Prime lenses

DavidTO · December 4, 2011

I went to downtown LA yesterday with my wife to get some Dim Sum and see the Weegee exhibit at MOCA LA.

First off, if you're in the area, go see it. Weegee is street photography in the US, no?

Secondly, I took only my 50mm 1.4 lens. I'm NOT used to shooting at 50mm. I like to shoot wide or long, I guess. And I'm primarily a landscape photographer. I'm just WAY out of practice shooting at 50mm. I would put the camera up to my eye, and think, "Whoa. What the heck do I do with this?" Not wide enough or long enough to get what I wanted.

I did this on purpose. I know that I'm not good at seeing things in the middle, and I wanted to force myself to do so. But it was really hard. The primary reason for the trip was not street photography, but I did try to shoot some along the way. It's hard to shoot good street (but you guys know that).

So, my question is, what are your feelings about going out with a prime vs. zoom lens to shoot street? I'm really intrigued by limiting my field of view and finding ways to work within it. I just wish I could afford the 35L lens.

And, since this thread would be useless without pics, here you go. (Although I wouldn't post these on their own, most likely).

1

2

3

bfjr · December 4, 2011

Your best served by a prime in the 28 to 50 mm range. Not so much for the FL but for the faster F stop.

The 50mm you have now is fine, and the two shots shows promise

You will get varied opinions that could fill a book here, but for me -
Zooms just not fast enough F stop wise and big long glass is just to creepy for this kind of work.

Personally I have found 40mm f1.7 fine for me. One on my Canon QL17 RF camera and the other on my GF2 via the 20 1.7 glass.

Hope that helps a bit.

richardman · December 4, 2011

Most of the world's great street photography were taken with the Leica and either the 50mm or 35mm prime lens. What does that say?

(time to move on? :-) )

Seriously, the speed and size issue, makes prime lens almost a must for street photography. Not that a zoom lens will not work, but street photo is all about timing. With a prime lens, after a while, you know exactly what your frame will cover, so that's one less thing to worry about.

DavidTO · December 4, 2011

Thanks!

Yah, as a landscaper, primarily, I rarely pick up the 50mm, sot it's a bit of an adjustment for me. Thanks for telling me they have promise! The focus of the day was not photography, so I got what I got when I got it, ya know?

bfjr wrote: »

Your best served by a prime in the 28 to 50 mm range. Not so much for the FL but for the faster F stop.

The 50mm you have now is fine, and the two shots shows promise

You will get varied opinions that could fill a book here, but for me -
Zooms just not fast enough F stop wise and big long glass is just to creepy for this kind of work.

Personally I have found 40mm f1.7 fine for me. One on my Canon QL17 RF camera and the other on my GF2 via the 20 1.7 glass.

Hope that helps a bit.

DavidTO · December 4, 2011

It's the "after a while" bit that I hope to work on. I just found myself too close time after time.

richardman wrote: »

Most of the world's great street photography were taken with the Leica and either the 50mm or 35mm prime lens. What does that say?

(time to move on? :-) )

Seriously, the speed and size issue, makes prime lens almost a must for street photography. Not that a zoom lens will not work, but street photo is all about timing. With a prime lens, after a while, you know exactly what your frame will cover, so that's one less thing to worry about.

richardman · December 4, 2011

One thing you have to watch for, is the DoF. The prime lens lets you shoot at F1.4 (or wider :-) ) or whatever its wide open aperture is. Thin DoF can be used to isolate the subject and in fact may be the way to get a good picture out of crowded situation. However, the subject must be "thing of interest," and generally speaking, people do not like to see OoF crowded objects in front of the subject. So for example, your #1, IMHO, is not a success because the main in focus subject is lost and the foreground objects are just too distracting. #2 is similar but the DoF is larger so it works a little better, and in fact, if you crop it down a little, it may work quite well.

Just MHO of course.

DavidTO · December 4, 2011

I agree. Thanks!

richardman wrote: »

One thing you have to watch for, is the DoF. The prime lens lets you shoot at F1.4 (or wider :-) ) or whatever its wide open aperture is. Thin DoF can be used to isolate the subject and in fact may be the way to get a good picture out of crowded situation. However, the subject must be "thing of interest," and generally speaking, people do not like to see OoF crowded objects in front of the subject. So for example, your #1, IMHO, is not a success because the main in focus subject is lost and the foreground objects are just too distracting. #2 is similar but the DoF is larger so it works a little better, and in fact, if you crop it down a little, it may work quite well.

Just MHO of course.

RSL · December 5, 2011

#2 and 3 are well seen, David. I agree with what Richard said, except for the cropping. I think the stuff around the guy is an important part of the picture.

Most of my life I've used a 50mm on the street, and, occasionally a 35. I do go out with a zoom on my D3 sometimes when I'm in a place where that will work without scaring people half to death, but 50 or 35mm gives the picture the most comfortable perspective. With a zoom you have to be careful you don't compress too much. I find that I can zoom fairly far out without objectionable foreshortening when the subject is close to a wall or some other flat background, but in most cases I want to be closer with a 50. Richard's exactly right about "after a while." Once you get used to what the 50 covers you tend to frame the picture in your mind before you even lift the camera.

M38A1 · December 5, 2011

I've always likened shooting the 50mm to shooting exactly what you see from the distance you currently are from the subject. ie: if your eye sees the image, the 50 will capture that image with no real 'frame with your feet' required. That's the beauty of the 50 IMO.

.

richardman · December 5, 2011

Russ, I don't mean cropping all of the surrounding. This took me 1 sec and I may do it slightly differently if I am "serious." David, apologize for mucking with your photo. Let me know if you want it removed:

Note how there's now a triangle with the base on the right edge with the apex on his arms.

DavidTO · December 5, 2011

Muck away. As long as you don't give it one of those horrendous HDR treatments replete with halos, I'm fine.

And yes, the crop helps.

RSL · December 5, 2011

I agree, Richard. It's better the way you cropped it. Very nice. I thought you were talking about focusing directly on the guy and killing the closer surroundings. Good crop. Most crops ruin the picture unless it's a situation where the shooter just couldn't get close enough in time, or some similar situation. Not this one.

richardman · December 5, 2011

Even when I use my XPan (24x65 ratio), I rarely crop except just on the edges. There are exceptions of course. Sometimes you just have to take a shot and hope for the best. It's all about seeing the frames in your eyes :-)

Just notice that I cropped it with his head in that magical 2/3 from right, 2/3 from bottom point. That's how I usually shoot now...

DavidTO · December 5, 2011

Thanks for the input. Here's the cropped and slightly reprocessed version:

rainbow · December 8, 2011

#3 is "correctly" shot for a 50 mm whereby #1 & 2 are shot from too far away (thus necessitating a crop to improve it).

Each of the focal lengths have different characteristics that have a learning curve. One will likely match your personal shooting style better than another.

My main street lens is the 17-40L on my 5D. And I shoot mostly at the 17 end. In landscape, I assume that using such a lens would have a prominent close object that stands out with this ultrawide lens to give the composition some strength. Same when I shoot at 17 mm -- I get really close to my subject. This gives me an immediacy of being part of the scene (or places the observer in the scene) and not just a detached observer or voyeur viewpoint. A realization from experience with the lens is that you do not achieve nice "bokeh" to bring your subject to the fore. Rather, the lens gives you "dimunition of other people and objects" whereby they shrink very quickly with distance.

So the choice is yours -- all will work, all will have strengths and weaknesses, but some will fit your personal style/preference/comfort much better than others.

Prime lenses

Comments