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 :D

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.

[cjbroadbent]

Dewdney says "If you use ONE LENS for long enough - you start to develop a vision or strategy around using that lens with maxmum effectiveness."
Right on. The same goes for using LF.

[climbabout]

I guess I'm in the less is more camp as well. I use an 8x10 Deardorff and have the following lenses - 159 wolly, 240a fujinon, 14"a artar, and 450c fujinon. Having 4 evenly spaced lenses (6"-10"-14"-18") covers all bases. I can carry all 4 of them, 3 filters and rings, the camera, a lightweight darkcloth, pentax meter and 4 holders and my loupe in a covertible backpack/travel bag, that's carry on legal and weighs less than 35 lbs. As a bonus, I have room in the pack to spare for a few more holders as well. To me it's the best compromise.
Tim

[Jim Becia]

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.

Stephen,

I, like you, carry several lenses when photographing. How many I carry will depend on where I'm heading and how long I will be out and about. If I'm working from the car, I will have 7 or 8 lenses ranging from 75 to 450. (I'm eagerly waiting for a 600 that should be here in a few days.) When I'm hiking all day, I might cut that down to 4 or 5 lenses depending where I'm photographing. I would hate to have to use only one lens. To me, that would be the equivilent of having to have "tunnel vision." You can only work and see in one way. At least that's the way it is for me. As I look over my work and see the images that I like and think that are good, the lenses for those images range from the wide to the long. So, I am definitely in the camp of having several lenses. Using only one or even two for me is way too restrictive. I just do not see that way.

I wonder if all you guys that shoot with only one or two lenses do much cropping to get you final images?

Jim

[J. Patric Dahlen]

...and to some the "feeling" and "souls" of lenses are more important than different focal lengths. One day could be a Heliar day, and another day a Planar day, plasmat day, dialyt day, and so on... Nothing wrong with that either. :D

[John O'Connell]

I prefer to think of the concept of “target confusion” as embodied in choice costs: having choices requires you to expend effort making the choice. I have 3 lenses for 8x10 use in the field. I tend to carry either all three or just the short and the long. Any more choice would be counterproductive for me—the advantages of a 240mm semi-wide would be squandered in wasted time and unnecessary extra compositions of the same subject.

Many photographers seem happy with a single lens for a format. This works when that lens suits the compositions they are most successful with; it appears to be an unsuccessful approach where the photographer uses an inappropriate optic for the composition—seeing a world full of nails because you only have a hammer.

I have a ton of lenses for the 35mm format, but I only carry a few with me at any time. At this point I prefer to plan what I’m going to shoot, and choose to give up flexibility for portability and getting what I intended to get.

[tim810]

I guess I am on the less is more mantra when it comes to lenses. The only reason I have more than one lens is because I have multiple formats that require different coverage. Although, if I could find a lens (that I can afford) that covers both 12x20 and 20x24 at the 500 focal length I would stick with one lens for the two formats. 8x10 I tend to gravitate twards a 240 and on my 4x5(which I rarely use) I use a 90mm.
I tend to change formats due to subject matter panoramic/ standard. I think this is something that comes with practice and an individuals vision.

[Ken Lee]

...Or perhaps I am right, and more of everything brings more and better images!

Quantity and Quality ?

His web site (http://www.rodneyloughjr.com/) has at least as many photos as yours, maybe more.

What do Rodney's photos feel like, compared to yours ? This is subjective.

[willwilson]

One lens is restrictive for me and my style of shooting, but sometimes carrying just one lens can be a creative tool. It can encourage you to have a different perspective on a subject.

I shoot 4x5 almost exclusively and carry a 75mm, 135mm, and a 240mm. I plan to add a 450mm fujinon C, sometimes 240mm just doesn't get me there. I tend to zoom with my feet whenever possible. On long hikes I typically scale it down to just the 135mm, but I almost always miss the 75mm.

I think it is more of a question of the right tool for the job.

[ic-racer]

I have boatloads of lenses but when I shoot I keep them all at home except one or on a rare occasion, two lenses. I decide the lens and format I am going to use and go shooting. I don't trek around with a bunch of lenses and cameras. I never 'miss' shots because of the 'wrong' equipment because photographs are MADE not FOUND and how can you 'miss' not making something?

[reellis67]

I think that if you are happy with your tools, then there is no reason to change just because someone else uses different tools. Personally, I use only two lenses with my 4x5 and one on my 8x10 and find that I never seem to be wanting in the field. But, that's just how it works for me - it doesn't say anything about anyone but me...

- Randy

[Frank Petronio]

I find it odd when I read "I take only four lenses and four film holders..."

Yikes. That should be one lens and twelve holders!

More film, less lenses... sell those suckers and spend it on making photos?

[CG]

What works for me is ... hold it ... who cares what works for me? What works for the OP is the question, and I can't answer that, and I don't think anyone else here can either.

How many lenses to carry, and how much film, and how much ... anything ... is dependent upon your goals and how you "see" and your most successful mode of working. Some folks need tons of film. Some folks shoot one carefully chosen frame. Other people's solutions could be a deterrent for you.

The answer may change from project to project or session to session. Some problems may work well with a minimal kit, and others may do best with a huge arsenal.

I suggest you stop listening to anyone else and start finding out what works for you. Find a vision. Find a project. Find a voice.

Best,

C

[Stephen Willard]

In general, I have found that more is more. In fact, I have found that economies of scale can be realized with more of everything. If I double my selection then my yields will quadruple and the quality of my images will greatly improve. This observation is based on real empirical data that has resulted in a slow and methodical movement towards more and not less.

80% of my images are well planned days or years before I actual take the photograph. I have found that for every composition there is an optimal place to stand and optimal format to use. The more lenses and formats I have to choose from the more likely I will be able to exploit an optimal composition. By severely restricting my options, I will have to move elsewhere, use a format that is less suitable, or in most cases, I simply will not be able to take the photograph. Under these conditions, the number and quality of images will be severely compromised.

[Diane Maher]

What works for me is ... hold it ... who cares what works for me? What works for the OP is the question, and I can't answer that, and I don't think anyone else here can either.

How many lenses to carry, and how much film, and how much ... anything ... is dependent upon your goals and how you "see" and your most successful mode of working. Some folks need tons of film. Some folks shoot one carefully chosen frame. Other people's solutions could be a deterrent for you.

The answer may change from project to project or session to session. Some problems may work well with a minimal kit, and others may do best with a huge arsenal.

