These guys are right. It's just the way you see. My widest 4x5/5x7 lens is a 90. It's my least used lens. Nothing on my living room wall was taken with it. It's there for when I have to get everything in and can't back up anymore. What's weird is that I shot alot of good stuff with a 21mm on my 35mm camera. The larger the format the longer the lens. Uh oh, is this a phallic responce?
I'd go further, and say that my use of different focal lengths varies quite a lot from time to time. Overall, I have a definite preference for wide angles. Until a few weeks ago, the wider end of my 5x4 kit consisted of an old 65mm SA, plus 90mm and 120mm Angulons. They all got plenty of use, with the 120mm being easily my favourite.
But back in March of this year I decided to revamp my kit and update the old Schneiders, with the result that I replaced the 65mm, 90mm, and 120mm with a more modern 75mm SA and a 110mm XL. Since that time I've had two good productive weeks in the field plus a few odd days, and so far I haven't made a single picture with the 75mm. The 110mm has had a fair bit of use, but not nearly as much as the 120mm used to get. Probably about 70-80% of my pictures in that time have been taken with either a 150mm or 240mm lens. Sometimes it just goes that way.
Ron, each of us sees the world in his own way. If you can't see pleasing compositions with a wide lens, well, you're more of a narrow-angle sort of person. There's nothing wrong with that. Just go and take pictures that satisfy you.
FWIW, my preferred angle of view varies a lot with the format.
On Super 8, 6mm, the widest I can go with decent image quality, is my most-used focal length. Don't know why, but I usually want to get as much as possible in the frame.
On 35 mm still, for many years my most-used lens was 105 mm. Most recently I've been shooting a little wider.
On 2x3, my largest format, my most-used focal length was 100 mm until I got a 38/4.5 Biogon. The Biogon doesn't cover, is a marvel anyway, and opened my eyes to what could be done. Now I usually shoot no longer than 80 mm. This may be a consequence of the situations I shoot in. I find lenses shorter than normal problematic for landscape work where the distant is more interesting visually than the near.
I came at LF from a 35mm background. I thought like many people do that I'd want to use the "same" lenses as I did in 35mm (that is, the same angles of view). But that didn't happen. Not only is the aspect ratio different, but the way I use the camera is quite different.
With handheld cameras, I can walk the scene with the camera, looking through the view finder. If my scene doesn't fill the viewfinder, I can just step forward.
With LF, I walk the scene without the camera, decide the best position to use to make the photograph, then setup there. It's not until the camera is on the tripod that I can "put my head in the bag" and get a look at the ground glass. I find that I rarely move the camera at all, but that I occasionally switch lenses.
The result of my change in workflow is that I use more wide angle lenses and less long lenses. I spent a lot of time and effort to secure a 14" lens only to find that I've only needed it a couple of times in the past few years. Yet, in 35mm land my 105mm lens was one of my most used lenses. Similarly, I found that to capture some of the scenes I wanted to capture, I needed an 80mm lens. I never had an equivalently short lens in 35mm land.
What I suggest is that you not worry about forcing a scene to fit your lens. Continue to concentrate on scenes that capture your imagination. If at some time you find that you miss several scenes because you don't have the right lens, consider adding the appropriate lens to your kit. If you find over time that you have a lens in your kit that you seldom use, consider selling it. Over time your kit will begin to better reflect your own, personal, workflow. And that's a good thing.
Bruce Watson
I find myself using almost exclusively my 210 over my 135, and I don't find myself wanting anything wider. That may change since my last trip abroad--funny that I had to go to Europe to learn how to use wides--but I somewhat doubt it. Originally I thought this had something to do with the fact that the 135 really needs the bag bellows on my camera, but I suspect I see better with the 210 in general. I should really try shooting with the 135 again for a while to get used to it again.
Wide angles are just difficult to use because they include so much, while photography is an
exercise in selection and exclusion. You need everything to "come together": light, foreground,
middle ground, often horizon and sky, to produce a great wide-angle photograph. I personally
use the 110 on 5x7 for maybe half of my images because I try to convey this sense of "being there".
For me, "good conditions" is when I can pull the 110. Compared to smaller formats, wide-angle images
are particularly satisfying with LF, because you can still see all the details, whereas on smaller formats
things get too small in a high-quality enlargment.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks