#to be fair though i do enjoy other art mediums that require more preparation

[steakout-05]

ok as an artist i personally find traditional painting to be. really really annoying. like. i do not have the patience for it and i just find it to be really frustrating to set up and actually do and i end up not liking the results. i find that there's little room for mistakes and trying to fix them usually ends up with me making 50 other ones, paints can be so inconsistent and having to rely on availability and certain brands to continue making the paint is really inconvenient, not to mention expensive. spending a bunch of time trying to mix the right shade of paint, only for it to go down a completely different shade of colour and not being able to do anything about it is so frustrating as someone who likes consistency and having things just, y'know, not change colour as soon as it dries. plus, they all use different chemicals and can go off really easily or change textures and i am just not ok with having all my materials having an expiration date like food. lead and graphite pencils just don't do that and they can last for years, they're more reliable. every paint is drastically different and trying to find the right one is not only time consuming but, again, expensive, and i don't even see the point in experimenting when most of my materials end up not even getting used if i don't like using them. plus, i'm just.... really impatient. waiting for paint to dry sucks and is why i much prefer digital or just drawing something because i don't need to wait for anything, it just works. and then when i do want to take my time and work slowly for a better result, it dries too fast. it's kinda hellish trying to balance that time, especially considering how inconsistent paints are.

i like to use guidelines when doing art and i find painting straight onto a canvas to be really tricky because there's a lack of direction for me to actually paint. i'm at a complete loss at what to do when i pick up a brush because i can't map it out first without risking screwing up the paint. there's just so many things to keep track of and so much wet paint to avoid and i just do not have the mind for it. putting colours on a canvas and praying that it works just isn't it for me and requires a discipline that i just don't wanna involve myself with. painting is also just like... really exhausting and kinda painful. i got some pretty bad back issues and my arms tire and get sore easily and quickly when i'm standing in front of a canvas. it's a really physical activity for me and i just don't find something to be very fun to do at all when it's physically hurting me. i know drawing on a canvas has this issue too, which is why i prefer sketchbooks. sitting down and drawing something that doesn't break my entire spine every time i do it is much more preferrable than questioning if i should go to the doctor every time i make a brushstroke, lol

that's not to say that there's nothing i like about painting though! i can paint simple little things, and i like doing that. i like mixing colours with a palette knife and i find it fun and even a little relaxing. i painted some cute little chibi cardboard cutouts of the mario brothers one time and i found that to be really fun and i think i'd like to do that again! but apart from that, i just do not have the patience for it. i love the look of traditional paintings and i find many to be really beautiful, but i could never get into actually doing it myself because i hate the process. i'm content with just sketching and doing digital stuff because that's more fun to me and less stressful of a process to do. it's fun, it allows for more mistakes, it's easier to build up layers of shading and lines, not to mention using building up a figure with guidelines is super helpful with visualising what i want it to look like, and i can just erase something if i don't want it there or want to change something. it just makes sense to me.

tl;dr i dont like painting because it's inconsistent, expensive, time-consuming, directionless, frustrating and it makes my back hurt really bad. i'll just stick to drawing stuff :)

[thefutureisplywoodbikes]

Harte Rates, #1

Hello.  Those who know me well know I watch quite a lot of films and because I’m a nerd I rate them all on IMDB so that, come December, I can write a film of the year list that no-one really wants to read.  In a bid to turn this activity into something useful/exacerbate a waste of time (delete as your opinion deems applicable) I’ve decided to make this into a monthly exercise, in case others wish to risk trusting my guidance when selecting what to watch.  Below you’ll find a list of what I’ve watched so far this year with a rating out of ten.  Below that will be a little additional information on each film for those of you that like that sort of thing.   (I tend to rate things based on how I feel in the immediate aftermath of watching something so there is a chance I may be swayed by a prevailing mood and if you’re suspicious of my praise or damnation this may be why)  Right at the bottom will be a breakdown of the ratings and what they mean.  Anyway enough preamble.

Since January 1st I have watched:

- What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962) - 9/10

- Rumble Fish (1983) - 9/10

- The Last Movie (1971) - 7/10

- The Lobster (2015) - 9/10 (rewatched)

- Pacific Rim: Uprising (2018) - 3/10

- Shin Godzilla (2016) - 6/10

- Sucker Punch (2011) - 2/10

- Alien³ (1992) - 6/10 (rewatched)

- High Noon (1952) - 9/10

- Gargoyles (1972 TV Movie) - 3/10

- The Favourite (2018) - 10/10

- Madhouse (1981) - 6/10

- The German Sisters (1981) - 8/10

- Fyre (2019) - 7/10

- Roman Holiday (1953) - 9/10

- Moon (2009) - 8/10

- Eyes Without a Face (1960) - 7/10

- Funny Face (1957) - 8.5/10

- Destroyer (2018) - 7.5/10

- The Thomas Crown Affair (1968) - 10/10

- A Quiet Place (2018) - 7.5/10

- Sabrina (1954) - 9/10

- Burning (2018) - 9/10

- Alison's Birthday (1981) - 3/10

- Roma (2018) -10/10

Further Details

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962) - 9/10

Should you watch it: Definitely if you haven’t already.  Probably if you already have.

Where did I watch it: It was on Amazon Prime but I don’t think it is any more

What’s it like: Beautiful photography and brilliant performances of contrasting style from the two leads.  Also it’s crueller and more blackly comic than you might expect from a film from 1962, in a good way.

If you like ______, watch this: Not sure really, maybe Psycho regarding the dark humour perhaps Frankenheimer’s 60′s films for an approximation of the aesthetic.  If you’re a fan of Davis or Crawford you probably wont require prompting for this.

Rumble Fish (1983) - 9/10

Should you watch it: Yeah.

Where did I watch it: Caught it at the cinema on 35mm.  Print had seen better days and I’d say is nearing the end of it’s serviceable life.  Even with ropey sound at the beginning and a few scenes chopped up more than I’d like it was great though.  

What’s it like: Looks great and has a superb soundtrack from Stewart Copeland.  Full of incongruous smoke and inky blackness it’s a surprisingly and I’d say unusually seductive film from Coppola.  The story is kind of absent and Coppola pitching it as an “art film for teenagers” maybe belies a lack of serious depth but if you’re prepared to relax and let it wash over you it’s got a lot of dreamy charm to offer.

If you like ______, watch this: I could maybe scratch up some movie parallels but the most apt I think is Charles Burns’ Black Hole; they share a commitment to pitch black nights and hypnotic hazy days in the visuals.

The Last Movie (1971) - 7/10

Should you watch it: Maybe.  It’s interesting and has some great imagery but it’s Hopper in his years under the influence so you’ve got to put up with some really erratic editing.

Where did I watch it: At the cinema, the 4k restoration.

What’s it like: As I said above interesting with some great imagery but occasionally taxing.  It’s got some good scathing moments regarding the corrupting and toxic influence of American culture and insidious decadence but the highlight for me is the town that adopts the actions of the movie shoot seen at the beginning into a perverse pseudo-religious ritual

If you like ______, watch this: El Topo maybe, but don’t expect the same level of exuberant flair that that has.  Medium Cool maybe

The Lobster (2015) - 9/10 (rewatched)

Should you watch it: Definitely.  Or least start watching it.  You may hate it and if so you may want to duck out before it get’s really dark.  Personally I enjoyed it more on the second viewing and was disappointed I hadn’t returned to it sooner.

Where did I watch it: It was starting on Film4 when I got in from work.

What’s it like: Cruelly delightful.  An utterly absurd premise but within that setup it mercilessly and hilariously mocks the compromises, capitulations and deceptions we succumb to in pursuit of love or under pressure to conform and suggests the reality we inhabit to be if not equally then similarly fickle and ridiculous.

If you like ______, watch this: The work of Chris Morris, or other Jorgos Lanthimos films obviously.

Pacific Rim: Uprising (2018) - 3/10

Should you watch it: Fuck no!

Where did I watch it: NowTV.

What’s it like: Tiresome pointless bullshit.  It’s a film with giant robots fighting giant monsters that I managed to asleep during more than once.

If you like ______, watch this: The first Pacific Rim, also tiresome pointless bullshit but not to quite the same extent as this.  The Transformer films maybe, they’re also insufferably fucking awful.

Shin Godzilla (2016) - 6/10

Should you watch it: Meh, do what you like.

Where did I watch it: NowTV.

What’s it like: A Godzilla movie but taking itself more seriously than you maybe think it should but somehow being better for it.

If you like ______, watch this: It plays out a bit like a disaster movie with teams of experts earnestly theorising, but is also entirely ridiculous, so maybe shit like The Core or The Day After Tomorrow.

Sucker Punch (2011) - 2/10

Should you watch it: No-one should have ever seen this.

Where did I watch it: NowTV.

What’s it like: Like someone who really wants to direct music videos made a 2 hour showreel inspired by computer games, borrowed the plot from a women in prison film to tie it together.  It’s woefully incoherent but weirdly effective at being consistently sleazy.

Annoying they managed to waste the time of and sully the resumes of some really talented actors while doing so.

If you like ______, watch this: Babestation Daytime, youtube clips of the cut-scenes in the early Resident Evil games, the grimier depths of 70s exploitation cinema.  Basically if you're already a lost cause.

Alien³ (1992) - 6/10 (rewatched)

Should you watch it: If you feel the inclination.

Where did I watch it: Film4 I think

What’s it like: Alien, but not as good.  Decent cast.  Some fun moments

High Noon (1952) - 9/10

Should you watch it: Yeah, why not?  It’s only 85 minutes and it’s good.

Where did I watch it: NowTV

What’s it like: It’s brilliantly shot for starters; most of the shots have a crispness in the focus that you notice because you don’t see it achieved much elsewhere.  The depth of contrast is also really good.  Where this really excels though is in the pacing and editing, it plays out in near real-time and ramps up tension really effectively.  Also the story’s more cynical than you might expect and jars with heroic narratives of the times and with those traditionally seen in Westerns.  John Wayne called it “the most un-American thing I’ve seen in my whole life”, which alone should be enough to perk you interest.

If you like ______, watch this: If you like From Here to Eternity also directed by Zinnemann, you’ll certainly like the look of this at least.  Touch of Evil maybe too.  And while Hitchcock perhaps fairly complained her character is a bit mousy in this, if you’re a Grace Kelly fan she’s mesmerising whenever she’s on screen here.  And if you fancy another unusual western with a black-list connection, check out Terror in a Texas Town (written by Donald Trumbo)

Gargoyles (1972 TV Movie) - 3/10

Should you watch it: No, it’s shit.

Where did I watch it: Go Flow Streaming TV, it’s a channel you can get on Roku currently free that has a few gems available for free (Umbrellas of Cherbourg, Wages of Fear) nestled amongst shit like this.

What’s it like: Shit.

(Though it’s still only the second worst Scott Glenn film on this list)

If you like ______, watch this: Shit

The Favourite (2018)

Should you watch it: Absolutely, it’s wonderful.

Where did I watch it: At the cinema, and so should you while you still can.

What’s it like: From the trailer I was expecting a deliciously vicious mean little comedy, what you actually get is a more sophisticated tale of Machiavellian manoeuvring and some surprising tender moment.  A pristinely hilarious script, stellar performances throughout and visually beautiful.

If you like ______, watch this: Good films.  The Death of Stalin perhaps.  Also, probably goes without saying but if you like Lanthimos’ other films, more so The Lobster than Killing of a Sacred Deer.

Madhouse (1981) - 6/10

Should you watch it: Eh, probably not unless you really like this sort of thing.  

Where did I watch it: Amazon Prime

What’s it like: Pretty standard 80′s slasher fair but with a couple of decent special effects moments and a bit more visual flair than you normally get with these.  It was one of the video nasty titles on the DPP list if that interests you.

If you like ______, watch this: Crappy 80′s horror films.

The German Sisters (1981) - 8/10

Should you watch it: Yeah catch if you can.

Where did I watch it: At the cinema, part of a Margarethe von Trotta season that may still be touring.

What’s it like: Serious and engaging; if you’ve seen any other New German cinema, or other politically charge European cinema from the late 70′s/early 80′s you’ll likely have an idea of what you’re getting.

If you like ______, watch this: Reminded me generally of Antonioni and One Sings, The Other Doesn’t more specifically

Fyre (2019) - 7/10

Should you watch it: Oh yes.

Where did I watch it: Netflix

What’s it like: It’s not an exceptional documentary but it is an exceptional story.  It is the perfect antidote to the suggestion that you can achieve anything with a positive attitude and the unquestioning conflation of success with capability.  I experienced perhaps the most prolonged period of schadenfreude in my life while watching this, and I’ve been an incurable misanthrope for at least 20 years.  On another note, watching this will introduce you to Andy King, a man of such astonishing professional commitment and unassuming likability, that after this he likely became the world’s most eligible employee.

If you like ______, watch this: If you like seeing the affluent disappointed.  Documentary wise it’s pretty standard fair but Three Identical Strangers or Precinct Seven Five may also be up your street.

Roman Holiday (1953) - 9/10

Should you watch it: If you find Audrey Hepburn to be an enchanting screen presence, yes.  If you don’t, maybe not.

Where did I watch it: NowTV

What’s it like: Somewhat old-fashioned in a charming way, but also in a way that may make you a little uneasy with the exploitative manipulation of Peck’s character when viewed in a modern light.  Not to the extent it spoils the film though I’d say.  It looks great, makes superb use of its location and zips along merrily.  

If you like ______, watch this: Audrey Hepburn, Gregory Peck or the mismatched romance movies of the 40′s/50′s

Moon (2009) - 8/10

Should you watch it: Yeah, but I’m late to the party on this one so you probably already have.

Where did I watch it: Amazon Prime

What’s it like: Good.  A smart little movie that plays to its strengths and limitations.  Sam Rockwell is always watchable and is on good form here.

If you like ______, watch this: Reminded me of Outland though I’ve not seen that for ages and that might be down to a plot-point rather than anything more general.  If you liked Silent Running you may well enjoy this.

Eyes Without a Face (1960) - 7/10

Should you watch it: If it sounds up your street, yeah.  It’s good, not great.

Where did I watch it: Go Flow Streaming 

What’s it like: Good.  A bit predictable in a Hammer kind of way but, refreshingly, more callous.  The special effects while not exceptional have a mundane quality akin to actual surgical procedures that make them seem more realistic.  

If you like ______, watch this: Similar look to Les Diabolique from what I recall of that.

Funny Face (1957) - 8.5/10

Should you watch it: Again, if you especially like Audrey Hepburn and/or musicals yes, otherwise maybe not.

Where did I watch it: NowTV

What’s it like: Pleasant, but outmoded.  The celebration of the transformation from independent intellectual to model and girlfriend is a bit queasy, as is the titular song.  It’s wonderfully colourful though and decent fun; Astaire is charming as usual, Hepburn reliably delightful and Kay Thompson wittily brash. 

If you like ______, watch this: It’s Stanley Dolen so if you liked Singin’ in the Rain you may well enjoy this (though probably not as much).  Also, I haven’t seen them but Jacques Demy’s Umbrellas of Cherbourg and The Young Girls of Rochefort look to have a similar exuberance.

Destroyer (2018) - 7.5/10

Should you watch it: Yeah, but I wouldn’t worry too much if you’ve missed it at the cinema

Where did I watch it: At the cinema

What’s it like: Solid. Maybe a bit predictable but well worth a watch.  Felt a bit derivative to me, but derivative of good things; Lynne Ramsay (We Need To Talk About Kevin and You Were Never Really Here) and the first series of True Detective.  Mostly fairly low key but has one particularly invigorating scene in the middle that’ll satisfy the thrill-seekers among you.

If you like ______, watch this: As I said above, We Need To Talk About Kevin, You Were Never Really Here, True Detective.  Maybe Brick too.  If you feel like exploring Kusama’s earlier, Jennifer’s Body is good fun.

The Thomas Crown Affair (1968) - 10/10

Should you watch it: I fucking loved it but it’s up to you.  I feel mine may be an idiosyncratic assessment.

Where did I watch it: NowTV

What’s it like: Achingly cool.  McQueen and Dunaway are both effervescently alluring throughout as is their cat and mouse seduction.  The playfulness of the extensive use of split-screen adds to the fun.  This is a film that makes polo enjoyable viewing and chess sexy.

If you like ______, watch this: Steve McQueen and/or Faye Dunaway.  The films of Norman Jewison.  You may also like Out of Sight, How To Steal a Million or The Hot Rock but they’re all at best vaguely related.

A Quiet Place (2018) - 7.5/10

Should you watch it: It’s pretty good.  You choose.

Where did I watch it: NowTV

What’s it like: A pretty dumb premise but one that it commits to it and makes good use of.  It’s an endearing and well put together little movie.

If you like ______, watch this: Not sure, nothing particularly springs to mind.  Probably if you like John Krasinski and Emily Blunt.  Edge of Tomorrow is probably a good fit.  Pitch Black perhaps

Sabrina (1954) - 9/10

Should you watch it: Yeah, it’s Billy Wilder of course you should.

Where did I watch it: NowTV

What’s it like: Smart and funny but with the bittersweet touches you expect from Wilder.  Hepburn and Bogart are great while Holden and the rest offer solid support.  Like Roman Holiday and Funny Face the aspects whereby it’s just accepted that men will manipulate the lives of women as they see fit don’t really sit too comfortable nowadays within a romcom but it’s a pretty minor niggle

If you like ______, watch this: Roman Holiday, The Apartment

Burning (2018) - 9/10

Should you watch it: Yes.  I thought it was great.

Where did I watch it: At the cinema. You should too.

What’s it like: Brilliant and brilliantly unnerving.  And that’ll do for now, the less you know the better.  

If you like ______, watch this: I don’t want to say too much lest I spoil it, though I’d say it has some of the feel of Blow Up (not the pretension though)

Alison's Birthday (1981) - 3/10

Should you watch it: Nah.

Where did I watch it: Amazon Prime

What’s it like: It’s a zero-budget, bloodless Australian horror movie from 1981 and while it’s competently put together in a TV movie kinda way, it is incredibly dull.  It’s like an episode of Neighbours trying to make your afternoon especially spooky.

If you like ______, watch this: Minder is probably on a par in terms of dramatic tension.  Maybe if you have a hankering for a particularly dull episode of Tales of the Unexpected.

Roma (2018) -10/10

Should you watch it: Yes, in the cinema if you can.

Where did I watch it: I saw it at HOME and if you’re in Manchester so should you but go to a Curzon if you must.

What’s it like: Spectacular.  It’s beautifully photographed throughout but some of the shots it features are masterful.  The sound design is superb too and even though it looks stunning is probably the main reason I’d say to see it in the cinema.  And it has a deeply compassionate, complex story, that seems transparently informed by the truth of the director's life.  A majestic cinematic triumph.

If you like ______, watch this: I was reminded a bit of Andei Rublev and Altman in the camera movements, Cold War in the clean naturalism of its look and maybe Nuri Bilge Ceylan in the scope of the story, though this is a far less demanding watch.  But you don’t need any of this bullshit anyway, just go see it.

And we’re done.  Congratulations if you stuck with it.  It took fucking ages to write, hopefully it was an easier read.  Let me know if you think it’s a taxing format and I’ll maybe shift to more regular updates.  (Also I think that as it stands, this moreso serves to highlight the inadequacy of my vocabulary than it does the presence of any useful film knowledge.)

A word on ratings

I used to a movie recommendation site called JInni, now defunct, which had the a breakdown of ratings that I liked enough to keep using after it shutdown.  See below.

