There's nothing wrong with one lens. I feel more comfy with two, but not more than that. I suspect that most of the older photographers I liked the most had one "normal" and perhaps a wide angle that they didn't use much, and that's it. A lot of the time my 35mm cameras are wearing a 50mm, and given a choice of one, that's what I'd take. For 8x10, though I have other choices, I seem stuck on a 36cm, and that's about the same. In your case, I'd probably be perfectly happy with only a 180mm.
Thanks, but I'd rather just watch:
Large format: http://flickr.com/michaeldarnton
Mostly 35mm: http://flickr.com/mdarnton
You want digital, color, etc?: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradofear
Good morning all and thank you all for the feedback. I've been a photographer for nearly 20 years and most of that time has been professionally with smaller formats. I have a number of great lenses a 90mm nikkor f8, fuji 150 6.3, 203 7.7 kodak ektachrome and a 270mm rodenstock. And my large format images are purely for myself "no external creative pressure".
The lens that has turned everything on its head has been the imagon 200mm. It has forced me to appreciate an entirely different aesthetic. It feels like a large format holga which is counter to just about everything we see value in large format. But with use it grows on you. It is in an gorgeous old compound shutter which I adore the sound of when making an exposure and the images are opposite everything i'm used to. I've got rid of the disks and marked apertures with the beautiful round diaphragm in the shutter. It seems to beg exploration of selective focus and is the opposite of the perfect image and perfect sharpness.
The idea of frame lines being burned into my brain is very appealing.
Thanks for the extra encouragement. I'd love to hear anymore thoughts and experiences and think I'll take the less is more approach for a spin.
You could try using a 203mm Kodak Ektar. Not too expensive if you don't like it and easy to sell on.
If you can cope without a shutter there are many process lenses that you can try, Escofots come to mind. Many like 135mm lenses for 4x5, only you can decide.
Pete.
While I'm happy using a 35mm camera with just a 50mm lens and in the last 8 years a TLR with it's fixed lens they haven't been my main camera and I definitely found it limiting and frustrating when I just had a 150mm lens for my 5x4 camera, I found I frequently needed a wide angle lens. Now I always take two lenses a 90mm & a 150mm and sometimes a 65mm & 210mm if I'm going somewhere I think they'd be useful.
Ian
As an exercise, it's wonderful to stick to one lens only, it teaches us a lot about how to see as well as forcing us to come up with creative problem-solving ideas.
But after going through a few of those exercises, mostly with MF, I knew that there would always be one situation in five that demanded a wide-angle lens of some sort.
So these days, I keep to a normal and a lens roughly half the FL of normal.
I think you'd benefit with a long stint with the Imagon. I like soft focus too but haven't gotten into the imagon as I don't need a shuttered lens on my speed graphic. I think the notion of previsualization has it's roots in softish pictorialism. You had to know what you wanted for a final image when selecting the aperture/softness. I think straight photography simplified that by making everything in focus and giving a name to the idea of previsualization. It takes a lot of photos and outings to get proficient with the soft lenses and it will benefit your other photography by extension.Originally Posted by LeeSimmons
When framing I can eyeball the scene and know where to put the tripod because I don't have lens choices. Then I can get right to work making a photo rather than maneuvering and trying things. I'm not in a hurry but just leave more to contemplation and less to busywork.
Interesting. I did not know the 200mm Imagon covered 4x5.
You got rid of the disks? Why? Stopping down the aperture in the Imagon turns it into a rather sharp lens. I think the Imagon has a traditional aperture diaphragm only because that's what the available shutters included. The discs are there to give variations of aberration.
Thanks JP and thank you all for for the continued discussion. It's funny, the recommended books John Sexton's Quiet Light. There are beautiful trees in my area and they are one of my favorite subjects.
I think secondary thing that is driving me to this is a sharp 16x20 print can be achieved with most professional gear and our large format clarity and sharpness doesn't provide the obvious technical distinction it once did when talking purely sharpness/resolution in a mid sized print.
The application of vintage lenses and a print process something along the lines of carbon printing are a less trodden path and when mastered I imagine will provide a unique and rewarding experience a point of view.
For many years (6) in my 20's I just owned a TLR and one normal lens. I did a lot of fine work with that combo that has stood the test of time. All the work during that time was similar in vein-I was exploring an idea that fit that combo perfectly. But once I had exhausted that idea and was ready to move on I found it very limiting. That was in the mid 70's-my aesthetic now is more encompassing-an amalgam of all ideas and approaches that went before and my lens kit allows me to explore all that all the time-nothing extreme 90, 120, 150, 210, 305.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
One lens? No way!! I have a lens fetish. I'd feel neutered without several at my beck and call. Yeah, I'm a lens pervert... it's a harem for me... none of that monogamous nonsense.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks