I’d Love the 24-70 but it’s a fair amount of money…

It’s £2000 so it is on the pricey side but that’s cheap compared to the Leica SL equivalent; 24-90 comes in at £314 (and no I don’t have one).

I would once have said the 17-40L Zoom. However now I’ve got the rangefinder bug I only use primes and wonder now why I ever went with the pita zoom scenario.
So I would suggest for your budget, depending on your style of photography you go for the fastest secondhand 35 or 50mm.
Secondhand, because you can often find good examples of quality lenses at a significant reduction on the new price.

Don’t listen to the people who think you should only use primes. Sure it makes you think about the shot, but you should always be thinking about the shot. A 50mm prime is great for taking 50mm prime shots, but shit for everything else. Sure, you could ‘move back’ but the results aren’t the same as zooming out, plus standing in the middle of a busy road to take photos isn’t that great of an idea.

Anyway – there’s a reason kit zoom lenses are often equivalent to 28-80.

A 50mm prime is great for taking 50mm prime shots, but shit for everything else

Well it works for me, that doesn’t mean it needs or should work for anyone else. But I’m not sure what you mean; that is a ’50mm shot’ or any other shot?

I’d like to give a 50mm APO Summicron, a good go. Would just love to see how sharp it really is. Kind of doubt one will ever come my way though!

I’ve never owned a zoom, choice between 35 and 50mm and I only take one out with me (rangefinder with a couple of films and occasionally a light meter is enough tat) . I don’t think I’ve ever regretted not taking the other one.

Sometimes hanker after a zoom when I want to foreshorten some mountains or shoot a super moon but that’s what Google images is for 😉

I’d like to give a 50mm APO Summicron, a good go. Would just love to see how sharp it really is. Kind of doubt one will ever come my way though!

I did have a quick try of one the other day and the results are almost holographic, like a regular Lux or Cron but on steroids. It handles really nicely as well, being really small.

Can you rent them? Even for a Leica lens it is a LOT of money. I would be more inclined to put a 50% deposit down on Hasselblad X1-D.

Am not sure if you can rent one. I think I may be aspiring for the unattainable. I have a 50 Lux already and am more than happy with it. I know I’m very lucky to be able to go down the Leica route, but the APO is just a step too far.

17-55 f2.8

If you are allowed a second, then one of the 70-200 lenses.

Am not sure if you can rent one. I think I may be aspiring for the unattainable. I have a 50 Lux already and am more than happy with it. I know I’m very lucky to be able to go down the Leica route, but the APO is just a step too far.

I understand. I also have the 50 Lux and feel similarly lucky. It is quite wonderful. I am painfully aware that the cost of these things is so utterly ridiculous that if the discussion were to be had on here there would be a melt down of biblical proportions!

But these things exist and while marginal there are gains to be had. Even so, I’m not sure what the 50 APO is for to be honest given how good the Lux is.

So what are you using the 50 Lux on? I’m guessing an M240 – how do you find focusing wide open? Mine is on an SL so focusing is extremely easy, even to do fast.

But I’m not sure what you mean; that is a R ’50mm shot’ or any other shot?

It means you can only do certain things with a 50mm prime.

that if the discussion were to be had on here there would be a melt down of biblical proportions!

It would be fun though wouldn’t it!!

Yes, mine is on an M240. Focusing wide open is a bit of an art! I’d like the focus peaking of an SL, but with the 240 you have to think about it a bit. I have to be honest I do get it wrong, not often but it does happen. What I do find is the 1.4 is often too wide and i shut it down a bit.
Often think about moving to an SL, and I know many 240 owners who have made the swap, but I like the manual features of the M and its just a bit smaller and lighter. Fitted with the right lens for the day and not carrying a bag makes it quite unobtrusive.
Have also been tempted with a Monochrom, but have decided to put everything on hold till the new M10(?) comes out in the New Year.
How are you finding the SL? Its a beautiful bit of kit.

I have to be honest I do get it wrong, not often but it does happen

That reassures me. Focusing a 1.4 on my 60 year old rangefinder can be a bit hit or miss too…

How are you finding the SL? Its a beautiful bit of kit.

It is wonderful. I absolutely adore it in a way I never did with the Sony A7rII. It’s not remotely an M with an EVF, it is a very different camera to that. But I use it like you use your M240 I think. I tend to shoot in manual anyway and with a manual lens it’s that slower more considered process you reference. I couldn’t shoot like that with the Sony because I couldn’t focus it manually. The EVF just wasn’t sharp enough but the SL’s is so good you don’t even need focus peaking. I use magnification and can hit the mark wide open every time. Ironically, it’s when you stop the lens down and try to focus that you’re more likely to encounter errors! But that’s easily fixed.

