A little over two weeks ago I bought a little 35mm, f/2 Canon lens for my 5D. It’s an old style Canon lens, with the loud auto focus motor. It hasn’t been off the camera since. Every photograph I’ve taken for the past 16 days has been with this lens.
I’m a big believer in prime lenses, even though I rarely use them professionally. It is not for any pursuit of superior quality; the current crop of zooms is just as sharp. It is about the quality of seeing, and engaging with the world through your camera.
I like a 35mm lens (on a full frame sensor) because it best matches our visual perceptual field. A 50mm may give that illusion that what’s in front of us is the same size through the viewfinder. But that’s a restricted, slightly foreshortened perspective. A 35mm is a moderate wide angle, which is about the field we pay attention to as we nagivate through the world. It matches the "frame" already present in our brains.
For many years, a 35mm was the only lens I used. So there’s a hefty part of my brain that already organizes the world in the perspective that this lens sees. It means that I can capture the most fleeting of moments before I ever engage the conscious part of the brain that has to decide, "OK, what focal length should I use for this shot?" There is an immediacy about my seeing with this lens that is hard to approach any other way.
Using prime lenses is a great way to train yourself to see the world photographically. I would go so far as to say that learning photography with a zoom lens is a significant barrier to developing an unconscious competency in seeing pictures. You can’t engage a subject with a zoom lens without going through that conscious crop thing by zooming and zigging the lens in and out. It’s a barrier.
Another side benefit to using one, and only one lens, is that my sensor stays cleaner longer. I've been using the camera for weeks now, and the lens has not been off the camera. I'm preparing for a trip, and just checked the sensor--there's hardly any dust on it. This is unprecedented.
Now, I use zooms all the time, and I can compensate for the way they slow my seeing down. I love the flexibility of zooms when the situation demands it. But when I’m carrying my camera about for no other reason than that I carry a camera about nearly everywhere I go, I love even more how small and light it is now.
I love primes too, I almost always have a 28 on my Nikon. It's a great length.
I rarely shoot zooms, I agree it was growing up thining they weren't as good creates a more solid way of seeing.
Now I shoot with a 28, 105, 200 or somewhere around there, and occasionaly a 16.
2 zooms are in my closet but they don't see light very often.
Posted by: Christian Kline | August 20, 2006 at 10:31 PM
Agreed. I almost always have the 50mm f/1.8 on my Canon film SLR, but I miss using the 35mm lens on my old (and now, unfortunately deceased, Konica FT-1 Motor.
Posted by: Scott Neumyer | August 21, 2006 at 08:08 AM
You are so right about zooms, so many new photographers never learn the persona of a focal length. They miss so much of the art that can make a photo special.
Posted by: victor aberdeen | August 24, 2006 at 08:33 AM
For a few years back in the dark ages, I shot with 2 Leica bodies and 4 lenses - 21/35/50/90. I was never happier. I "see" in the 35mm focal length, too, and that was my primary lens.
I really tried to love the 35/1.4L prime on the 5D. Sharpness, color and contrast are top notch. But even though it's bigger and bulkier, I prefer the framing flexibility of a zoom when using SLRs.
Cheers,
Joe
Posted by: Joe Reifer | August 24, 2006 at 10:14 AM
In the early 60's I used a Pentax - S1a I think with 35 and 50 mm lelses but found the 105 mm which stayed on the camera for around 2 years or more. The way of seing and recording with this little tele was a revelation at the time.
I must agree though my fav'lens is the 35mm prime
JohnL
Posted by: John London | August 26, 2006 at 01:49 AM
Dear Sir,
Tomorrow morning I will set out to pick up my Canon EOS 400D.
These past few days(of waiting) have given me a chance to contemplate my choice of lens.
Originaly I ordered the kit lens this being my first DSLR.
I have been trying to feel my way through the loads of information (like loads of washing)presented on the web. Numbers, and more numbers...one says this the other one says that...All this left me 'dased and confused'.
And then I stumbled upon your "In praise..."
You managed to convey to me the essence I was searching for. "Engaging with the world through the camera" as opposed to distancing oneself from the world (standing behind the camera).
Amoungst other fields I teach first year Architecture - and I(we)stress issues such as perception of the world(the other)and engaging with the world (the other).
Your words and approach regarding the 35mm (closest to 50 after cropping) made profound sense to me.at long last I could relate.
So, tomorrow I will purchase the 400D with a 35mm prime lense + hood and a bag.
I will not buy the kit lens. Thank you for being out there and sharing your thoughts through essay.
p.s. I enjoyed the two images side by side regarding lens weight. For me it evoked the situation I have been submerged in and that is weighing the matter. Matter as an issue and matter as weight.
Posted by: ilan korren | January 09, 2008 at 05:46 AM
In response to ilan's post...I may be alittle too late since he posted back in 2006...but he was going to get the 35mm prime for his new 400D which is a crop camera...unlike the 5D the original poster used. So there will be a difference. If he wants an equal lens for the 400D, a 20mm prime will equal a 32mm lens or a 24mm prime would equal a 38mm lens. Just my 2 cents.
Posted by: regan | March 23, 2008 at 12:52 PM