I suggest you stop listening to anyone else and start finding out what works for you. Find a vision. Find a project. Find a voice.

Best,

C

I have to agree with CG on this matter. I shoot multiple formats and have a different lens 'kit' for each of them. I do try to limit my lens selection to one lens bag mostly because I don't always like carrying all the gear very far. However, if I have gone to the trouble of going any distance from the car, I am glad that I have multiple lenses with me, especially if I haven't been to a place before.

[BradS]

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

Brilliant! Thanks.

I recently woke up from a couple years of spending like a drunken sailor on gear (mostly lenses). I have way too many lenses! It is just paralyzing sometimes. I'm slowly selling off much of the excess gear now.

[Vaughn]

My working style developed over the years partly due to only owning one lens per format -- and those being a "normal" lens for each format. It is an excellent way to learn, but not the only way.

Having only one lens does not limit the number of possible images one can make during a day in the field, nor does have 6 lenses insure that one will come back with any worthwhile images.

Same thing with the number of film holders. Personally, I find having a limited number of holders encourages substantial pre-editing of the images I take. I spent 5.5 months in NZ photographing and exposed 75 4x5 negatives (no other camera). I had only 6 holders, so I was limited to the 12 negs until I could re-load. Since I got a solid 20 print portfolio from the trip, there are obviously many negs that I wonder why I bothered to click the shutter, let alone set up the camera!

On a similar trip, others might expose 300 to 1000 negatives to get a decent portfolio...whatever it takes!

Vaughn

[Lightbender]

Do what you want to do.

Photography is not a fenced-in trail. This is a hobby for most of us. Most of us enjoy tinkering as much as we do taking photos. For many experimenting with lenses/cameras/film/paper/developer is as much of a creative outlet as shooting film.

If you enjoy collecting lenses and toying with them, then by all means do so. If you feel you dont need the extra weight/storage space/mental cycles, then by all means keep it simple.

[Brian Ellis]

If you find that you often can't walk closer or move farther back from a scene to make the photograph you want then carrying a bunch of different focal length lenses ranging from short to long makes sense to me (I realize there's a difference in perspective between walking closer to a subject and using a longer lens but for me that usually isn't important) . I never owned more than four lenses for 4x5 and 3 for 8x10. But many fine photographers only carry one or two lenses. 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.

My own belief is that people who own 10, 15, 20 or more lenses for a single format are kidding themselves if they think that really results in better photographs but if they think it does, or if they just like owning a lot of different lenses, that's fine with me.

[Lightbender]

"My own belief is that people who own 10, 15, 20 or more lenses for a single format are kidding themselves if they think that really results in better photographs but if they think it does, or if they just like owning a lot of different lenses, that's fine with me."

People around here are pretty humble in respect to their art. I haven't heard anyone claim their photographs were any better than others.

[D. Bryant]

In general, I have found that more is more. In fact, I have found that economies of scale can be realized with more of everything. If I double my selection then my yields will quadruple

You sound like you are hunting quail.:)

In general I think it is nice to have a good selection of lenses if you aren't immobilized by weight and bulk and you know how to use your equipment. It's a pretty simple equation, IMO. Take only what you need to work with your subject.

Having a compact kit simplifies things for me. Generally I carry 3 to 4 lenses for my 4x5kit.

I've tried the multiple format route (4x5, 5x7, and 8x10) and as I found out I preferred one over the others, 5x7. But for now I'm only shooting 4x5. There's not much I can't do with 4x5. And it's less bulky, less expensive and more enjoyable for me.

But everyone is different. For example, I saw some Christopher Burkett cibachromes last week and I was really blown away, so I definitely had 8x10 envy. But he also has a limited range of subject matter. I tend to shoot a lot of different subjects well away from my vehicle. I don't think Chris lugs his C1 very far from his ride.

As for lenses for example, if one shoots a lot of interiors then it's a good bet one will have a much greater need for a good selection shorter focal lengths.

As others have said your question has to be answered by one's personal needs or objectives. There isn't a single answer for everyone.

As an experienced photographer you should know what tools you need without being concerned about others shoot with.

But I always love to buy and try new equipment. :)

Good luck,

Don Bryant

[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.info/forum/showthread.php?t=34729&highlight=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?

[Stephen Willard]

It is very expensive for me to be in the field shooting film with the cost of food, llamas, cameras gear, film, camping gear, fuel, and wear and tear of my vehicle and trailer. I cannot afford to have low yields.

I have spent years developing methods and strategies for increasing my productivity in the field to help mitigate these expenses. There are many things I have done to further my yields. One thing I have done that is applicable to this thread is to expand the types of photographs I shoot which include grand scenes, intimate landscapes, macro images, and grand vistas with views up to 30 miles. To facilitate these diverse types of photographs shot within the diverse land formations of Colorado requires a large variety of lenses. Currently, I have ten lenses starting at 75mm and ending at 720mm, and I use every one of them extensively. I have just purchased the 600 to1200mm Nikkor lens set to help me address the grand vistas which brings the count up to 13 lenses. I can assure you that if I did not need 13 lenses, I would not have purchased them. They are not cheap by any means, and I am businessman just as much as I am an artist.

Does having all these lenses increase my yields in the field? Does more mean more? You bet it does. I estimate the 1200mm set alone will add anywhere from five to 20 new images per year. There is no doubt in my mine that my new lens set will pay for itself very shortly.

[Stephen Willard]

Some of you wonder why I even posted this thread if I have already made up my mind. My hope here is not necessarily motivated to help myself, but rather to share different approaches, ideas, and debate so that others may benefit. Perhaps there is some who finds their self stuck with producing the same type of images over and over again. I know this happened to me once. This thread suggests that he may be able to climb out of his or her rut by trying other types of photographs and acquiring some new lenses to facilitate that effort.

[C. D. Keth]

This thread suggests that he may be able to climb out of his or her rut by trying other types of photographs and acquiring some new lenses to facilitate that effort.

Your way of working obviously works for you. Nothing will ever make me believe, however, that the best way to get out of a creative rut is to buy stuff.

[Ed Richards]

Stephen,

You do wonderful work, but you attack this as a full time professional, which is very different from most of the folks on this forum. If someone is doing this as a full time photographer, shooting the full range of material, a full lens set is essential, and you will work them enough to be proficient with them. But if you are a more typical LF shooter who gets out less, and shoots less, then that lens set is probably going to get in the way because there is no time to learn to use each of them well.

Christopher,

Sometimes a new lens or format will help someone get out of a rut, but fundamentally you are right, it is not a good long term solution because you end up with a garage full of stuff. Not that it could happen to anyone on this list.:-)

[Stephen Willard]

Your way of working obviously works for you. Nothing will ever make me believe, however, that the best way to get out of a creative rut is to buy stuff.

Christopher, that is not good enough. Now you have to make suggests on what you would do to get out of a rut and improve your images and yields. I am truly all ears, and I do not have all the answers either. It is a never ending quest for me to get better, and I always look to others for new ideas.

I have said "more is more", and you said never. So what else do you have besides "less is more"...

[Vaughn]

Just enough is just right?

vaughn

[Ole Tjugen]

More is more, and less is always less.

Most of us don't have the luxury of having every conceiveable lens (ehrm...), and some of us do wonderful work with a single focal length. For my own part sticking to one single lens would mean I would have to take four different cameras instead, so I find it much simpler to carry one camera and four lenses (at a time).

I use - and find that I need - very wide lenses, so 47mm, 65mm, 75mm and 90mm are now part of my standard 4x5" kit. But sometimes I need a narrower view, so I bring a 150-ish and a 210-ish as well. And most likely a 355mm.

Most others won't need the widest lenses, but I find that it's the only way to get the pictures I want in Western Norway's landscape.

[Frank Petronio]

As far as productivity goes, I know I am more productive with one lens than a slew of them because I've tried both approaches over several cycles now. I won't make the same kinds of photos if I have one lens or a dozen, but since what you photograph and how you might frame up your shot is entirely subjective, then it's pointless to claim you'd be more or less productive with this or that gear until you give it a good try both ways.

If I were a commercial architectural photographer who had clients dictating what kinds of shots they wanted (usually wide as hell to get all their wonderwork in...) I'd want to have a selection of lenses. Or if I were a studio photographer and some lameo art director wanted me to copy some other photographer's shot, then I'd want the same lens they had.

But otherwise, why-oh-why would it matter?

Now I can see for selling nature prints as Stephen does, he probably wants a wide dramatic sunset shot and then a tight one of a peak in Alpenglow... but those are commercial considerations just like the above examples. It doesn't mean he couldn't create a bunch of excellent salable photos with just a plain old normal lens....

[Stephen Willard]

Stephen,

You do wonderful work, but you attack this as a full time professional, which is very different from most of the folks on this forum. If someone is doing this as a full time photographer, shooting the full range of material, a full lens set is essential, and you will work them enough to be proficient with them. But if you are a more typical LF shooter who gets out less, and shoots less, then that lens set is probably going to get in the way because there is no time to learn to use each of them well.

Ed, you are correct that I am a professional. However, I would like to challenge your notion that a large set of lenses are to complicated to use because of life's time constraints. Here are some things to consider for the record.

1) Lenses can be classified into three basic categories of wide angle, normal/intermediate, and telephoto. Once you have learned to see wide angle, then it is no big deal when you add another wide-angle lens to your bag. This is also holds true for the other two categories. It took me two years to figure out how to make a sharp image with my 720mm lens because of vibrations. That lesson will now be applied to my new 1200mm lens set. I will be using it effectively the minute I take my first shot with it.

2) Never make a hollow lens purchase unless you are collector. All equipment purchases should be motivated by a compositional or artistic need. For example, just recently I started shooting from the car where I encountered gigantic vistas and lots of private property that denied me access. My 720mm lens fell far short of this new need. With the purchase of my 1200mm convertible lens set, I am hoping I can shoot across private land and start to take on some of those big vistas. The 1200mm lens set was my first lens I have purchased in four years.

If there is no compositional need, then do not buy any additional gear period. You would be wasting your money. If you are in a rut and looking for changes then drive your purchases from a well thought out artistic vision. Making random lens or gear purchases will not help.

3) Restrict your lens or gear purchases to one a year. This will make things more affordable and provides you with time to get acquainted with your new tool. It took 7 plus years to purchase my 10 lenses. I could never have afforded them if I purchased them all at once.

I suspect that many know these things already, but for those who don’t, I hope this helps.

[Stephen Willard]

Now I can see for selling nature prints as Stephen does, he probably wants a wide dramatic sunset shot and then a tight one of a peak in Alpenglow... but those are commercial considerations just like the above examples. It doesn't mean he couldn't create a bunch of excellent salable photos with just a plain old normal lens....

Correct, except that a richer suite of lenses will add variety to my images. As I have said before, lenses are like paint brushes, each having their own unique optical characteristics, and thus will allow me to paint light on film in different ways.

[The Dread Pirate Robins]

I think this is a highly personal thing.

I found that being "stuck" with just one 50mm lens on a Spotmatic for several years starting out in photography in my pre- and early teen years that I developed my ability to shoot with a "normal" lens much better than I probably would have had a I had a camera with multiple lenses or with a 28-70. It was the platform on which I built my creativity, and there was nothing wrong with that. I eventually got a newer camera with a 35-80 and I eventually went back to that fixed lens because, besides the optics being better, I found that the fixed length forced me to think more about composition than simply zooming in or out and firing off the shutter.

As I get into LF photography, I think I am going to restrict myself to one lens for at least a year and work on my technique. It served me well when working in 35mm format, and it will keep me from noodling around obsessing over equipment selection, which I know I would do if I started out buying loads of lenses.

This approach may prove to be too limiting for others.

[Ole Tjugen]

I have crossed the user/collector divide a long time ago, but I know exactly why I own several 150mm lenses: They are ALL different.

Come to think of it, I can't exactly recall just exactly how many 150mm lenses I own, but I do know that they all have their different uses. While the angle of view and perspective may be just the same, the photographic signature is different enough that yes - I feel justified in switching from one 150mm lens to another depending on the scene. And even in keeping the ones I haven't used yet, because I know what I'll use them for and what they will bring to the finished picture.

Yes, more is more. And less is not enough. :)

[Jay Wolfe]

Or, you could just give up lenses altogether and use a well-bored pinhole. Then you would have focal lengths limited only by your bellows, always in focus, and no extra weight to carry. Seems like the ultimate less is less is more.

[Vaughn]

Or, you could just give up lenses altogether and use a well-bored pinhole. Then you would have focal lengths limited only by your bellows, always in focus, and no extra weight to carry. Seems like the ultimate less is less is more.

Jay, it sounds like your less is more than most, more or less...:p

Vaughn

[cjbroadbent]

Steven makes the good suggestion of restricting gear purchases to one a year. My rule is buy one, chuck two first.

[Ole Tjugen]

Or, you could just give up lenses altogether and use a well-bored pinhole. Then you would have focal lengths limited only by your bellows, always in focus, and no extra weight to carry. Seems like the ultimate less is less is more.

Pinholes are not, as a rule always in focus: They tend to be equally unfocussed all over. :D

A better suggestion might be a casket set (http://www.casket-set.com). All focal lengths from 105mm to 750mm in one small box. :p

[timparkin]

Interestingly I looked at Rodney Lough's site and he has pictures from four different lenses on 4x5.. I'd say this was a typical sized lens collection (as backed up by the LFPF's survey).

I personally go out with four or five lenses generally although one of these may be a 360/500 convertible.. (the others are 80/110/150/240) .. I have rarely used or needed the 360/500 convertible but it was a bargain so perhaps if I see the shot it's needed for I may take it..

I have considered a wider lens but am sure it would end up a 'novelty' at the other end of the spectrum.

Also.. most of my pictures have so far been taken with the 80/110/150 set so I would be more than happy scouting longer shoots with this set.

I think that two lenses would end up feeling restrictive and if I did take two, I would like it to be a 90 and a 150 with which I think I could cope...

The choice of only taking one lens out strikes me as some sort of artistic statement in itself although there is a proven aesthetic in artificially restricting choice in order to hone skills - isn't this what most black and white photographers are do? Learning to see in black and white by only taking b&w..

Tim

[Stephen Willard]

I have crossed the user/collector divide a long time ago, but I know exactly why I own several 150mm lenses: They are ALL different.

Come to think of it, I can't exactly recall just exactly how many 150mm lenses I own, but I do know that they all have their different uses. While the angle of view and perspective may be just the same, the photographic signature is different enough that yes - I feel justified in switching from one 150mm lens to another depending on the scene. And even in keeping the ones I haven't used yet, because I know what I'll use them for and what they will bring to the finished picture.

Yes, more is more. And less is not enough. :)

When I read this I laughed hysterically. I have never indulged my thirst for buying all those big lenses that have 8x10 coverage even though I do not shoot 8x10. They are big, sensual and curvey for sure, and I have to be very careful when I am shopping for a lens that I do not tack on one those lenses such as the Nikkor 150mm SW lens. So far I have resisted making an 8x10 lens purchase, but I suspect that it will be a matter of time before I cave in and buy one.

Of course, I will fabricate some artist need to make the purchase...

[Stephen Willard]

Interestingly I looked at Rodney Lough's site and he has pictures from four different lenses on 4x5.. I'd say this was a typical sized lens collection (as backed up by the LFPF's survey).

I met Rodeny last fall and spent some time with him in the field. He now only shoots 8x10 and uses only two lenses, the 300mm and the 150mm, but I am not sure about the latter.

He does believe that less is more. However, he did express his desire to me to pruchase a number of other lenses, but the CEO of his company said no.

[Don7x17]

.... I have never indulged my thirst for buying all those big lenses that have 8x10 coverage even though I do not shoot 8x10. They are big, sensual and curvey for sure, and I have to be very careful when I am shopping for a lens that I do not tack on one those lenses such as the Nikkor 150mm SW lens. So far I have resisted making an 8x10 lens purchase, but I suspect that it will be a matter of time before I cave in and buy one.

Of course, I will fabricate some artist need to make the purchase...

That 600-800-1200T Nikkor lens qualifies as an 8x10 lens :)

And if you look at the actual image circle you'll find that its greater than Nikon quoted in literature -- in fact 1200T will cover 12x20....Nikon never cut off the circle to just 8x10 coverage at infinity.

And if you want a really sensual long lens, give a look at the Schneider 550/1100 pair. Gold, no less. Your name could be on the ring. Outstanding opportunity for a quality 4x5 or 5x7 lens :eek:

[John Jarosz]

What works for you is what's really important.
For me, I find if I'm working on a long term series, or making similar images for a project; I find that I know what lens I need before I go. I visualize the image I need and that detemines what I'll take.

But if I'm just wandering around with no purpose or pre-determined goal, I'd like to have a range of possibilities with me.

But as the formats get larger, I also find that I force myself to visualize what I want to do so the load is lighter.

Course, I'm the same person that used only a SWC for 15 years, so what do I know?

John

[Stephen Willard]

That 600-800-1200T Nikkor lens qualifies as an 8x10 lens :)

I know that Don, but this latest lens purchase was based on real artistic need. What I was talking about was the pure pleasure of ownership of a lens I have no need for. I am cursed with a voice of utility that will deny me the act of making a completely delinquent purchase.

[Stephen Willard]

And if you look at the actual image circle you'll find that its greater than Nikon quoted in literature -- in fact 1200T will cover 12x20....Nikon never cut off the circle to just 8x10 coverage at infinity.

I have found that Nikon specifications for LF lenses are very conservative. I am using Nikkor lenses for my 5x7 and 4x10 that should NOT cover these formats, and yet they do without any light fall off at the corners and movement to spare. Because of this and other benchmarks I have done, I am a real big fan of Nikkor glass in general.

A number of years ago I noticed when I started making 20x50 optical prints, they were unacceptably soft at the edges of the 50 inch dimension. I purchased over $4000 worth of enlarging lenses all at once and tested every one of them. The EL-Nikkor 210mm lens won hands down. The difference between the Nikkor lens and the rest of the pack was significant at the edges. I then return the rest of the lenses and kept the Nikkor lens.

[Lightbender]

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!


Getting back to the topic,

I think the real point people are trying to make is that the photographer is responsible for making the images good, not the equipment. The photographer must learn not only to use the tools they have, but also to "see" the artistic nature of their subject, and finally to translate this vision onto film. It's hard enough to do all this with one camera, lens, and film. (see the standard LF process (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=40031)) Add 10+ lenses, 3+ formats, B&W, color, or color trans film, and now you have 90+ combinations for each shot. Thus the advice most people give new or struggling LF photographers is "keep it simple". To back up the recommendations, many people refer to the fact that some notable photographers use only a handful of lenses.

I would like to note that outside of this thread, I have not seen too many people lecturing that less is always better than more. In fact I would say the opposite is true considering all the posts talking about exotic lenses. And I would say that some of the "less is more" sentiment is actually a reaction against the hyper-consumerism instilled by forums and magazines.