I did very nearly buy an M240 but the SL was the right choice for me.

It would be fun though wouldn’t it!!

It would be very fun! It’s when people comment that a £500 lens is very expensive and I just think ‘oh my word if only they knew!’

It means you can only do certain things with a 50mm prime.

Well ok but a 50 can do portrait, street, landscape, reportage/documentary and in the right hands some wildlife and sports albeit it is more limited in those fields.

It’s pretty fair to say that a 50 can do everything except take pictures at a focal length that’s not 50.

I just think ‘oh my word if only they knew!’

Curiosity got the better of me. Oh my.

A more general, and possibly naive, question if I may: I get the point that a 50 can do everything except a focal length that isn’t 50. That would seem to rule out wider angle shots (although I accept these could be stitched together afterwards). There’s a difference though isn’t there between a cropped 50 and (say) the 200 equivalent (foreshortening and what have you). Is there a way to achieve the latter effect other than with a longer lens?

Where I’m getting to with this I suppose is the balance between taking the pic, and manipulating it afterwards. Different skills, or part of the same overall process, or more subtle than either?

Perspective is down to your legs not the lens. The lens only defines angle of view.

Well ok but a 50 can do portrait, street, landscape, reportage/documentary and in the right hands some wildlife and sports albeit it is more limited in those fields.

Exactly. It’s more limited. Much more so. Maybe if you’re only thinking about taking pictures of a single thing you might not care, but I’d consider that an awfully limited way to take photos.

I own two primes, 25 and 30mm, with a crop factor of 2. They are fantastic for portraits and certain things, but rubbish for others.

Perspective is down to your legs not the lens

No, it’s not. If you move closer to make the subject the same size with a 50mm prime as it would be from further away with a 200mm lens, then the background will be different, as will the depth of field.

Like several above, I’d go prime.

Nikon 35mm f1.8 in this case on a crop sensor.

This for me too. By far my favourite lens ( though think I have the slightly faster version).

It’s more limited. Much more so. Maybe if you’re only thinking about taking pictures of a single thing you might not care, but I’d consider that an awfully limited way to take photos.

By limiting the lens, or anything else for that matter, even aperture or shutter speed (or both!!) you obtain a consistency. From this consistency comes variety, diversity and repertoire.

The “only thinking about taking pictures of a single thing” part is really interesting. For as long as I’ve taken photographs, which is a little over 25 years now, I’ve really only ever been interested in a single thing: capturing what I see; what it is that compelled me to press the shutter. Zoom and wide angle are photographic effects, not really that much different to filters or darkroom/lLightroom manipulation. I don’t think for a minute that such things shouldn’t be done, just that there’s an honesty in the 35-50mm angle of view. I get that you’re probably happy to flit around on a zoom lens, thinking that you’re getting more variation and ‘better’ photographs; but I think it actually shows a lack of appreciation for what you can get if you fix your lens and are forced, for want of a gentler term, to step into or give space to your subject.

No, it’s not. If you move closer to make the subject the same size with a 50mm prime as it would be from further away with a 200mm lens, then the background will be different, as will the depth of field.

Perspective isn’t the same thing as depth of field though and in pratice the depth of field on even a 50mm f/1.8 will be more than shallow enough to isolate your subject for portraiture. But you’re right of course that the compression effect of a very long lens will be more noticeable than on a 50mm lens. Most ‘studio portraits’ would be made with an 85mm on a full frame or 150mm on medium format.

If you want to shoot wildlife or sports then you need a long lens. But for almost everything else a 50mm works just fine.

[/quote]The “only thinking about taking pictures of a single thing” part is really interesting.

It is isn’t it. I can’t say it better than you did already but it made me smile that the set of things covered by that statement is vast.

OP this is what you need tamron-17-50mm f2-8-xr di ii

linky

I’m an ex pro-photographer and when I shot Canon this was on one body all the time.

Appreciated – that reflects the subtlety that I think I’d hoped for.

I did a short course years ago, the only bit of which I remember was the advice to ‘assume each time you press that button it costs you a tenner’.

I get that you’re probably happy to flit around on a zoom lens, thinking that you’re getting more variation and ‘better’ photographs; but I think it actually shows a lack of appreciation for what you can get if you fix your lens and are forced, for want of a gentler term, to step into or give space to your subject.

Seriously.. without wishing to be unpleasant, that is quite a lot of waffle!

Photography is entirely a personal thing. So you might think your photos are better because you’re forced to stick to one focal length. You might think that it makes you more ‘honest’ (if you can explain what that actually means, I’m all ears), but I think that’s nonsense.

When I feel like taking photos, it’s about making a pleasing image with the light that’s around me. It’s drawing with the shapes around me. And to pull the right shapes into the right places, I need the right focal length.

Now of course you’re perfectly entitled to think of photography in whatever way you choose. But the point is that for someone starting out, a zoom allows them to take photos at a range of focal lengths. They can leave it at the same setting all the time if they want. But if you don’t learn about the difference between using 28mm and 80mm then you’re not going to learn about the different kids of images you end up with.

Zoom and wide angle are photographic effects, not really that much different to filters or darkroom/lLightroom manipulation.

God forbid!

Now of course you’re perfectly entitled to think of photography in whatever way you choose.

I agree. And I’m trying to think of one of my favourite photographs which would have been taken through a zoom.

You might think that it makes you more ‘honest’ (if you can explain what that actually means, I’m all ears), but I think that’s nonsense.

50mm perspective/angle of view is considered to be more or less how our eyes see the world around us. No distortion; flat; honest. It’s the easiest for people to relate to and also the least forgiving. There’s no unusual angle of view to distract or make an impression, so the subject is highlighted.

You’re right, people take photographs for different reasons. I hate to label or categorise, but I get the feeling that you’re the ‘know what I like’ sort, so I’ll not waste either of our time getting into the philosophy of the subject.

And to pull the right shapes into the right places, I need the right focal length.

Do you also carry a spade and stepladder everywhere you go?

assume each time you press that button it costs you a tenner’.

I did chuckly at that because shooting medium format film really does cost about £2.50 a shot, which is the cost of processing and scanning. You scan at home but I’ve not got around to buying a scanner yet (good quality ones aren’t cheap and the process itself is not that easy to replicate what a good lab can achieve).

You might think that it makes you more ‘honest’ (if you can explain what that actually means, I’m all ears)

It’s about having an authentic answer to the question ‘why did you take that photograph’ other than ‘oh I just liked it’.

I think that’s nonsense

I don’t but it’s ok.

And I’m trying to think of one of my favourite photographs which would have been taken through a zoom.

I’d extend that to include any of my favourite photographs taken by any photographer. I’d also add that I cannot think of a single photograph taken with a long telephoto lens that I like but I can’t think of a reason why.

My best pic, in my opinion,

Contact G2 with Carl Zeiss 45mm F2 lens. On that I’d have to say a 45mm lens, (35mm equivalent)

Tri-X incidentally. Full frame.

When I feel like taking photos, it’s about making a pleasing image with the light that’s around me. It’s drawing with the shapes around me. And to pull the right shapes into the right places, I need the right focal length.

Ah, when I take photographs, I’m actually trying to find a way not of ‘creating a pleasing image’, but finding a way to capture how something feels in that moment. Not how I’d like it to feel or how I want it to look so it’s nice or arty, but something that captures the sense of being there.

Pretty photos don’t always do that. I love John Beatty‘s wildlife photography, for example, because quite often the images aren’t technically perfect or beautifully composed, but they somehow have an emotional bite that a lot of postcard-type pretties don’t.

And I guess I find a lens that’s close to what I see with my own eyes works better for that. I’m not saying that there’s anything wrong with zooms – I have three of the things – but I’ve just found that my 24mm pancake EF-S prime works really well for me as an all-round lens outdoors to the point where I hardly use anything else unless it’s a macro or for some reason I really want to zoom in on something a long way away.

I’m not right. You’re not wrong. No-one here is. It’s just what works for the individual. As an aside, if you’ve only ever used budget zooms you’ll be amazed at just how much sharper even a relatively cheap prime is.

I’d extend that to include any of my favourite photographs taken by any photographer. I’d also add that I cannot think of a single photograph taken with a long telephoto lens that I like but I can’t think of a reason why.

I think for me it’s to do wth the way that zooms and wide-angles diverge from what the eye actually sees. Pretty? Yes, sometimes. Authentic? Maybe not, it’s a sort of unconscious barrier thing that makes it more of a spectacle than an involvement. Or maybe not.

You can’t beat a nice prime IMO – not a particularly amazing picture, but this was taken in a dark’ish room with an old Sigma 24mm f2.8

[url=https://flic.kr/p/NFpyPy]DSC01906-2[/url] by davetheblade, on Flickr

Pretty? Yes, sometimes. Authentic? Maybe not, it’s a sort of unconscious barrier thing that makes it more of a spectacle than an involvement. Or maybe not.

I think you nailed it with that explanation. It goes back to the picture being authentic.

I think this post has moved on from the OP’s question on lens choice. Its now more about the philosophy of photography and what we each get out of it.
If the OP is at a phase in his photography, where he is asking about which lens to purchase then he needs advice on what we think might be best for him in his circumstances. So, perhaps a zoom will be most appropriate for him.
What we are now moving into in our discussions is the merits of prime over zoom. I think within the photographic community as a whole (not just on here), then the general acceptance is that primes are superior to zooms, because yes, you are getting the more ‘authentic’ picture and by choosing a prime, you are probably thinking more about the image you want to capture and the process of achieving it.
Personally, I take that image gathering process a step further. I use primes, and I focus on the subject and have to decide on the aperture I want to use, rather than letting the camera do it for me. I feel that by getting back to basics, and manually focusing makes me think and then compose. I feel even though I’m using digital, and I can take as many shots as I want, I don’t. What I take is a picture that harks back to old film days where your 36 shots were precious. So, now with thought, composition, proper use of the light I take a photograph as opposed to a snap.

One lens only? I’d have an 18-500mm f/1.4, easy.

Oh, did you mean it has to be one that actually exists? Darnit…

On my crop body, 17-55mm f/2.8
On my full-frame bodies, 70-200 f/4

That said, one of my favourite ever kayaking shots (that being what I probably shoot the most of) was taken on a 50mm f/1.8 on a crop sensor body:

That said, one of my favourite ever kayaking shots (that being what I probably shoot the most of) was taken on a 50mm f/1.8 on a crop sensor body:

Can’t be. Everyone knows you can’t use a 50mm prime lens for sports photography 😆

Can I hijack a bit too? Would there be a significant improvement in image quality upgrading my 18-55 kit lens (nikon d3100) to an aftermarket jobbie? Currently have the kit lens and a 50mm prime. Was thinking about adding a longer zoom.

Was thinking about adding a longer zoom.

Burn him!
lol – photography threads are worse than hi-fi ones.
op naively comes in asking a straightforward question and before you know it everyone thinks they’re Henri Cartier-effin-Bresson 🙂

Would there be a significant improvement in image quality upgrading my 18-55 kit lens (nikon d3100) to an aftermarket jobbie?

Yes, that’s an awful lens in terms of both ergonomics and glass. If you want a better inexpensive zoom, try something like the 18-105 mm that comes on the D7100. The 18-55 will get you a few quid on eBay, surprisingly.

Can I hijack a bit too? Would there be a significant improvement in image quality upgrading my 18-55 kit lens (nikon d3100) to an aftermarket jobbie? Currently have the kit lens and a 50mm prime. Was thinking about adding a longer zoom.

Isn’t that what threads are for?

Your lens plays a much bigger part in the image quality than people give credit for. These days sensors are pretty much common cameras as there are only a few companies that actually make them (Nikon for example use Sony made sensors), so the quality of the glass focusing the light has a huge impact on the end result.

It is absolutely possible to get better image quality by improving your lens as well as improving other things like the AF speed (assuming you go AF lens) and the light gathering ability of the lens.

Whether you will get an improvement will depend on what lens you have now and what you replace it with. Kit lenses tend to be ‘pretty good’ given how much they add to the cost of the camera (which is peanuts in most cases) so there are definitely lenses available that will be much better. But you might well end up paying a lot more than you might think to see a worth while improvement.

op naively comes in asking a straightforward question and before you know it everyone thinks they’re Henri Cartier-effin-Bresson

There are quite a few talented photographers on here. Have you seen Polaris Andy’s work for example? Some of his best shots would easily rate as good as that of Bresson.

Of course there is a saying that everyone can take at least one great photo in their life but the best photographers are the ones who take two (I think it was David Bailey who said this).

Can’t be. Everyone knows you can’t use a 50mm prime lens for sports photography

Nah. You just need to paddle closer 😉

Then you can see the concentration/terror on their faces:

Or get a longer lens…

Or just fold space time around you 😀

To simplify – per budget then either you want a ‘jack of many trades’ or a prime. As some have said, you could possibly get both if you source used lenses?

Have not read entire thread – what is the intended subject matter?