Is less more when it comes to lenses?

[Stephen Willard]

There is a belief by many photographers that fewer lenses translates into more of something. I am not sure if that means more images, more creative images, or both. The logic being, by placing a self-imposed optical restriction on yourself, it will force you to become more resourceful and creative, and thus produce more images and better images.

I met Rodney Lough last fall at Kebler Pass Colorado. He shoots 8x10 and uses only two lenses, and he is of the ilk that less is more. I also have a friend who is an accomplished b&w photographer who also executes his craft with a very limited number of lenses.

I, on the other hand, believe more is more. I believe that a lens is akin to an artist’s paintbrush. Most artists have 100s of paintbrushes, and each brush allows the artist to apply paint to the canvas in different ways. Likewise, each lens has its own unique optical characteristics and allows the photographer to apply light to film in different ways that compliments the composition being constructed. I have found the more lenses I bring, the higher and better my yields are.

At the time I met Rodney I had ten lenses and harvested seven images in an area he only extracted one from. On several occasions he made fun of the Nikkor 1200mm lens. Since then I have bought the Nikkor 600mm, 800mm, and 1200mm lens suite bring my total to 13 lenses. I have just built a snap-on bellows extension that fits on both my 5x7 and 4x10 to facilitate the extension needed for these lenses. I have full confidence that these new lenses will allow me to shoot a whole new class of images and further increase my yields.

I also believe more is more does not stop with lenses. It also applies to formats as well. I now shoot 4x10, 5x7 and 4x5. Having three different formats at my disposal has also increased my yields in the field. Sometimes the scene calls for a panoramic view, and other times, a rectangular format will work better.

Am I just a foolish stupid gear junky, and Rodney has it right that less is more? Or perhaps I am right, and more of everything brings more and better images!

What are your feelings about this?

[C. D. Keth]

Am I just a foolish stupid gear junky, and Rodney has it right that less is more? Or perhaps I am right, and more of everything brings more and better images!

What are your feelings about this?

The only thing I'm sure of relating to this is that less stuff to carry is more fun to me.

I don't think there is a right side of this coin. Obviously you like your approach and your friend likes his. I prefer a small selection of lenses for large formats. I like to have something wide, normal, long, and perhaps one even longer for portraits. Beyond those basic choices I don't think I would really get much use out of intermediates. I have a feeling that your way of thinking about photography wouldn't quite know how to approach only using one lens. Perhaps it would be a good exercise for you sometime; only take one lens with you on a trip.

I don't know if I really agree with your statements about quantity. You may come away with greater "yield" than your friend but are they as good? Do you go home and find yourself editing those seven images down to one of quality as high as your friend's? I definitely don't think a larger number of lenses will cause you to take better pictures. In fact, in a lot of cases, I find the very wide and very long lens shots to be quite cliche and IMO a boring way to approach a subject. Perhaps by allowing his limitations and the space to shape his pictures, he is taking truer and more timeless scenes than you are. Maybe they are closer to truly seeing his subjects in a new way other than distorting. Maybe not. It almost sounds like you're looking for reasons to use all those lenses instead of just looking and taking those few really fine scenes from a given place.

If I were you I wouldn't worry so much about the quantity of photos you take. Who has ever read praise about how great photographer so-and-so exposed way more film than anyone else? If you go out and don't expose anything, who cares? You saved yourself money and the film can be used some time where you are really feeling it.

[roteague]

Am I just a foolish stupid gear junky, and Rodney has it right that less is more? Or perhaps I am right, and more of everything brings more and better images!

What are your feelings about this?

I don't see anything wrong with your beliefs, even though my beliefs are much closer to Rodney's - I only have 3 lenses that I use regulary. It all boils down to your personality, and it isn't my place to decide for you what you need or don't need.

[seven]

Being a lens junkie myself i believe that less lenses would result in more time focusing in actual photography instead of playing with the newest addition to the pile of lenses all of the time.
The limitation of a few lenses would also force creativity.

[cjbroadbent]

Yes! It makes for clear thinking. If I carry an extra lens, it's a spare, with the same focal length.

[domenico Foschi]

Yes! It makes for clear thinking. If I carry an extra lens, it's a spare, with the same focal length.

same here

[Daniel_Buck]

The logic being, by placing a self-imposed optical restriction on yourself, it will force you to become more resourceful and creative, and thus produce more images and better images.

when I was in college learning photography and exploring composition for the first years (on my own, not related to college, just happened to be the same time of my life) I would take one prime lens with me, and head out shooting, and I'd keep shooting with just the same focal length all week. Then I'd switch to another focal length for the next week. It really taught me to 'see' when I knew I really wanted a wide lens for the subject, and when I knew a wide lens would work best for the subject. And the same for the other major focal lengths.

