The most common questions street photographers get – apart from technique questions – are questions about gear. The first question usually revolves around “which camera do you use?” The answer to that is usually the one that I have in my hand. The next question is “what lenses do you use?”. I could give them a similar smart ass answer as the previous one, i.e., whichever one I have installed on my camera, but I usually say “it depends.”
Many people confuse lenses with technique. To be sure, if you are carrying a 500mm lens around and are trying to take pictures of a person across from you in a subway car, it doesn’t matter how much technique you have, it’s going to be really difficult to get a shot off, much less one in focus. Lenses assist your technique, in that they help you convey through the final image the picture you want people to see.
I generally carry only prime lenses. Is it because I subscribe to some purist street photographer notion that only prime lenses are the best and that is what true photography is all about? No, because if I was truly a purist, I’d be shooting with film and a twin reflex camera. I stay away from the theoretical and move towards a practical reason for carrying only prime lenses on my camera.
First, primes are generally faster than zoom lenses. My primes are either 1.8, 2.0, or 2.8. This gives me a level of flexibility in low light or crap light conditions, such as when I’m underground or if I’m caught in some really dark shadows of buildings. A zoom lens would inhibit me from doing this (caveat here: I’m talking about “normal priced” zoom lenses, not the L series). Granted, if I’m taking shots in daylight out in the open street and I’m not going specifically for street portraiture, I’ll keep my aperture at around f/8.0 anyway. It’s the fact that I can stop down if I have to.
Second, the primes I have are generally smaller (except for the 2.0L, which is similar to carrying a missile launcher) than zooms, which allow me to capture scenes without being too conspicuous. Again, though, that may depend on what I’m trying to achieve. When I’m shooting with my 85 or my 135, I’m going for street portraiture. I’m going for faces. And, since I have not mastered shooting those lenses as I walk without putting my head to the viewfinder, my shooting is extremely conspicuous. Frankly, though, to get the interaction and not have my pictures look like I’m some disconnected stalker/pervert, I want the subject to look at me for a brief second. Of course, the ratio of being yelled at is much higher with these lenses. Every time I go out with these lenses, I often get yelled at, threatened, or sworn at at least once. Just keep walking with the knowledge that these lenses make great weapons, especially the 135L.
Third, and probably most important to me, is the simplicity and familiarity, particularly with my wide angle prime, the ugly duckling 24mm 2.8. I know exactly how things are going to be framed without having to look in the viewfinder. And, because I’m usually walking and shooting, zooms would be for the most part useless. I wouldn’t have time to futz around with the zoom. Point and shoot. I’m not ashamed to say that.
Filed under: Cameras, Street Photography | Tagged: "prime lenses" "street photography" "photography" "photography technique"
Hi. Can you maybe help me out? I posted in my own blog ( http://www.robynmspeed.com.wordpress.com ) about photography. My son is the photographer, but I am a bit obsessed with a second hand camera I saw the other day. It’s an Olympus OM1 and it’s fully manual. I like the idea of a camera, and me, as if the camera is an extension of me, and (as you say) a prime lens. But I don’t really know if this is a good camera, so I thought I would ask you if you had any thoughts? (I think the lens on it is a 1.8 (but I may be wrong). What’s your opinion, anyway, if you don’t mind me asking.
The OM-1 is a great camera. As you may know, it was originally called the M-1 but some company called Leica was a bit pissed about it so Olympus had to change it. If the OM-1 works well, I say go for it. It’s a compact SLR and is fully manual, which will help your son “figure it out.” if he doesn’t mind film and all that jazz, I think it’s a good investment. Of course, there are other manual SLRs out there, even compact ones, but if the OM-1 is in good shape, why not?
one thing to keep in mind. if he likes the om-1, it will only be a matter of time before he asks, “Hey dad, what about the Leica M-6?” In response, you could say, “That’s a good camera, but how about the Voigtlander Bessa?”
Anyway, it’s hard in this day and age to stay “true” to film, especially when you’re learning. Digital makes things a bit easier to learn with, despite the “simplicity” of film.
Rufus, you’re a gem. Thank you so much! We will go back and have another ‘fondle’ with the OM1.
Regards
Robyn
robynmspeed,
I have the Olympus FTL, which is the Olympus model prior to the introduction of the OM-1. The OM-1 is a fine camera. If your son wants to learn the fundamentals of photography start him off with an all manual film camera. And, if he wants a Leica M6, that means he is on his way to being a real photographer. Get him that Leica M6, M6 TTL or an MP and he will learn photography the “right way”. Those plastic digital cameras take nice photographs but when the batteries go head, you’re out of business. I can shoot for a month using my Leica M6 and don’t need any batteries, not even the battery the drives the internal light meter. I can estimate my exposure settings without a meter. In time, your son will learn that skill too.