"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."

OK, so assuming one has the funds to buy all the lenses one desires, the porters to carry them into the field, and the expert knowledge to use each one to their best capabilities. I would say that one should use the best tool for the job. Wide angles, standards, longs, telephotos, macros, soft focus, whatever tool the shot requires. But herein lies my point: "the shot requires". If you don't take glowing soft photos you don't need a soft focus lens. If you don't take macros, you don't need a macro lens. If you don't use a wide angle, you don't need one. I think that encouraging "more is better" is just as flawed as "less is more". Certainly the statement "don't buy lens x because you already have 3 lenses" is just as false as "Buy lens x because you only have 3 lenses". I think the focus should be on "get what you need". Furthermore I would think that the "more is better" mentality leads to "if you don't have more, you're no good"

back to:
"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!"

Since you are an expert in 13 different focal lengths. I will ask your advice so that you can prove your point. Assuming that I have a 47, 65, 90, 135, 150, 210, 300, and 360. How would the quality of my images be "exponentially improved" if I also had a 180mm? What could I do with a 180mm that i could not do with a 150 or 210mm by moving or cropping slightly? Would I be twice as good a photographer as i am now?

*for the record, I have about 30 LF lenses, and I use 4.

[timparkin]

Getting back to the topic,

Since you are an expert in 13 different focal lengths. I will ask your advice so that you can prove your point. Assuming that I have a 47, 65, 90, 135, 150, 210, 300, and 360. How would the quality of my images be "exponentially improved" if I also had a 180mm? What could I do with a 180mm that i could not do with a 150 or 210mm by moving or cropping slightly? Would I be twice as good a photographer as i am now?


I'll have a little go at this one.. given the set of lenses above

1. if you can't move to get the composition then you have to crop.

2. If your picture required a 200mm but you only have a 150mm then you'd take the shot and crop 45% of your film area.

3. If you had a 180mm lens then you'd only be cropping 20% of your film area..

4. My step from 150 is currently 240 which means if I want a 230mm lens view I'd be cropping 60% of the film area.

5. I've never had a situation yet where I needed a 230mm lens view ..

Tim

[Stephen Willard]

I'll have a little go at this one.. given the set of lenses above

1. if you can't move to get the composition then you have to crop.

2. If your picture required a 200mm but you only have a 150mm then you'd take the shot and crop 45% of your film area.

3. If you had a 180mm lens then you'd only be cropping 20% of your film area..

4. My step from 150 is currently 240 which means if I want a 230mm lens view I'd be cropping 60% of the film area.

5. I've never had a situation yet where I needed a 230mm lens view ..

Tim

Tim, I think we are on the same page. I avoid cropping at all cost because it compromises the clarity of the final print and defeats the reason why I switched to LF photography in the first place. Cropping the field is preferred over cropping the print, and provides another motivator for having as rich selection of lenses.

[Stephen Willard]

Hi Lightbender,

All of your points are valid, but I would like to make a generalized rebuttal with the following consideration that I have already noted several times. Lenses are akin to an artist's paint brushes. Most artists have many different types of brushes that facilitate applying paint to canvas in different ways. It is up to the artist to muster the skill needed to use his tools effectively and CREATE something that is amazing. Without paint brushes he cannot paint or create, but with a rich selection of brushes, he can applying the paint in subtle, but striking and varied ways.

It is the same with a photographer. Our lenses are our paint brushes and allow us to paint light onto film. Each lens has its own unique optical properties and permits us to apply light to film in subtle, but striking and varied ways. The richer your lens selection the more varied and better your images will become. With a rich set of lenses, you will have the best lens that will more closely complement the composition you are trying to construct resulting in a more powerful image.

Lastly, I have reposted an earlier response to this thread that I think will address many of your concerns with "more is more". If you have already read it, then my apologies for being redundant.


Ed, you are correct that I am a professional. However, I would like to challenge your notion that a large set of lenses are to complicated to use because of life's time constraints. Here are some things to consider for the record.

1) Lenses can be classified into three basic categories of wide angle, normal/intermediate, and telephoto. Once you have learned to see wide angle, then it is no big deal when you add another wide-angle lens to your bag. This is also holds true for the other two categories. It took me two years to figure out how to make a sharp image with my 720mm lens because of vibrations. That lesson will now be applied to my new 1200mm lens set. I will be using it effectively the minute I take my first shot with it.

2) Never make a hollow lens purchase unless you are collector. All equipment purchases should be motivated by a compositional or artistic need. For example, just recently I started shooting from the car where I encountered gigantic vistas and lots of private property that denied me access. My 720mm lens fell far short of this new need. With the purchase of my 1200mm convertible lens set, I am hoping I can shoot across private land and start to take on some of those big vistas. The 1200mm lens set was my first lens I have purchased in four years.

If there is no compositional need, then do not buy any additional gear period. You would be wasting your money. If you are in a rut and looking for changes then drive your purchases from a well thought out artistic vision. Making random lens or gear purchases will not help.

3) Restrict your lens or gear purchases to one a year. This will make things more affordable and provides you with time to get acquainted with your new tool. It took 7 plus years to purchase my 10 lenses. I could never have afforded them if I purchased them all at once.

I suspect that many know these things already, but for those who don’t, I hope this helps.

[Ron Marshall]

I would prefer more focal lengths, because I have frequently encountered subjects where I couldn't change position, and an additional lens of intermediate focal length would have been handy. I carry at most six and often only four lenses when hiking with my camera. If I had a sherpa and unlimited funds I would probably carry twice as many. That said, I am more than satisfied with six.

[cjbroadbent]

The word 'Art' has cropped up 65 times in this thread. The word 'Craft' once!

[Lightbender]

Stephen,
I am honestly confused by your statements that seem to contradict themselves.

you have said:
"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!"
and
"The richer your lens selection the more varied and better your images will become."

These statements plainly state that more lenses = more variety and better quality images. Thus if I own N number of lenses, I should buy one more* so that I can produce more variety and better quality images. *(in a different focal length or character)

In contrast, you have also said:
"Never make a hollow lens purchase unless you are collector. All equipment purchases should be motivated by a compositional or artistic need."
and
"If there is no compositional need, then do not buy any additional gear period."

These statement plainly state that one should only buy the lenses they need. Thus if I only need one lens I should only own one lens.

So, what statement are you trying to make? Since they contradict each other they cannot both be true.

Alternatively, since we both agree that "less is more" is not something that holds true for everyone, could we establish a set of lenses that could be recommended for most LF photographers. Or separate sets that are recommended for different types of photographs, such as portraits, landscape, macro, whatever. Or rather than making a statement like "more is more", perhaps you could explain the use of certain lenses you use, why and how to use them, and give examples of end results.

Also, you argument using painters and pain brushes is not relevant, since it it not a known fact that painters who use more brushes are better painters or have more varied works.

[Ole Tjugen]

So, what statement are you trying to make? Since they contradict each other they cannot both be true.

I'm not Stephen, but I see no contradiction.
"If there is no compositional need, then do not buy any additional gear period." and "The richer your lens selection the more varied and better your images will become." do not contradict eachother. The statement is "get what you need, when you know why you need it".


Alternatively, since we both agree that "less is more" is not something that holds true for everyone, could we establish a set of lenses that could be recommended for most LF photographers.
'Fraid not. LF photographers are people, and they are all different. Maybe even more different than most other people, considering the total number of camera manufacturers represented in the gear of the people on this forum. A forum like pdn seems to get on very well with only the latest models from TWO manufacturers, here we must have several hundred. :)



Also, you argument using painters and pain brushes is not relevant, since it it not a known fact that painters who use more brushes are better painters or have more varied works.

Might not be commonly know to non-painters, but brush selection is very important to painters. Using only one single brush is even more limiting than using only one single lens - and of course there are some very good painters who do just that. But the majority use more brushes than I have lenses.

[Lightbender]

I'm not Stephen, but I see no contradiction.
"If there is no compositional need, then do not buy any additional gear period." and "The richer your lens selection the more varied and better your images will become." do not contradict eachother. The statement is "get what you need, when you know why you need it".

I have to disagree with you. "buy as many lenses as you can" is not the same as "buy what you need". While they are not opposite, they cannot both be always true (unless you add the statement that you always need more lenses). Or if you are trying to say that his statement "The richer.." means "get what you need", then I believe you are mistaken. But this is why I asked him to explain what exactly he meant.



'Fraid not. LF photographers are people, and they are all different. Maybe even more different than most other people, considering the total number of camera manufacturers represented in the gear of the people on this forum. A forum like pdn seems to get on very well with only the latest models from TWO manufacturers, here we must have several hundred. :)
i don't see how people being different would block a group from making a recommendation. But this is perhaps discussed better on a separate thread.



Might not be commonly know to non-painters, but brush selection is very important to painters. Using only one single brush is even more limiting than using only one single lens - and of course there are some very good painters who do just that. But the majority use more brushes than I have lenses.
While it is assumed that most painters use more than one type of brush, it is not generally agreed that a painters ability to paint varied and and quality paintings is relative to the amount of brushes owned.

[Stephen Willard]

Stephen,
Alternatively, since we both agree that "less is more" is not something that holds true for everyone, could we establish a set of lenses that could be recommended for most LF photographers. Or separate sets that are recommended for different types of photographs, such as portraits, landscape, macro, whatever. Or rather than making a statement like "more is more", perhaps you could explain the use of certain lenses you use, why and how to use them, and give examples of end results.

Also, you argument using painters and pain brushes is not relevant, since it it not a known fact that painters who use more brushes are better painters or have more varied works.

LB, all am saying is do not let your equipment define your artistic vision. Do not stick one lens on your camera and then head into world to see what happens. That is an equation for failure.

What I am actually advocating is for people to sit down and figure out who they are as a photographer, and then get the equipment you need to make that happen. For example, I am a tradition landscape photographer who is trying develop a distinctive signature from others in my discipline. I do not wander the land aimlessly. I have a very clear artistic vision of what I am looking for, and I have all the gear that is absolutely essential to make that happen. Nothing more and nothing less. Just this summer I stumbled upon an amazing Hispanic cemetery on arid land that begged to be photographed, yet, I did not photograph it because that it is not what I do. It would have been a distraction from where my focus lies. So I moved on.

For those people who lack vision, let the equipment drive their vision, replicate other photographers work, or who have vision but lack the tools to execute their vision, they will fail miserable. Period.

So to answer your question I would say it would be impossible to come up with a standard kit of lenses. This is because for those who have a clear focus of where they are going will most likely be on a different path then others, and thus will need a different set of tools to execute their plan.

[Lightbender]

Thank you for clarifying your opinion. Also thank you for starting this thread, as it has been an enjoyable read and brought up many good questions.

For the record, I have about 30 LF lenses (which im not proud about) but I only generally use 4. The ones that I use are the ones I am most familliar with. I've picked up a few when they were inexpensive in the hopes of one day using them. The rest are simple excess. None of them are expensive. Some have flaws that others would cringe at.

[Stephen Willard]

Thank you for clarifying your opinion. Also thank you for starting this thread, as it has been an enjoyable read and brought up many good questions.

Lightbender, we are all in this together, and if you get better, then we all get better because we share our passionate opinions and ideas. My hope is that somehow I have influenced you and others to follow a path that only you can define and then stop screwing around and get the stuff you need to make it happen. More really is more, and "less is not enough".

[John Kasaian]

IMHO it is what you do with your lens, and not how many lenses you have that will make your photography better. :)

[Struan Gray]

I'm a lens junkie. I have always loved well-made things, and mechanical precision, so good lenses are always a joy to fondle. I have quite a few lenses I am never likely to use with any degree of seriousness, but most of them cost me less than the local restaurants want me to pay for a halfway decent dram, so it's not as if by owning them I am dramatically restricting my options, photographically or otherwise.

But. I am at a stage in my photography where I value book-length projects and portfolios over single images. For me, it is easier to maintain a sense of coherence if I don't use a wide variety of lenses. Thus at present I actually use a small selection of my lenses for my 'serious' photography.

I suspect that photographers notice that a set of images has been taken with a variety of lenses much more readily than the general art-loving public. The visual jolt I get when I see prints with changes of focal length is not shared by my non-photographic friends. So my worries about coherence are probably a sign that I am taking photographs for photographers. It's a way of pleasing myself - but not a universal truth.

What I do know is that when I start to feel that I'm always photographing the same tired old things in the same tired old ways, it helps to muck about with my less-used lenses. Either it confirms that my same old lenses are in fact the best tools to say what I want to say, or it opens up a way of speaking I had forgotten about. A couple of days snapping away with a wide lens on a small format usually just reminds me why I love medium teles on LF. And if not, the 240 mm Germinar isn't going to sue.

