Tag Archives: advice

Commentary, Equipment, Photographic Myths and Platitudes

Photographic Myths and Platitudes: New DSLR? Why You Do NOT Need a 50mm Prime

7 Comments

(Note: This article has been slightly revised and updated since it was originally posted in 2012.)

From time to time I share here my response to a question that I fielded somewhere else. In this case, the subject concerned whether or not a beginner getting a new DSLR should start out with a “normal” 50mm prime lens. Here is a slightly edited version of what I wrote.

Every so often a beginning photographer buying their first DSLR, typically a cropped sensor model, will be advised to “get a 50mm prime,” either as their only lens or as an adjunct to the “kit zoom” that likely comes with most entry-level DSLRs. Some say you should do this because you must learn to shoot with a prime before you are ready for a zoom. (This is nonsense, in my opinion.) Others suggest that folks should get the prime because good and inexpensive versions are available – which is true, but not a reason to buy one.

I’m here to say that there is little or no good reason for a beginning DSLR photographer to get a 50mm prime—especially a 50mm prime—with their new camera. Get the kit zoom and start making photographs.

The advice to get a 50mm prime comes from a very different set of circumstances and a very different time. When 35mm film SLRs first became available some decades ago, decent zoom lenses were not available at prices that beginners would contemplate paying, if they were even available at all. (Those shooting 35mm rangefinder cameras found even more impediments to the idea of using a zoom.) In fact, photographers generally didn’t use them. “Zoom or prime?” was not the question at all – primes were the only realistic option.

The general feeling was that something in the 50mm focal length range or thereabouts could be the ideal starter “normal” lens on a 35mm film camera. (This was not a universally held viewpoint – some preferred lenses a bit wider and some of the standard primes came in longer focal lengths such as 55mm.) A 50mm +/- prime was the first lens that most folks got with their new film SLR, and there were lots of fine and inexpensive options. You got your camera and you got your 50mm prime. In fact, if you got a SLR “kit,” it was camera plus a 50mm or so prime, probably a f/2 or f/1.8 version. The fact that we still have lenses like Canon’s EF 50mm f/1.8 at such a low price is a result of that history.

In reality, the valid advice back then was to “get a 50mm prime and learn to shoot it before buying more lenses.” The source of this advice had nothing at all to do with a zoom versus prime question. Primes were the only option. The implication actually was don’t get sucked into buying a bunch of lenses before you know what you are doing or what you need. (We are all aware of how tempting it can be to allow gear acquisition syndrome to supplant photography.) In other words, get a first lens, shoot a lot with it, learn a lot from doing so, and only then start to consider what your experience tells you about the need for (maybe) getting other lenses.

That warning still holds true, but keep in mind that it is a actually warning against rushing out and buying lots of stuff. Today, the better, and far more likely, first lens choice is going to be a zoom. There are excellent, inexpensive options available today that have supplanted the old-school inexpensive 50mm prime as the logical first lens. Every manufacturer has at least one fine and inexpensive “kit” zoom lens. The more accurate modern update of the old “buy a 50mm prime, learn to shoot before you buy more lenses” is actually:

Get the kit zoom, and learn to shoot before you invest in more lenses.

(In fact, a logical extension of this advice is to shoot a lot with your kit zoom before getting sucked into buying… a 50mm prime!”)

Among those “other lenses” you can wait to acquire are primes. A person starting out with a cropped sensor DSLR almost certainly does not need to get an additional lens at first, any more than the beginning 35mm film SLR buyer needed to buy a set of three primes “back in the day.” It is true that the new photographer may eventually travel a photographic path on which owning a prime is useful, but before that happens he or she can shoot at this same focal length on the 18-55mm kit zoom and find out.

Secondly, and to repeat the obvious, a 50mm prime on a cropped sensor DSLR does not even provide the same functionality as the 50mm prime on the 35mm film SLR. IF you accept the notion that shooting a prime is important at first—though I emphatically do not—it would not be a 50mm prime, but the angle-of-view equivalent for a cropped sensor camera. This would be a roughly 31mm lens for a 1.6x crop factor body. (If this were not the case, 80mm would have been the “normal” prime FL on those early film cameras. In short, it wasn’t.)

So, start out with kit zoom that is available for your new DSLR. Shoot a lot before you start buying a bunch of other lenses. See what happens. If it turns out that the kit lens really limits your photography, you’ll figure that out based on your experience with this lens – and you’ll also begin to more clearly understand the things that you might need in order to overcome any such limitations. Your interests and needs are likely to evolve in ways that you cannot accurately anticipate until you do a lot of shooting – a task for which the kit lens is perfectly suited.

As you do this, one of several things might happen. A very large percentage of those who start with the kit lens find that it is really all the lens they need, and they do not get anything else. Others discover that the kit lens works well but that perhaps they want more “reach” for some subjects, at which point they look for a suitable longer focal length lens. Others might discover that they need something wider. Yet another photographer might discover that he/she is shooting a lot at one particular focal length, needs a larger maximum aperture, and needs a smaller camera/lens package – in which case a prime at that favored focal length might be useful. And there are many other possibilities that I can’t list here.

There’s always time for that prime later on if you discover you need it. I’m betting that most beginners won’t, but that those who do will figure it out soon enough and make a much smarter decision by waiting.

(Note of clarification for those who may read too quickly: A few people have misconstrued this article as being anti-prime or suggesting that there is something wrong with a 50mm lens. A more careful reading of the article will confirm that this is not the case. The context is entirely about the beginning photographers getting his/her first DSLR. Depending upon what sort of photography one eventually ends up doing, primes including the 50mm focal length may turn out to be very useful. As a matter of fact, I own more primes than zooms… though I do use the zooms more than the primes. That is probably a subject for another article. ;-)

This article is part of my Photographic Myths and Platitudes series.

G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer and visual opportunist. His book, “California’s Fall Color: A Photographer’s Guide to Autumn in the Sierra” is available from Heyday Books and Amazon.
Blog | About | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | 500px.com | LinkedIn | Email

All media © Copyright G Dan Mitchell and others as indicated. Any use requires advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

Community, Technique

Backpacking Photography Season Once Again!

4 Comments
Backpackers, Near Milestone Basin
Backpackers, Near Milestone Basin

Backpackers, Near Milestone Basin. © Copyright 2012 G Dan Mitchell – all rights reserved.

It seems like a good time to once again share my Backpacking Photography Equipment post, since summer is nearly upon us, and many of you will soon be joining me to head into the back-country to make photographs. Some of you  are trying to figure out the best balances of gear, weight, bulk, and complexity for doing photography on the trail using the trial and error (trail and error? trail of terror?) approach. Few years back I thought it might be helpful to share “my own backpacking equipment” list along with some ideas about how to select and use it.

The article is here: My Backpacking Photographing Equipment.

Enjoy! And see you on the trail!

A little more about the photograph included in this post… The two backpackers are my long-time “trail buddies,” Owen and Caroline, with whom I’ve spent many weeks on the trail in the High Sierra. On this trip we visited a lonely and less-visited area in the Upper Kern River drainage. The night before we had camped in a place where it was almost possible to convince oneself that no one else had been there before – a truly rare and cherished Sierra experience. The next morning we descended a drainage that passed through beautiful rock-garden meadows filled with tumbling streams. As the two of them crossed this meadow I quickly dropped my pack and made a couple of handheld shots.

G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer whose subjects include the Pacific coast, redwood forests, central California oak/grasslands, the Sierra Nevada, California deserts, urban landscapes, night photography, and more.
Blog | About | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | 500px.com | LinkedIn | Email

Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

Commentary, Equipment, Technique

Very Basic Filter Advice for New DSLR Shooters

2 Comments

(This article has been slightly updated since it was originally posted.)

Earlier this morning I replied to a question about filters from a new DSLR owner who wondered which filters he “had to get” to use his new camera. I realized that this sort of question comes up from time to time, and I thought that the answer might be useful to others. So here it is!

With DSLRs there are typically four types of filters that most people might consider. You do not necessarily need filters – it is a question of shooting preference and some stylistic issues.

“Protective” filters

Some believe or have been told that they need so-called “protective UV filters” on their lenses. The thought is that these filters will protect the front element of your lens from possible damage, and there is an old school notion that reducing UV (ultraviolet) light will improve certain types of photographs. DSLRs are not sensitive to UV light  in the way that film was, and there are some compelling arguments against using filters for protection in normal shooting. My thoughts on this are posted elsewhere on this blog.

I must acknowledge that opinions vary on this issue, and that this discussion (oddly, but like those about certain other photography equipment issues) can become rather heated. I don’t use protective filters. Others do. You’ll have to weigh the arguments yourself on this one.

Circular Polarizing (“CP” or “CPL”) Filters

Contrary to what you may think, CPL filters are generally not simply placed on the lens and left there, but they may be added occasionally for certain shots and in certain conditions. You do not necessarily need them, but in some situations they are useful. There are several things that they can do:

  1. In some photographs they can increase the contrast between things like clouds and sky, possibly producing a more dramatic photograph. This does not always work – it depends on things like the angle of the sun and the nature of the sky. It also does not work well on very ultra-wide-angle lenses. You almost certainly would want to use this effect sparingly, since it easily become a cliche.
  2. The CPL can control or reduce reflections from things like the surface of water or windows. It can also be useful in some situations for reducing the reflections from shiny foliage. Some find the CPL useful for photographing waterfalls and cascades.
  3. The CPL can also function as a stand-in neutral density filter when you want to use a slightly longer exposure time or a larger aperture.

In the first two cases, you rotate the filter to control the effect. There is usually a small dot on the edge of the filter and you can maximize the filtering effect by rotating in 90 degrees away from direction of the sun.

Neutral Density (“ND”) filters

These filters simply darken the image by some number of stops, ranging from one stop to as much as 10 stops. ND filters allow you to use a longer exposure and/or a larger aperture in conditions that might otherwise not allow this. You might do the former to allow motion blur, for example with photographs of water or clouds. You might to the latter to limit depth of field in very bright conditions. (As noted above, a CPL can stand in for a mild ND filter in some cases.) Contrary to some claims you will read, they do not really alter the overall brightness or color balance of photographs at all. (The very dark 9- and 10-stop filters can produce an unwanted color shift.) Most photographers starting out will not need neutral density filters.

Graduated Neutral Density (GND) filters

These filters are darker on one half than the other, with the clear and darker sections separated by an area of relatively smooth gradation whose width may vary. The dark section may reduce the light by two or three exposures. An example of their use might be a scene with very bright sky and darker foreground – the filter is lined up so that the graduated section is on the horizon and the darkened section covering the sky. Although screw-in versions of these filters are available, their usefulness is very limited. More common are large rectangular versions that are attached by means of a holder in front of the lens and then positioned manually. This is a fussy bit of business, and if you are new to this it is quite unlikely that you want to “go there” at this point. (I have heard some argue that they should be called “gradated” rather than “graduated” neutral density filters. I may be dense, but I’m, uh, neutral on this question. ;-)

Filter Alternatives

Today we can emulate the effects of most filters in software. In most cases this gives us more options and greater control than attaching filters to the lens at the time of exposure, and it also means less gear to carry. The circular polarizing filters is an exception, in that you cannot really emulate its ability to control reflections using photography post-production software.

Bottom Line

In my opinion, if you just got your first DSLR and suddenly find yourself in the mood to start buying lots of accessories… hold off on getting filters for a while. Not everyone needs them, and at first you can probably do everything you need to do without adding this additional complication. Eventually, once you become more comfortable with your camera, the filter that is most likely to occasionally be useful to you is perhaps the circular polarizer since it is useful in several different ways and because its effect is generally not one you can duplicate in post-processing.

G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer and visual opportunist whose subjects include the Pacific coast, redwood forests, central California oak/grasslands, the Sierra Nevada, California deserts, urban landscapes, night photography, and more.
Blog | About | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | 500px.com | LinkedIn | Email

Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

Commentary, Equipment

The Economics of DSLR “Protective” Filters

1 Comment

The subject of whether or not to get so-called “protective” UV filters for DSLR lenses comes up a lot. I used to respond to the question frequently – so frequently that I eventually gave up and just wrote a post on the subject that I could refer people to when they ask.

However, during a recent weak moment I wrote a new response to the notion that ‘protective’ filters provide good value for all photographers. As I do from time to time, I’m sharing it here:

Someone wrote: … would you rather pay $150 on a filter that *might* compromise your shot or spend $150 on replacing the front element and have *no* possible risk of image degradation from the extra piece of glass?

I replied: This is essentially an insurance question. Obviously, if we knew that our lens would certainly be destroyed in a way that was 100% preventable by using a filter we would almost certainly get a filter. But that is an imaginary scenario that is far from reality.

Most lenses will never be damaged in any serious way. My hunch is that this is actually the fate of a very small percentage of lenses – probably far less than 10%, and I would bet closer to 1%.

Of those that are damaged, only some will suffer a blow to the front element. There are many other modes of failure – a dropped lens that breaks the mechanism, something crashing into the side of the lens, water damage, etc.

Of those that suffer a blow to the front of the lens structure, only some will result in contact with the front element. Of those in which contact with the front element occurs, some would not cause any damage or any significant damage. Some would damage the front element, but would be violent enough that the filter would not have prevented the damage. A few that might not have damaged the front element will send glass shards from the broken filter into the front element and damage it. In some subset of cases, all of the variables might line up just right and prevent damage.

At this point the user would have to replace the broken high quality filter at a cost that varies depending on a number of factors. Let’s use a figure if $100 for an expensive L zoom. The owner has now invested something on the order of $200… which is not much different from the cost of replacing a front element, as I understand it.

In terms of the probability of damage, the cost of the filter, the likelihood that the filter would save the day… the filter is probably one of the worst insurance investments you could make.

Am I unalterably and completely opposed to the use of ‘protective’ filters? Almost, but not quite. While I do not think that it makes sense to automatically stick such a filter on every lens for general use – see the link above for more on this topic – I can think of one sort of situation in which I might use one. I would consider a filter if I were shooting a sealed-body camera (such as a Canon 1-series) and was working in conditions that were truly dangerous to my equipment (and not just a bit of mist or ocean spray) and I was using of the small number of L lenses that become sealed (and not all do) with the addition of a filter.

Other than that? No.

G Dan Mitchell Photography | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Email
Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.