Don't forget to change the clocks on your camera equipment!
if I had one I probably would.
I'm just too chicken to take one lens.
I almost always only go out with just one lens, but it's a zoom (24-120 for general walkabout, 150-600 for wildlife, 70-200 for sports, and 18-35 for landscapes)
A few from today
A few macro shots by Andrew Wright, on Flickr
A few macro shots by Andrew Wright, on Flickr
DSC_0421 macro by Andrew Wright, on Flickr
I do have the sigma 24-70 but I think I need to push myself a bit more and try new things.
In what way?
by just taking a prime out.
But I have seen there is a falconry show. so I might have to snnek the 70-200 out just for that
That's just preference
Just take a 35, it's liberating!
I was looking at it in the way only having one prime will make me think about my shots more, making me try different things.
looking on how to get the best out of the prime I have with me.
I think my photography has got lazy with the zooms. Yes for wildlife and stuff the sigma is the goto lens. the 70-200 is my goto lens without a shadow of a doubt as it's the sharpest zoom I've used.
but I feel with a prime yoy definitely have to think more and that may make some of my pictures a bit more exciting.
That's the logical thinking behind it and whether its true or not only time will tell.
I think that will be the weapon of choice.
I hear this said a lot but I just think it's all a matter of how you approach/think about things tbh. I understand that just having a prime might make you shoot a particular scene in a different way to what you normally would and therefore may make you think a bit more. However, it also limits your way of thinking compared to a zoom lens as with a zoom lens you have the added alternatives of changing perspective and therefore you could argue that a zoom should make you stop and think more. You not only have to think about composition but also perspective, distortion etc. I do understand it's easy to be lazy with zooms too so you need discipline
I have always used zooms. 95% of the time. only using the 50mm in poor light.
so with the introduction with of the 35mm most recently I guess also that after reading about 3 or 4 reviews of the 35mm 1.8g where people only used it on the d750 for most of the time. I think that may have a subliminal effect on my thinking.
At the min with 80% of my pictures being taken with the 150-600. I think I just need to broaden my horizons a bit more and use the camera for different stuff and push myself a bit more out of my comfort zone. As you can see from my uploads and flickr most of my work is wildlife/dogs or transport.
It doesn't limit your thinking, it limits your options. That's the whole reasoning behind using a single focal length. Fewer options means more thinking is required to get a satisfactory outcome.
Less talking, more doing!
Quite often I'll go out with just 1 or 2 primes but then I don't shoot wildlife stuff
Fewer options requires more thinking, that's sounds a bit of a contradictory sentence Usually the more options the more thinking required. I understand what you're saying, but I still disagree, it's all about discipline. Let's say you go out with a 35mm lens to take a photo of a building, whilst you might not get the shot you usually take and so have to think differently in order to get something you want, this is also true of a zoom, you just need to discipline yourself not to fall into your comfort zone or the ordinary, and then you will realise that a zoom gives you so many more options of thinking outside of the box. For example, if you take a 24-120mm and the norm is a wide angle shot you can discipline yourself to take it a 35mm as per the example above giving you the same options and way of thinking, or you could choose say 50mm or 75mm and make you think out the box even more. Also, if you take a 35mm lens that lends itself perfectly to a scene then your options for something different become limited, if you had the 24-120mm you could take it at 24mm and add something different.
As I say, it's just a matter of how you approach it. Being creative and doing something different is down to you, not necessarily the lens you take imo. However, if you can't be disciplined with a zoom then I agree a prime will help get you out of your comfort zone
Its all down to creativity as @snerkler says, but for many IMO creativity with a zoom comes after creativity with a prime. Initially with a zoom, you stand there, fiddle with the zoom, take the shot. With a prime you are often forced to work for an interesting shot, it becomes a challenge, then having done this for a few months, when you go back to a zoom, you start to see even more possibilities, and start using the zoom for more creative shots (than you did initially).
Very few people IMO are creative with a zoom from the off.
The idea of limiting options is used a lot by 'creatives' to make them think of unusual ways to reach a goal because the obvious solution isn't handed to them on a plat.
Yes totally agree you need to be disciplined and it's something I admit I do struggle with with a zoom. so to take out the urge just to take the old shots with a zoom. I personally think I will find it easier to take it out the equation for a while.
It may not work , but untill try and fail for a while you will never know.
I know I struggle with creativity in my pictures and this is something I want to try and rectify,
As in life everything is a learning curve. We are all different and approach things in different ways that suit us as individuals
When you guys are using a tripod, with a zoom with a foot - do you prefer to mount it on the body or the foot on the lens? If you have a preference, why?
On the foot. It's a lot more stable. Using the body will inevitably cause the whole setup to dip.
I mount on the foot. As the only zoom I use on a tripod is the sigma 150-600
I have been enjoying just going out with my favourite prime (my poison is the 50 - but its a personal choice!). It has been challenging at times, but also quite a lot of fun!
Only zoom I use is my 70-200 F4 - other than that its my 2 primes.
On the foot of the lens as this is closer to the centre of gravity.
I think it will work,... to a degree. To an extent I think you're either creative or you're not. Don't get me wrong you can learn to be considerably more creative, but some people are just naturally creative and will always have the edge. It's one of my frustrations, I'm far more technical than creative and my brain always tries to apply logic to things. As such I feel that my creative side is lacking and that's something I find extremely disappointing/frustrating. I'm obviously more creative than I was at first, but I'm never going to excel, and I feel that I'm more imitating rather than being truly creative. I think this is why I'm probably more drawn to wildlife, spots and 'generic' landscapes. To an extent it's more about precision and technique rather than being artistic (yes I know there's exceptions )
I think my biggest downfall was posting my pictures in the early stages on Facebook and getting praise for carp pictures and thinking I was doing good.
I have got into lazy ways and think I need to re-evaluate everything.
Yes I agree some people have such a creative eye without even thinking about it , which is most annoying .
I have started to look more at different angles different view points but they just never turn out how I thought they would.
I know people tend to stick to one or two genre of photography and I can see why now.
I'll just stick at it. I tend to get there in the end if I keep getting enough practice in. I know I'm never going to be an award winning photography. I'd just like to be a little bit better I guess.
Yep definitely stick at it. You will hit brick walls and get frustrated along the way but it's all part of the process. I'm one to talk, but try not to be too harsh on yourself. I really don't rate my photography and compare mine to other peoples' masterpieces, but then I have to remind myself that I've only been doing this just over 3 years and I work 6 days/week (and quite often on my time off the weather's crap, like this afternoon again ) so I'm clearly never going to be as good as someone who's been doing it for 20+ years and spends 5 days/week out taking photos
Practice practice practice and take onboard any advise! Thats what I am trying to do!
Ditto.. but that's why I'm drawn to working with creative people. A true collaboration is a joyful thing.
If there is a lens foot it's there for a reason otherwise the manufacturers wouldn't include it if it's not needed as it costs them more to design and manufacture.
There is only the odd zoom lens can have a foot attached but does come with one (70-200 f4). If it doesn't come with one then it's camera mounted, if it comes with one then it's lens foot mounted.
The creative process is a fascinating thing. When you look into how people acknowledged as creative go about things you find that many use similar techniques to generate ideas. I find it more helpful to think in terms of idea generation than creativity. As has been mentioned in this thread a lot of people don't think they are creative, but what they really mean is they are unskilled in generating ideas. Try to think of it more as play than creativity. It's often said that all children are born creative and that their sense of play and fun, doing things for enjoyment rather than to achieve a goal, is forced on them by society and the education system.
Fear of failure is another topic that comes up frequently in discussions about creativity. Again the way we are educated makes us wary of trying things out just to see what happens. Try all sort of shots. Even the ones that don't work can give you ideas for ones that will. I rarely come back with a lot of great pictures, but very often come back with ones that make me think of where I can go next. In the days of contact sheets those containing famous photographs are very revealing. Hardly any of those frames are one-offs, they are almost always surrounded by similar, but not as good, pictures.
Two books I've found interesting about 'creativity' are Twyla Tharp's The Creative Habit and Ed Smith's Luck. Neither are about photography! I also find almost everything Brian Eno has to say about making music or art to be insightful.
I find it easier to generate ideas when I've got some restrictions to work within, that seems to force a drop of creativity out. And you're right about fear of failure - accepting that some stuff won't work or even setting out to make some stuff which is likely to fail is very helpful.
I do like reading peoples views on here with regards to zooms vs primes. I was on DP Review forum and when the subject came up it became a pure slagging off debate.
There is no right or wrong, it's not black and white, just an infinite number of shades of grey
In my eyes this has never been about prime verses zoom it's more to do with my perception on my photography ability.
I've read some of the threads before on the dp review site and yeah it can get funny on there.
mind you no different on here sometimes
The general consensus is that a prime will give a better quality image than a zoom.
Whether this perceived increase in quality is worth it only you can decide.
I mainly use zooms, but have bought primes for specific purposes, e.g. A 20mm to supplement my 24 - zoom, a macro for close up
and a portrait prime.
I think "The Photographer's Mind" by Michael Freeman very good too.
I would quite happily put my 70-200 2.8 vr1 up against any of primes.
As to why I have primes I guess it's more cause I can more than anything else.
The gap between primes and zooms is narrowing in terms of sharpness, the main advantages of primes these days are the wide apertures, and size and weight. Of course there's bokeh to consider, but this is much more personal.