![]() Primes for full frame cameras are lighter than any zoom. (I *was* left wondering about where the vaunted Leica sharpness was - that lens was marketed under license from Taylor and Hobson before Leica released their first Summilux.)įor documentary work in an age before zooms, a 50mm worked well. For documenting my young life on Tri-X, it worked very well. In fact, I don't even own a 50mm lens anymore.īack in 1969, a 50mm f/1.5 Summarit was the only lens I used on an inherited Leica M3. Such a lens is functional at best: good for low-light situations where I need a wide aperture maybe, but even then, I will probably reach for that aforementioned 28-70mm f/2. I do not find it inspiring or fun to work with, and it is a constant struggle to find a way to be creative with such a lens for me. It would be disingenuous to not mention the other reason I don't like the 50mm focal length: I am simply not good at creating compelling images with it. ![]() Even more modest 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses of the world have taken huge strides forward, and the high-ISO capabilities of modern cameras mean that those f/1.4 apertures are not as necessary as they used to be. Its image quality easily keeps pace with all but the best primes, its f/2 aperture is more than enough for 99% of situations, and its convenience makes it way more appealing to me than carrying three or four equivalent primes. However, when you consider the fact that I no longer own any other lenses between 14mm and 85mm, its value becomes clear. In particular, I am thinking of my Canon RF 28-70mm f/2 L USM. However, modern zoom lenses continue to push the bounds of image quality and wide apertures, and that advantage held by primes has largely evaporated, at least in some cases. Taking that further: the paradigm used to be that many photographers would carry zooms for versatility and convenience and primes for wide apertures and image quality. He looks cute at all focal lengths, though. No longer is the 50mm the most prominent "cheap but good" option you can find something that fits your budget almost anywhere in the range. ![]() Lens design has advanced by leaps and bounds even in just the last decade, and there are now fantastic options at just about every focal length and price point. That is partially why, for a long time, the "nifty fifty" was so desirable, as one could get a lens with a wide aperture that produced decent images for around $100-200. I'm greatly overgeneralizing lens design, but in the simplest terms, the more extreme the focal length, the harder it is to design a lens that produces high-quality images, and the more expensive it will be. Modern Zoom Lenses or Other Primes Are Often a Better Choiceĥ0mm lenses were once considered a mainstay in almost every photographer's kit. A bad photo is a bad photo whether it is shot at 10mm, 50mm, or 400mm. Of course, you might argue that it is on the photographer to find other ways to be creative, but to that, I say: why not give yourself a leg up to start? Nor is this to say you can just slap on a more unusual focal length and use that as a crutch no matter what you use, all the fundamentals of a good photograph - composition, posing, lighting, editing, etc.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |