A philosophical question about the # of lenses in your pack

[Heroique]

Let's say you're hiking into one of your favorite landscapes – camera, lens, film in pack, tripod in hand, high confidence in tow.

You're in a great mood . The dawning day promises good light. You have all the time you need for shooting, plus more to spare. You haven't arrived yet, so it's too early to start looking for shots. But deep down, you know plenty of shots will be there. After all, a lot of care and consideration went into the number of lenses in your pack. Then a moment of pause. A curious question comes to mind. Will this choice of glass – this well-considered choice – really influence the number of compositions that will be possible for you to capture and take home?

Hiking on, two ideas, honed for simplicity, occur to you and seem to clash – yet you're aware that each idea has its supporters – and you grow curious about "which side" you're on, which idea makes more sense:

#1: There is a clear relationship between the number of focal lengths in my pack and the number of compositions that will be possible for me to capture.

#2: The number of compositions that will be possible for me to capture has no relationship to the number of focal lengths in my pack (i.e., one or more).

Just as you arrive at your location, your doubts give way to clarity. Good timing!

But tell us – what did you decide and why?

-----
Note: This might betray me as a #2 person, but I started writing this about my belief that a single lens kit, whether by choice or economic necessity, makes for a liberating field experience, not a restrictive one. ;^)

[Ray Heath]

#2

"Seeing" images comes before any other consideration. Equipment choice is the last consideration.

[Vaughn]

Also #2. There are an infinite number of possible images available at any time, anywhere (as Ray said -- it is just a matter of 'seeing' them). Using only one lens, one format, one film type, or any other "limiting' factors still leaves an infinite number of images available. Taking multiple lenses, multiple formats, different types of film, etc does not increase the number of possible images...it is still infinite. How one wishes to work determines the number of lenses, etc, one takes on one's hike.

I have never felt limited by having a one-lens kit...and photographed for over 25 years with only one lens per kit (moving from Rolleiflex to 4x5 to 5x7 to 8x10). For the last ten years I have added a few more lenses to the 8x10 kit, and have a few lenses for the 11x14 kit. The rate of the number of images I make remains about the same.

[Regular Rod]

Let's say you're hiking into one of your favorite landscapes – camera, lens, film in pack, tripod in hand, high confidence in tow.

You're in a great mood . The dawning day promises good light. You have all the time you need for shooting, plus more to spare. You haven't arrived yet, so it's too early to start looking for shots. But deep down, you know plenty of shots will be there. After all, a lot of care and consideration went into the number of lenses in your pack. Then a moment of pause. A curious question comes to mind. Will this choice of glass – this well-considered choice – really influence the number of compositions that will be possible for you to capture and take home?

Hiking on, two ideas, honed for simplicity, occur to you and seem to clash – yet you're aware that each idea has its supporters – and you grow curious about "which side" you're on, which idea makes more sense:

#1: There is a clear relationship between the number of focal lengths in my pack and the number of compositions that will be possible for me to capture.

#2: The number of compositions that will be possible for me to capture has no relationship to the number of focal lengths in my pack (i.e., one or more).

Just as you arrive at your location, your doubts give way to clarity. Good timing!

But tell us – what did you decide and why?

-----
Note: This might betray me as a #2 person, but I started writing this about my belief that a single lens kit, whether by choice or economic necessity, makes for a liberating field experience, not a restrictive one. ;^)

I use convertible lenses so carry only a couple but have at least four focal lengths to choose from.

RR

[Tim Meisburger]

The number of images is directly proportional to the number of lenses, but probably infinite in every case.

[Doremus Scudder]

I'm definitely in camp 2.

For me, the subject and how I want to present it determine the framing and aspect ratio. I find the camera position which gives me the perspective I want and then, often with the aid of a viewing frame or filter, determine the framing I want. I use the closest focal length lens that includes all the image I want but does not crop any of it away. When printing, I simply crop to get the original composition I wanted.

I don't believe that the world comes in any particular "view" or aspect ratio. My composing of a photograph is about spaces and proportions that derive from, and accentuate, the subject itself and the particular emotions/concepts I am trying to communicate. I do try to use as much of the negative as possible, for quality reasons, but I have no compunction about cropping down to 6x7 cm, or shooting a panorama 6x12 or 5x12 on 4x5 inch film if that's what I want. I believe the "full-frame" mentality (and the black borders to prove it) is pretentious and artistically impoverished.

My lens kit(s), therefore, is designed to give me the greatest possibility to optimize quality (i.e., crop as little as possible) while still giving me both very wide and very narrow angles of view so I have the greatest potential for composing and framing. I would rather crop a bit than not get a shot, so, when in doubt about which lenses to take, I'll err on the side of too wide (I can always crop a 240mm image to 300mm, but not vice-versa).

My typical field kit for 4x5 (for long day hikes and backpacking) is 90mm f/8 Super Angulon, 135mm WF Ektar, 203mm Ektar and 300mm Nikkor M. If I have more room, or a partner willing to carry a lens or so along (which is most of the time) I'll include a 240mm Fujinon A as well. If I know I'll need a wider view (say in narrow canyons or close city environments) I'll leave the 300mm behind and take a 75mm instead. Then I usually leave the 90mm behind too and take a 100mm WF Ektar (75mm, 100mm, 135mm, 203mm 240mm). I usually always have lenses from 75mm to 450mm in the car, and can tailor the kit as needed for the anticipated subject matter.

That said, I end up shooting mostly with the 135mm, with the 90mm and the 203mm close behind, so these I would take if limited to only three lenses. Five lightweight lenses, however, does not place an undue weight burden on me, and that's the number I usually have with me.

Best,

Doremus

[SergeiR]

If you are trying to get things right in camera and dont like do portions/cropping/stitching - you are forced to use range of FL. If you are ok with those - you can do fine with single.

[John Kasaian]

#2 for me too.

[Peter Lewin]

I'm confused by some of the responses, which take the #2 position, but then continue to discuss choosing the appropriate focal length, implying that they are carrying more than one lens. My own view (what a pun!) is that while there are probably an infinite number of compositions which one can find independent of lens, some can only be captured if you have the appropriate focal length. Sometimes you simply cannot get far enough away from the subject to make the image you have in mind, so you need a wider lens. Conversely you may have an image in your mind which requires the compression of a longer lens. Bottom line, I "see" the images which resonate for me without regard to equipment, but I can only capture them if I have the appropriate equipment.

[C_Remington]

#2. Carry wide and you can always crop in the darkroom.