shoot multiple genre of photography fit that description. It never ceases to amaze me how much there is to learn and how different one subject can be from the next. My problem is that when I go out with a camera I see things to shoot everywhere. I'll accept the single lens challenge when Nikon comes out with an 18-600mm macro zoom

[Manfred M]

I'll accept the single lens challenge when Nikon comes out with an 18-600mm macro zoom

You forgot the constant f/2.8 throughout the range and weighs no more than 1kg / 2lbs.

[loosecanon]

I find the Canon M and 22 mm lens takes me back years in the way I look at subjects. Fits in a pocket easily. Image quality at 24mp very good.

[Tronhard]

I normally have at least two bodies with different zoom lens ranges with me, but as I am in New Zealand for the summer much of my gear is till in Victoria, Canada. Recently I chose a single body and lens for a trip to a bird sanctuary (where I shot the bird dispute that I posted): it was a Canon 28-300L on a Canon 60D APS-C body. Apart from the weight (it's a bit of a howitzer) I was very happy with the combo, especially as I took a monopod with me, doubling as a hiking pole.

Many, many years ago I did the single lens on a subject exercise and, while it was an interesting exercise, I was frustrated by the lack of flexibility, so I deliberately went to zooms as I have had to carry rather than use a car to transport my gear. Lens optics have improved significantly since I first started and the only FFL lenses I have are macro lenses, and I would like a tilt-shift lens for architectural work.

Again, I come down to the often undiscussed question: what is the output required? I mean that in terms of content and quality.

A zoom encompasses many fixed focal lengths and offers portability and convenience. What it usually costs is lack of wide aperture and some image performance loss compared to FFL. As one often says the best camera (and lens) is the one you have to get the shot. I am more likely to get the shot with my zoom as my photos are usually across a wide range of distances, and that is OK for me because I have no intention of making large prints, requiring super high definition. I can see a different result if one wanted either different subjects or different outputs. Horses for courses...

You forgot the constant f/2.8 throughout the range and weighs no more than 1kg / 2lbs.

[ionian]

I've glanced through the article - Erik Kim is the product of an online world and his sweeping statements and headlines are designed to get views. I'm not criticising, but I am saying there is a nuance that the article willfully misses to make a strong argument.

I often go out with one camera and one lens - usually my GX7 and 20mm (40mm ff eq.) f1.7 prime - in fact I always have a camera with me, and often a few small primes. My New Years resolution at the start of 2016 was to always have a proper camera handy (not just a smartphone), and two weeks before the end if the year I can say that I've kept it up for the full 12 months. It forces me to see composition through a set frame and ensures I have the ability to create a quality image whenever I see it.

But if I'm out specifically for photography, I'll take any relevant gear for the subjects I want to catch: fisheye, macro, zooms, primes, whatever is needed and gives me options.

There are no absolutes and it can be fun to limit yourself from time to time, but I couldn't make it the only way I shoot. I've only been seriously into photography for a relatively short time compared to many here, and I learnt with digital, so shooting primes isn't some throwback for me.

[RBSinTo]

Before I go out of the house for a trip or whatnot, I bring my bag with several lens in it. But having had the experience of using only what lens I have in my camera usually works out well. One lens, one camera is a good idea especially for someone like me who is stuck to being a professional beginner. Good idea.

Izzie,
The term "Professional beginner" does have a certain charm to it. Well done you, to coin it.
By the way, is that the reason we never see any of your work? 16,039 posts and not any photos.
I'd love to see some of your pictures. How about posting some?
Robert

[Cantab]

Izzie,
The term "Professional beginner" does have a certain charm to it. Well done you, to coin it.
By the way, is that the reason we never see any of your work? 16,039 posts and not any photos.
I'd love to see some of your pictures. How about posting some?
Robert

I'm sure I remember photos posted by Izzie. I have an admittedly vague recollection of airplane and bird photos (birds near the house). Izzie, am I correct?