I don't do that anymore (composition is much more natural to me now) but I do carry only a few fixed focal length lenses with me when I shoot, mostly for the weight savings. But also, because I find that I'll find a shot with whatever lens I have on the camera! So if I bring 5 lenses, I'll end up using only 1 or two of them, just because I'm used to finding a shot that fits my focal length. I think this is a blessing, because I'm not always wanting a different focal length, saving me money

The only negative part of that I think, is because I've gotten so used to shooting with the lens I currently have on my camera, I think I may be missing out on some shots that could be had with other focal lengths. I guess I still need to mentally work on that, try and see what several focal lengths would do to a scene, instead of focusing on the focal length at hand!

When people learning to shoot ask me for advice on improving their shooting, this is usually the first thing I suggest, grab one focal length and use it for a week. Grab your next focal length, use it for the next week. And keep rotating until you can really see the focal lengths :-) Now that I think about it, that ranks high on my "most fun times I've had shooting" list :-)

[Eric Leppanen]

I don't think there is any right answer to any of this. Some folks do well with one or two lenses, others use a bunch. I don't think either group can claim qualitative superiority in terms of photographic output. I think it is largely a matter of genre and personal style.

A large lens set poses logistical challenges and introduces the possibility of "target confusion" (too many options in too little time, particularly when shooting outdoors in rapidly changing light). There is also merit in keeping lens choices to a minimum so one can spend maximum time composing on the ground glass; I frequently identify worthy compositions on the ground glass that I would otherwise miss when surveying my environment with the naked eye. But there's no denying the creative possibilities afforded by having multiple lens perspectives available, particularly in situations where moving the camera is not possible. Personally, I happen to like the realistic perspective afforded by a normal lens, and in situations where I can move the camera this is often my most used lens. But there are those situations -- and for me they occur frequently -- where moving the camera is not possible, or a compressed or extended perspective is vital to making a shot work. I would not dream of forgoing these opportunities merely due to a doctrine of "less is more". The key is to find a worthy compromise of all of these considerations.

My personal preference is to cover basic focal lengths while retaining speed of operation and portability. From an optical engineer's viewpoint, I used to have a "dream" 8x10 lens set -- 150 and 210mm SSXL's; 240, 300, 360 and 480mm plasmats; and 600, 800 and 1200mm telephotos -- and I even managed to take some technically excellent photographs with them. But I missed out on even more photographic possibilities due to the sheer bulk of all that kit (backpack for the camera, a case for film holders, several large camera bags for the lenses, and of course the tripod); each setup was painfully slow due to moving multiple bags of heavy equipment around.

I have since consolidated onto a basic setup consisting of a set of four lenses -- SS150XL, 210 Sironar W, 300 Sironar S and Nikon 450M -- plus four film holders that I carry in my camera backpack all the time. These lenses have extensive coverage (with the exception of the 210, but I love the focal length) and put a bright, contrasty image on the ground glass. If I need a smaller angle of view than the 450 provides, I just crop the negative. This setup enables a relatively fast setup time so that I get the shot before circumstances change. I can concentrate on composition rather than gear.

Having said all that, I still retain additional lenses -- a 240, 360 and 600/800 and 1200mm telephotos, plus 240 and 300mm f/9's -- for situations where I have pre-scouted a location and know the exact focal length I want to use, or just want to travel light. So yes I am still a gearhead, but hopefully a reasonably pragmatic one. And Stephen, I am a fellow telephoto lover (my 600/800 is used frequently, and the 1200 occasionally) and take these lenses with me whenever possible. But they remain in the car until needed.

[cjbroadbent]

For those who enjoy Eric Leppanen's wonderful concept of "Target Confusion", I would suggest a film-directors viewfinder. It was invented to save the camera-crew lugging gear all over the place.
I make-do with a 35mm viewfinder for all formats and strongly recommend the discipline of SLLF. Beyond mental clarity, it helps your style.

[JW Dewdney]

it depends on your style, I think. If you're doing stuff that is more 'commercial' in strategy - i.e. you plan shots for weeks in advance based on a specific lens, etc... then I think more is okay. In my heart of hearts I feel that one lens is ideal. I mean HELL - just look at ralph gibson's stuff - if that can be any testament to using only one lens. I used about SIX lenses myself - mostly for commercial purposes. But for me the real crux of it is an issue of 'visual ergonomics' in a way.

It's a bit like trying to be a championship dart thrower and changing your glasses all the time. It's going to compromise your game. If you use ONE LENS for long enough - you start to develop a vision or strategy around using that lens with maxmum effectiveness. It just doesn't happen any other way - nor does it come cheaply. I'm not saying you can't make stunning photographs with multiple lenses. People do. But I think that the overall work won't be anywhere near as cohesive, or with the same constancy of 'feeling' than they would with one. And it's not the feeling that comes from the lens itself... like that woozy wideangle 'feeling' I'm talking about. It's what the mind and soul puts into the photograph that I'm talking about.

Not to mention the fact that using fewer pieces of gear really opens you up to your subject matter... like gary winogrand for example... there's an example of clarity of seeing. I don't think he ever used more than two... all this is speculation of course, but it feels/seems true to me.