Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 60

Thread: Having to many lenses kill creativity?

  1. #21

    Default

    Having too much of anything is bad for you. Why did you even ask?

  2. #22
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Planet Nikon
    Posts
    21,905

    Default

    Having too much Cash also is bad.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    5,011

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by espn
    Having too much Cash also is bad.

    Be warned....don't start this again...
    As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning and meaningful statements lose precision.

  4. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    EAST
    Posts
    236

    Default

    Er...finding and using all perspectives possible on 1 or many lenses is called "creativity"?
    i am confused.....

  5. #25
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Planet Nikon
    Posts
    21,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by roygoh
    Be warned....don't start this again...
    Sorry, my bad, but I can't help it.

  6. #26

    Default I dont think so.....

    I dont think having many lenses kill creativity. What makes photography a chore is changing lenses. Sometimes we get lazy, and skip a shot just because we have to change lenses. I find changin lenses a pain. So, to make it easier, find a method to make lens changing easier. For example..

    1) Hire a photographic assistant, so all you need to do is... "may I have a 50mmf1.4.... snap snap, give me a 200mmf2, snap snap... thanks."

    or if you are less fortunate, like me...

    2) get a nice sling bag just for lenses. So all the lenses are found in easy to reach places, and can be changed quickly. Haversacks are a pain in the ass for lens changing. You can also get lens pounches. SOmetimes I wear a jacket with many pockets (large cotton lined pockets). Most of the time, I carry a haversack for my tripod, body, flash, waterbottle, sandwich, picnic mat and a sling back just for the lenses. I do not like stuffing the sling bag with everything because it gets uncomfortable very easily with everything on 1 shoulder.

  7. #27

    Default

    For someone who wanks over NiGong lenses day in day out and still can't shoot, you weren't all that bad, really.

  8. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jsbn
    Hmm... Not sure abt u guys since I'm juz a newbie.

    But I think, IMHO, for any new photographers aspiring to shoot, the best is to start with 3 lens:

    The new EFS 10-22mm, the stock EFS 18-55mm and a EF 75-300.

    Wide angle, medium range and long range looks well covered in my ameuter opinion. At least dat's wad I think. Wad do u guys think?
    I am also a relative newbie. But I disagree! In my opinion, for any photographer the best is to start with one lens, either the 35 mm or 50mm.

    Using zooms if one quick way to learn lazy habits. It is not just zooming in and out to get closer or wider, it is also about perspective.

  9. #29
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Planet Nikon
    Posts
    21,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marcwang

    2) get a nice sling bag just for lenses. So all the lenses are found in easy to reach places, and can be changed quickly. Haversacks are a pain in the ass for lens changing. You can also get lens pounches. SOmetimes I wear a jacket with many pockets (large cotton lined pockets). Most of the time, I carry a haversack for my tripod, body, flash, waterbottle, sandwich, picnic mat and a sling back just for the lenses. I do not like stuffing the sling bag with everything because it gets uncomfortable very easily with everything on 1 shoulder.
    Actually the sling bag is good for for fast access, but the haversack is good when you want to go trekking, it stays on faster than a sling bag I guess if I ever go travelling, I'll bring a small bag for just camera + len and a haversack to keep all of it inside

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ah Pao

    I find it rather interesting to hear how zoom lens can 'kill' creativity. Being 'lazy' to zoom with the feet doesn't make a picture less good, and since the zoom lens allows the photographer to look through every possible framing within the zoom range, it's tough to argue that it 'kills' creativity. (denniskee, no offence, not attack you, but the point at hand. ) I hope we are not having the mindset of "prime wins zoom because less people know how to use it"...
    While it is absolutely true that a zoom lens can allow one to see through the viewfinder the possible framing at different focal lengths, what it cannot do is to let you know that, example, a 50 mm prime full frame and 50 mm frame in a zoom lens (eg 28-80 mm) will have a totally different perspective, because the point where you stand will be totally different!

  11. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Global Village
    Posts
    443

    Default

    I used to own many lenses including primes, but later felt that I'm under-utilising quite a number of them. In the end, my shoulders gave me problems and I have to sell off a few lens. In fact, I found myself shooting often with my light and small prosumer diicam. And friends still think that my photos were shot with the SLR and lenses. Cheers.

  12. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Singapore, Bedok
    Posts
    1,785

    Default

    You guys are forgetting that primes have another degree of freedom which i personally feel is a greater liberty than the ability to change focal lengths.

    Primes have faster apertures and allow much more DOF control. Primes can shoot ambient where zooms are forced to underexpose or rely on articial lighting (aka flash).

    Primes can potentially AF faster bcoz of the brighter wide-open view the camera has - this makes a lot of difference in ambient candid shooting. Primes can shoot discreetly while the slower zoom would need a flash.

    With a prime, i can still move to frame. With a slow zoom, i would not be able to capture faithfully what my eye sees. (Bcoz the flash would give a frontal flat lighting.)

    i understand the pros and cons of zooms and primes, and i use both, but i just don't quite agree that zooms are always more convenient. i have the 'trinity' zooms, but rarely use them.

  13. #33
    Senior Member denniskee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    bukit batok
    Posts
    5,468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ah Pao
    I find it rather interesting to hear how zoom lens can 'kill' creativity. Being 'lazy' to zoom with the feet doesn't make a picture less good, and since the zoom lens allows the photographer to look through every possible framing within the zoom range, it's tough to argue that it 'kills' creativity. (denniskee, no offence, not attack you, but the point at hand. ) I hope we are not having the mindset of "prime wins zoom because less people know how to use it"... .
    No problem man, I am learning through all the discussion.

    There is no such things as primes wins zoom or zooms better than prime, else why are the lens maker still producing both types of lens.

    Now allow me to illustrate my view point. When using zoom lens, I use to frame the pic by zooming in or out, standing at a same point shooting a subject. Note that in this case, I have miss out on the use of each lens unique perspective.

    But that is not to say zoom lens is useless, in sports photography (not all sports) like basketball, more often than not, the photog are not free to move about round the court. in such cases, zoom lens have the upper hand. But thats not to say prime lens cant shoot sport. Its just that with the players run up and down the court, ie near and away form the photog, zoom lens allows fast framing of each shot.

    If the play is a distant from the photog, prime lens can still take, than crop. However, when play is near the photog, and he cant move back, and the players is larger than the frame, than how to shoot?

    Hope this illustration help to clearify my stand.
    photography makes one sees things from all angles.

  14. #34
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Planet Nikon
    Posts
    21,905

    Default

    Just to add, certain zooms don't necessarily lose out to primes either eg 17-35 f/2.8, 12-24DX f/4, 28-70 f/2.8 and 70-200VR

  15. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by espn
    Just to add, certain zooms don't necessarily lose out to primes either eg 17-35 f/2.8, 12-24DX f/4, 28-70 f/2.8 and 70-200VR
    lose out in terms of?

  16. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    433

    Talking

    Hehe - hope I can get my hand on your friend's 17-35mm<birthday boy's? >

  17. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    West side of S'pore
    Posts
    5,528

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by denniskee
    But that is not to say zoom lens is useless, in sports photography (not all sports) like basketball, more often than not, the photog are not free to move about round the court. in such cases, zoom lens have the upper hand. But thats not to say prime lens cant shoot sport. Its just that with the players run up and down the court, ie near and away form the photog, zoom lens allows fast framing of each shot.

    If the play is a distant from the photog, prime lens can still take, than crop. However, when play is near the photog, and he cant move back, and the players is larger than the frame, than how to shoot?

    Hope this illustration help to clearify my stand.
    In most sports arenas, most professional sports shooters are usually equipped with two bodies, usually a long prime is mounted on one (e.g a 300/400 2.8) and a 70-200 f2.8 zoom on the other. This allows them to switch quickly between lenses when the action comes close, without the hassle of changing lenses. Then there are those with three bodies/lenses or more...but lets not go there.

  18. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    West side of S'pore
    Posts
    5,528

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Belle&Sebastain
    lose out in terms of?
    I think he is referring to things like sharpness, contrast, bokeh etc. Well, the bottomline is, not all lenses were made to be equal.

  19. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    3,881

    Default

    Disagree that too many lens kill creativity, you use what you want and need Every focal length have its own impact point and something are always compromised when there are some advantage in another. i.e. zoom (almost always not as sharp and fast as primes, long zoom vs short zoom in terms of distortion etc).

  20. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Garion
    In most sports arenas, most professional sports shooters are usually equipped with two bodies, usually a long prime is mounted on one (e.g a 300/400 2.8) and a 70-200 f2.8 zoom on the other. This allows them to switch quickly between lenses when the action comes close, without the hassle of changing lenses. Then there are those with three bodies/lenses or more...but lets not go there.
    Haha... easy way out eh? Buy a camera body for every lens you have!
    The equipment can only bring you so far - the rest of the photographic journey is done by you.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •