Is less more when it comes to lenses?

[Stephen Willard]

It appears to me that some people are confusing the issue that is being raised here. Some photographers have said less is more because they cannot afford more while others say less is more because they cannot carry more. These are what I call convenient truths.

What this thread is really about is will more options generate more images and better images. I believe that this statement has nothing to do with style or personal preferences. Every discipline has its best practices that are proven practices that consistently produce better results. I believe “more is more” is one of those best practices for LF landscape photography. That is, if you could afford more and could carry more, then the number of images you would generate and the quality of the images you would produce would be exponentially improved. Period!

An excellent example of less is more is the zoom lens which provides its owner with access to an infinite number of focal lengths in one lens. Unfortunately, there is no zoom lenses for LF cameras, so we have to resort to "more is more" to approximate equivalent utility. This logic also implies that "less is less" and contridicts the convenient truths just noted.

[BarryS]

...if you could afford more and could carry more, then the number of images you would generate and the quality of the images you would produce would be exponentially improved. Period!

This is a vigorous assertion with not much to back it up. I've had few choices and I've had a lot of choices in formats and lenses and I don't see that creativity or productivity is in any way proportional to the amount of options (equipment). A set of lenses is not a set of wrenches and a photographer isn't a plumber. How can you talk about best practices and not look at the actual practices of the best photographers? Aren't those the "best practices"?

Edward Weston
Richard Misrach
Henri Cartier-Bresson
Michael Kenna

If I think of a few of the photographers I admire, it seems that they had (or have) very limited equipment and lens options. Would Weston have been "exponentially better" with 20 lenses?

[Vaughn]

Brian, that must have been a long time ago...when I saw Sexton's lens kit during a workshop in the late 80's/early 90's, it was a separate backpack crammed full of Nikon glass, LOL!

There are many ways to approach photography...I tend to be more light/image orientated rather than subject orientated. So the relationship between the various elements of the image is very important to me. I would rarely slap on a longer lens just to isolate the "subject". To each their own!

Lightbender -- I believe Brian was not referring to any comparison between photographers -- just the questionable idea that one's equipment (ie. quantity, quality, or cost) determines how good of a photograph one can make.

Vaughn

More equipment does not generate more images of high quality -- that is dependent of the photographer's ability to see within the frame work of his/her equipment. Otherwise I would invest in one of those 100 sheet motor drives for 4x5's! I can find just as many quality images with one lens than I can with 10 lenses...granted the two sets of images (w/ one lens or w/ multiple lenses) would not be the same.)

[Eric Leppanen]

It appears to me that some people are confusing the issue that is being raised here...I believe “more is more” is one of those best practices for LF landscape photography. That is, if you could afford more and could carry more, then the number of images you would generate and the quality of the images you would produce would be exponentially improved. Period!

If your mind is already made up, why did you start this thread? Is your intent to lecture the world on how all landscape photography should be done?

Of course, it would seem obvious that more options should mean more opportunities. But we all know that the world is not obvious. How and why people interact with their environment, and how artistic output results, is an enormously complex subject, and beware to those who are overly reductive or judgemental. Are you arguing that landscape photographers with many lenses produce more varied and artistically superior work to those who use only a few? Based on 100+ years of landscape photography, that is empirically simply not the case. So clearly something is wrong with your overarching premise.

This reminds me of an old story -- perhaps apochrophal -- about playwright Tennessee Williams being interviewed by a young journalist. The journalist reproached Williams in no uncertain terms about his alcoholism and other excesses, telling him "Just think what you could have produced had you not had all these problems." Williams looked back at him with a withering look, and said "You rewrite 'Streetcar'!"

[raucousimages]

Let me put a different spin on this. I started photography when I was 12 and shot 35mm and Hasselblad but had never taken the leap into LF. I had studied it and shopped for gear. When I finaly got into LF I was in my late 30s and had just sold one of my companies. I had a lot of cash after the sale and went out and bought all the LF gear I wanted instead of building a system piece at a time. I started out with a 65, 90, 120 makro, 150, 210, 250 Imagon, 300 and a 480.

I do not recomend doing that even if you have the money to do it but it was the best way for me to do it regarding the buisness end of my studio. I was totaly overwhelmed. I couldn't get good results out of anything. I backed up and only used the 150 until I had a good feel for it and it's limitations. It took me about 100 exposures and several days in the studio and trips to the field. Then I moved on to the rest of the lenses one at a time.

It took about a year and many, many boxes of film but I am now comfortable with all of my lenses. If I had started out with one lens I would have developed greater skill with that lens than if I had just tried to master all of them at once. In that respect less is more.

Mastery of a few lenses is beter than mediocrity with several lenses. With time and work I think you can master any lens and add it to your battery. A lens is only a tool, use the right tool for the job but realy know how to use the tool to the best advantage.

[Stephen Willard]

It took about a year and many, many boxes of film but I am now comfortable with all of my lenses. If I had started out with one lens I would have developed greater skill with that lens than if I had just tried to master all of them at once. In that respect less is more.

I had never thought about mastering each lense only because I moved to more lenses in an evolutionary manner one lens at a time. This gave me the time I needed to become intimate with the lens without thinking about it. I had ten lenses that I purchased over seven years. I figure it will be about a week or two before I can use the 600,800,1200mm lens I just purchased effectively. This is because I can draw upon my experiences with the 720mm lens I own. If I had purchased all 13 lenses at once, it would take me years to become effective at using all them to their full potential.

My premises that "more is better" assumes that you are intimate with your tools and that their is minimal level of competence. My intent here is not to lecture nor be huborous, but rather challenge the conventional wisdom that "less is more" which will not be a popular thing to do because "less is more" is so intrenched. This does not mean that one cannot do amazing work with less, it just implies it will take you longer to do more of it.

[Bruce Watson]

What this thread is really about is will more options generate more images and better images. I believe that this statement has nothing to do with style or personal preferences. Every discipline has its best practices that are proven practices that consistently produce better results. I believe “more is more” is one of those best practices for LF landscape photography. That is, if you could afford more and could carry more, then the number of images you would generate and the quality of the images you would produce would be exponentially improved. Period!

Hmmm... My own experience is different. I've missed capturing a few images now that my lens kit is as complete as I want it. A grand total of five lenses for 4x5 of which I often carry only three. Actually, I can only remember missing one image, and that was this past spring. But I'm sure I've missed a few more than that. OTOH I've missed a huge number of images for other reasons, primarily because the light or the conditions weren't right at the time.

I don't think that giving me access to dozens of lenses will have any impact whatsoever on either the quantity or the quality of my photographs. Really I don't. I'm sure of it because I've had that experience before.

Thousands of years ago I started out in photography as a sports photographer for the local paper. I bought a Nikon F2 (I'm not lying about thousands of years ago) so I could use their lenses, and had access to just about every lens Nikon made -- three floor-to-ceiling cabinets worth (there were lots of duplicates as we had a dozen or so full and part timers).

What did I consistently take with me on assignments? I usually put a 35mm f/2 lens on my camera, and picked up an old F body with a 105mm lens. And that's it. When I went to games I'd pick up a couple of motor drives. Never used a zoom (they weren't worth much back then anyway). What I used was timing, planning, and patience.

And those qualities serve me well with LF. I personally am not interested in burning more film than I already do. I burn all the film that I need to, no more and no less. I'm not in a race, I don't have production quotas to meet. I'm trying to capture what grabs my attention and tells me to make a photograph. It's more important to me to be open to the possibilities, to study the light, to understand the visual rhythms, textures, and structures. And having more lenses isn't going to help me with any of that.

So I'm not a believer that "more is more" is a best practice for LF landscape photography. But if it helps you then go for it. Why should you care what I think anyway?

[Eric Leppanen]

I think "less is more" has gotten more attention than its actual adoption might indicate. John Sexton uses multiple lenses. IIRC Jack Dykinga regularly uses an 80, 110, 180, 270 and 400, and also owns a 58, 120 and 720. Christopher Burkett (shooting 8x10) uses a 150, 210, 300, 360, 460, 600, 800 and 1200. John Fielder uses a 75, 115, 150, 210, 300, 360 and 500. Ron Flickinger uses a 58, 80, 110, 120, 150, 200, 240, 300, and 450. The list goes on...

And among our LF forum users, the median 4x5 lens kit consists of approximately four lenses. Only 15% of folks limit themselves to 1 or 2 lenses, while another 15% use 8 or more:

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...dykinga+lenses

I think your encounter with Rodney Lough was more the exception than the rule.

[D. Bryant]

John Sexton, for example, had only one lens - a 210mm - for many years but that was a matter of economics, not aesthetics When he could afford more lenses he bought them.

Brian,

Perhaps you are thinking of William Neil who only used a 210 mm lens for many years.

These days it looks like he has switched to digital cameras:

http://www.williamneill.com/bio.html

Don Bryant

[Ed Richards]

What you shoot really makes a difference in this question. If you do architecture, you are going to need various wides, at least a 65, 90, and 120. For general landscapes, probably a 150 or 210 (I use a 180), and if you are in places where you cannot walk up to everything, a 300 and 450. But at any given shoot you are probably not going to use more than 2 lenses, and most times you will put one on the camera and just use it. So if you do different sorts of work, you are going to want perhaps 6 lenses, but in real terms, you will only be shooting with 1 or 2 at any given shoot. So is that less and more?