Go to any forum about street photography and you’re bound to find some thread on “what the best lens for street photography is.” Let me just get this out of the way now when I say that the best lens for street photography depends on what you are trying to capture. Some street photographers like Billy Gomez and Jonathan Weiskopf go for that dreamy bokeh feel and thus often use the 135mm focal length. Others like Winograd used a wide angle lens in the 20mm range. In the end, to each his/her own. What works for some people don’t work for others and vice versa. The point of street photography is to shoot.
That being said, I’m here to discuss the often ignored Canon EF 24mm f/2.8, one of Canon’s “Ugly Duckling” lenses, because it doesn’t have USM or IS and was built at some point in the 1980s. Just so we are all on the same page, I use this on a Canon 400D, which has a 1.6 crop.
As a street photographer, being able to shoot at a moments notice, sometimes without the benefit of bringing the camera to your face, is of necessity, not to mention doing so without the subject noticing. The 24mm fits the bill on both fronts.
First, just by its function as a wide angle, things are going to be in “acceptable” focus most of the time, even when you’re at f/2.8. Is it going to be as sharp as scissor at that f stop? No. Then again, and to take an extreme example, shooting at the hip at a moments notice with an 85mm at f/2.8 vs. shooting with the 24mm at f/2.8 is, for the former, most likely to give you a blurry shot while the latter is most likely going to give you an acceptable shot (although this statement says nothing about the actual composition). Sometimes, street photography is about percentages . . . meaning, for every ten shots you take, you’ll be happy if 7 of those are actually in acceptable focus, and of those 7, maybe only 1 of those will have acceptable composition. I find that the 24mm helps with those percentages.
Now, some people think that the lower the f stop, the better the lens. Maybe that is true in a vacuum. But you have to ask yourself what you are going to be using the lens for. Most of my street photography takes place during the day when low light issues are not a problem. Thus, I’m usually hanging out around f/5.6 or f/8 anyway. That f stop range keeps you out of sharpness issues that some reviewers have pointed out.
The other great thing about this lens is the size and build. It’s obviously heavier than the nifty fifty (then again, what isn’t heavier than that thing??) but sticks out about an inch or so more. Even with the lens hood, it’s not an imposing lens to your subjects. As to the build quality, of course, it’s no L lens . . . it’s not made of steel or titanium or whatever the hell they’re using now. It’s solid enough. In fact, I dropped it from a distance of about 5 feet onto concrete. It was on my camera and landed smack down on the front of the barrel. Something fell off from the front and the front part bent slightly — enough so that I can’t really put on the lens cap but still I can put on the lens hood. That being said, the damn thing still works as good as new. If anything, that’s a testament to its strength.
Sure, it focuses loud, but when we’re talking “loud,” we’re not talking Pantera or Metallica loud. We’re talking loud in the sense that you can actually hear it focussing, unlike those USM lenses. But no so loud that the subject is going to look over and say, “Hell, man, I know you’re photographing me because I can hear it focussing.” If your subject can actually hear your camera focussing, chances are you are not on the street to begin with. Also, if you’re pre-focussing to hyperfocal or some other distance, as I recommend to do, then the whole idea of “loud” autofocusing is a moot point anyway.
Now, even with the crop sensor, the 24mm takes a couple sessions to get used to. If you’re used to shooting in the 50mm range on a crop, you’ll find that many of your shots will seem as though you were standing farther back than you actually were. By its very nature, the 24mm requires you to get pretty damn close to a subject/s for better compositions. It can take some time to figure out exactly how close that is. I know there’s all those markings on the lens to determine acceptable focussing distance, but forget that. I’m talking about “acceptable composition distance.” Frankly, I don’t even know if that’s a term but it gets you away from meters and numbers and more towards how close you have to be to usually get a good composition.
I’ve used two rules with this lens interchangeably. The first one is the double arm lengths rule. If you put your arm out, then imagine your arm doubling in length. That’s how close you should be to the subject. This rule is helpful when your subject is fairly stationary. The second rule is the 1 second rule. This is a more amorphous concept. It usually works best when the subject is walking towards you. Okay, here it goes. If you are used to the 50mm range lenses, then wait 1 second longer with the 24 than you would with the 50 to take the shot. It will seem close — agonizingly so — but that gets you to a good intimacy that the 24 allows you to have.
If you want to spend a hell of a lot of money, then get the L lens. It looks nicer and focuses faster. But, if you want to spend only a fraction of that with a workhorse lens that, well, works good, then go for the 24mm f/2.8.
Filed under: Cameras | Tagged: "canon ef 24 mm f/2.8" "ugly duckling" "photography" "lenses" "prime lenses"