[Oren Grad]

I own a bunch of lenses, but primarily because I like to tinker with different formats. I usually go out with only one lens, or sometimes two. This applies to my small-format snapshooting too - these days it's usually just one camera with one lens.

For most formats, I've found from experience that I'm usually happiest with a focal length somewhere around 7/8 of the format diagonal, though the rule starts to break down with extreme panoramic formats, where I'll tend to go a bit shorter. I'll sometimes use something a bit longer or a bit wider if I have a special problem to solve or just feel like a change of pace. I don't have much use for very long or very short lenses (say, outside the 28-50mm range for 35mm and more or less correspondingly for larger formats) because I generally don't like pictures that shout "look how compressed I am!" or "look how wide I am!". If I can't get the picture with something in the semi-wide to normal range, then it's probably not a picture I'd be happy with anyway, so I don't feel I'm missing anything.

[Oren Grad]

For me, it is easier to maintain a sense of coherence if I don't use a wide variety of lenses.

I hadn't thought about it in quite that way, but that rings true for me as well. Avoiding radical or abrupt changes in the rendering of space helps keep the focus on the content of the picture rather than the artifice of its taking.

[Frank Petronio]

Not to upset anyone too much, but when I see obvious wide angle or telephoto pictures, I automatically think that they're done with 35mm/small format equipment, mostly by advanced amateurs, sports photographers, or Galen Rowell types. That's not a slam, but especially with the extremes it seems like a way to appeal to the broader public (ie Fatali Gallery customers) rather than a more sophisticated audience.

In 4x5 I tend to see shots wider than a 90 or longer than a 300 as being somehow less credible and more that the photographer was trying to salvage a salable photo from a less than ideal situation. The extreme focal length becomes the most important characteristic of the photo.

There are exceptions of course, like the photographers who shoot telephotos in the high mountains -- or ultra wide Midwestern skies.

[John Kasaian]

Does having an automobile collection make one a better driver? Would having more than one pot make you a better cook? Or would having more than one pencil make you a better writer?

[Vaughn]

Frank, I am reminded of something I read in "Autobiograhy of a Yogi"...if one wears shoes, the world is covered with shoe-leather.

If one only had close-to-normal lenses, than all one's photographs look similar to what our eyes see. This is what we are used to. Before photography, not many (if any) paintings or drawings were made with a wide or long perspective...that is relatively recently learned by our visual culture trained by photographs and movies/TV.

So something does seem a little off when seeing images that are taken with very wide or very long lenses (relative to format). One example of this is a photographer that shoots 4x5 color landscapes -- he did a lot of calenders (Mulnch or something like that), primarily with wide angle lenses. Visually very tiring to look at after awhile.

Vaughn

[John Berry]

I think only having a 210 on a 4x5 for the first 5 years of LF has payed off in the ability to see more in whatever is in front of me.

[Vaughn]

I think only having a 210 on a 4x5 for the first 5 years of LF has payed off in the ability to see more in whatever is in front of me.

I think that in most cases when learning to photograph, less is more...that is, only one lens can provide a better learning experience . I am certainly more comfortable now with multiple lenses (I carry 4 lenses for the 8x10) and can mentally juggle the way those lenses record light, than I was in the beginning.

Vaughn

[redrockcoulee]

I do not think I was a better driver when I had only one car compared to the two I have now (when either is running)

Personally it seems that the larger the format the less number of lens I need or even want. It may be due to when I shoot 35mm or digital there are a great many more types of situations or subjects that I am interested in than with medium format or LR. I had access to two long lenses for Hasselblad, a 250 that I used once taking 4 images and a 500 that I never even put on the camera. But have used long lenses shooting wildlife and sports and wide angle shooting people and events with the smaller formats.

Limiting yourself to a single lens or only two is as arbitrary as deciding that you need mroe and more lenses all the time. For me it is the type of photography I do and wish to do that is important. With both MF and LF I tend to shoot mostly with the normal and the wide and slight telephoto get about 10 to 15% each.

I also like the opportunity to experiment and hence pinholes and other attempts at trying something that is different from what I normally do. This month's Lenwork had the comments from a photographer who only used one lens and only took photos that had water in them. First of all in my area that would eliminate most of the landscape. Secondly I have a much greater range of interests non photography that my photography extends into to be that limiting. I just do not understand how not having a piece of equipment that enables you to capture what you visualize makes you a better photographer? That is not saying that you need lots of lenses etc but if you see an image that you want to portray as X why not use the equipment that you need, such as a wide angle lens. Stepping backwards is not the same and sometimes is impossible.

When shooting an owl in a nest I cannot use the same lens as when trying to capture the open space of the prairies. Having more than one tool would most likely make you a better carpenter and have been to places that boil water for tea in a saucepan and it takes forever and wastes energy so it is not having more and more but having the right ones for what you want to do. If you only make tea when I am over perhaps the saucepan is fine but for the number of times a day we make tea a kettle is needed. For some a single lens is fine but for others it would not be adequate.

[John Kasaian]

I do not think I was a better driver when I had only one car compared to the two I have now (when either is running)

Personally it seems that the larger the format the less number of lens I need or even want. It may be due to when I shoot 35mm or digital there are a great many more types of situations or subjects that I am interested in than with medium format or LR. I had access to two long lenses for Hasselblad, a 250 that I used once taking 4 images and a 500 that I never even put on the camera. But have used long lenses shooting wildlife and sports and wide angle shooting people and events with the smaller formats.

Limiting yourself to a single lens or only two is as arbitrary as deciding that you need mroe and more lenses all the time. For me it is the type of photography I do and wish to do that is important. With both MF and LF I tend to shoot mostly with the normal and the wide and slight telephoto get about 10 to 15% each.

I also like the opportunity to experiment and hence pinholes and other attempts at trying something that is different from what I normally do. This month's Lenwork had the comments from a photographer who only used one lens and only took photos that had water in them. First of all in my area that would eliminate most of the landscape. Secondly I have a much greater range of interests non photography that my photography extends into to be that limiting. I just do not understand how not having a piece of equipment that enables you to capture what you visualize makes you a better photographer? That is not saying that you need lots of lenses etc but if you see an image that you want to portray as X why not use the equipment that you need, such as a wide angle lens. Stepping backwards is not the same and sometimes is impossible.

When shooting an owl in a nest I cannot use the same lens as when trying to capture the open space of the prairies. Having more than one tool would most likely make you a better carpenter and have been to places that boil water for tea in a saucepan and it takes forever and wastes energy so it is not having more and more but having the right ones for what you want to do. If you only make tea when I am over perhaps the saucepan is fine but for the number of times a day we make tea a kettle is needed. For some a single lens is fine but for others it would not be adequate.

My point is, will having more lenses make you a "better" photographer? No. Having lenses that can be useful in a given situation is one thing, but a lens alone cannot make you take better photographs.

Having more than one tool does not neccesarily make you a better carpenter either if you can't use the tools that you do have accurately and efficiently. Take a look at an ancient chinese puzzle box---incredible woodworking goes into them but the tools used to make these creations were probably quite primitive compared to whats available in a modern work shop.

[Frank Petronio]

You would need all those lenses if you felt you had to cover everything from the vast skyline to far-off details... but chances are you would not be a better photographer, only a more versatile one.

There is a meme in architecture that centers around "human-scale" buildings that are intuitive -- entryways in front, in intuitive and traditional settings, that sort of thing in contrast to the show-offy modern designs that often have obscured and complex functionality. I suggest that there is also human-scale photography, using a moderate-normal lens or lenses and the sort of composition that a human would see from their point of view (ie no dramatic abstracts or high angle work.)

So I were out with Stephen he might switch a lot of lens throughout the session, capturing the extremes, while I quietly poked around w my single normal lens... the results are always going to be subjective but I bet my approach leads to more intimate, quiet, and spontaneous photos compared to his grand, powerful, precise images. Who's to say which is better?

[John Kasaian]

You would need all those lenses if you felt you had to cover everything from the vast skyline to far-off details... but chances are you would not be a better photographer, only a more versatile one.



I am reminded of a newlywed bride who is presented with a whole array of expensive new pots and pans as wedding presents along with cook books for cooking everything from Albanian cuisine to Zanzibar cuisine and still can't figure out why she burns the meatloaf. :D

[redrockcoulee]

My point is, will having more lenses make you a "better" photographer? No. Having lenses that can be useful in a given situation is one thing, but a lens alone cannot make you take better photographs.

Having more than one tool does not neccesarily make you a better carpenter either if you can't use the tools that you do have accurately and efficiently. Take a look at an ancient chinese puzzle box---incredible woodworking goes into them but the tools used to make these creations were probably quite primitive compared to whats available in a modern work shop.

Of course the necessary skills and knowledge are the most important. Guess my point was not arguing against your view but just that not having them just to not have them or to think that not having them makes you better is just as wrong headed. Getting rid of two of my three large format lenses will not improve my work, more work will. But I do not spend much time worrying about which lens to use, sometimes I will use whatever lens is on the camera but usually I look at a scene and decide how I want to interpret it and that makes my decision. If I knew nothing about photography and had a dozen lenses I would not be as good as an expert with one lens but a proficient photographer should be able to create work with more than one lens anyways and decide which lens or camera would be best for what he wanted to capture.

Most importantly each photographer should decide based on their wants and needs and the stories they wish to tell how many formats or lenses they should use in order to fulfill their vision. I would neither want to use only one or have the 8 or 10 that some of those on this list have but I also know that that is only me and those who only use one or wish to use 10 are just as right as me using 3. (Actually will be using 4 until make a lens board for my wife's camera). But I doubt any on this list or any other serious photographer would argue against it is the person behind the equipment that is the most important factor. I simply thought that it was a given.

[John Kasaian]

Would only having one lens make you a worse photographer? No. Would having only one lens make you a better photographer? I don't think so either, but if one lens is all you use then you'll eventually learn how to use it to it's best (and that will help you take better photographs) or not. I think discussions about more or less equipment tend to boil down to this issue---using what you have to it's fullest potential. A successful photograph dosen't convey to the viewer the number of lenses (or lack of a number of lenses) the photographer has in his kit, but rather that the lens (or pinhole for that matter) that was aboard the camera at the time the photograph was snapped was well and skillfully employed. :)

[Toyon]

After years of shooting, I found that there is less prep involved (and less possibility of forgetting something critical) if I have a standard stable that travel with the camera, plus an additional case of specialty lenses. That way I know I have a 90, 120, 150 and 240 always handy, and can use others if I want a special effect. The standard lenses give me, Wide, Normal and Long, with a useful semi-wide. They are smallish lenses (particularly the tiny 120), so do not add a lot of weight. The lenses in the additional case may vary from Petzvals to soft-focus, portrait lenses or various odd pieces that I am testing out.

[Gene McCluney]

If you are shooting commercial work, then you need various lenses, in order to "get it all in" in the space you have to place your camera. There is no other choice.

Even in the studio, small product shots require a long lens to get the camera back from the subject and to minimize distortion, and big product shots require a wider lens, as the studio is only "so" deep, and one can't back up forever.

[John Kasaian]

After years of shooting, I found that there is less prep involved (and less possibility of forgetting something critical) if I have a standard stable that travel with the camera, plus an additional case of specialty lenses. That way I know I have a 90, 120, 150 and 240 always handy, and can use others if I want a special effect. The standard lenses give me, Wide, Normal and Long, with a useful semi-wide. They are smallish lenses (particularly the tiny 120), so do not add a lot of weight. The lenses in the additional case may vary from Petzvals to soft-focus, portrait lenses or various odd pieces that I am testing out.

What you are saying is that you have the tools you need to take photographs. That is all well and good but they are after all only tools. You are the photographer. The tools you have don't make you a better photographer. They might make it easier for you to take better photographs, but that is a different matter.

As the OP pointed out, there are some very very fine photographers who only use one or two lenses. Also many famous photographers in the past used pretty cr@ppy gear by todays standards. What makes them great was their vision, not the lenses or other (or lack of other) gear.

The arguement that one lens will make you a better photographer I believe has merit when you're learning. Too many variables complicates things---a stable of lenses, switching emulsions and chemistry with every whim is counter production IMHO when you're just starting out but OTOH if keeping things simplified also helps you develop your vision then staying the course with minimal equipment is viable.
It's not the violin, but the fiddler that makes the instrument sing.

[SamReeves]

If you're lugging your gear on your back, I would agree less is more! :)

Honestly I've never had a need for more than three focal lengths.