10 - Must watch

9 - Amazing

8 - Great

7 - Good

6 - OK

5 - So-so

4 - Disappointing

3 - Poor

2 - Bad

1- Awful

My baseline is likely a 6, if I don’t actively regret or resent watching something it’ll likely be there.  Anything 7 or above I’d say is worth seeing, 5 and below I wouldn’t necessarily bother, a 6 is up to you, it’ll pass the time.  So if you feel the inclination you can obviously treat 5 as 0, 6 as 1 and 10 as 5, for a simpler 5 star rating system; I like to distinguish the full spectrum from dogshit to sublime but what you choose to do is your business.

[writtenthroughtime]

This would totally be an AU fic but I would love to see Claire teaching a figure drawing class and Jamie being one of the students draws her.

So this is a bit of a role reversal from what you requested @lindseyylu17, but I’m enjoying it. 

“We have to what?” The entire class exclaimed in disbelief. The professor smirked and relaxed against the lab table.

“All of you heard me just fine. I expect to see the results from this class and Professor Montgomery is already expecting you starting tomorrow night. Don’t worry about supplies, Professor Montgomery says that he’ll have things ready for you each class, just remember to sign in on both of our rosters. This class starts at 8pm sharp tonight! I don’t want to hear about any of you being late!” Doctor Randall looked down at her wrist and waved her hand towards the door dismissing us.

I packed my bag with my head still reeling from what Doctor Randall required, Life Drawing, a class designed to embarrass all of the parties involved. Naked men and woman lounging for hours at a time while a gaggle of students attempted to draw their forms from various angles.

“Jesus H Roosevelt Christ!” I whisper yelled to myself as she made her way across the empty campus. “I can’t take a life drawing class I just… can’t! I can’t draw to save my life! Besides how does life drawing even fit with an anatomy class? I should be learning how to—”

“Talking to yourself again, Claire?”

“Agh!” I swung around nearly hitting my former roommate with her bag.

“Jenny!” I exclaimed clutching a hand to her heart, “you know not to sneak up on me like that!”

Jenny laughed and settled her hands on her hips, “Och aye but that���s the best time to sneak up on ye! What were you ranting to yourself about this time? Did fuddy-duddy Professor Whitman assign another frog dissection?”

Jenny’s strong Scottish accent lilting with each word and I smiled at the familiarity of if. “No, not Whitman…this time.”  

I laughed and Jenny snorted, linking her arm with mine as we made our way to the library.

“So if it wasn’t Whitman who and what did they do to deserve the horrible Beauchamp rant?”

“Doctor Randall. Not the history professor, his wife the biology professor,” I amended quickly. “Doctor Annie Randall, who isn’t even a doctor by the way! She dropped out of her residency and decided to teach Bio 425 and she’s forcing us to go to Life Drawing instead of our lab class for the next two months!”

Jenny’s eyes went wide, not only in shock but in the way I knew she was plotting something. “So ye have to take the life drawing classes this quarter?”

“Ugh! Yes. I really don’t see the point in this class. I’m in biology not art!”

“Quitcher whinging Claire and just go to the damn class. Ye never know what ye might find or should I say who.”

——–

The art room was small, cold, poorly lit and reeked of chemical adhesives. Was this really happening? I kept asking myself. Was I really taking a life drawing class? I groaned thinking of how my time would be better spent studying or in the lab examining specimens, rather in this dank room foolishly facing a class I felt was beneath me. Why art? Why did she have to send us to an art class, what good would this do or bring to us? Artist are careless junkies that will get nowhere in life. This chosen path won’t pay their bills or get them the type of scholarships needed to further pursue a career. I couldn’t fathom their reasons for joining a group that might lead them to ruin.

“Class! Come to order now, please!” The hippie who I assumed was Professor Montgomery said with a clap of his hands.

“Please cease your conversations and begin to find your way to an easel, then position yourself so that you may see the stage unobstructed.”

The so called ‘stage’ was compiled of ratty boxes haphazardly draped with tattered striped cloths and a wicker chair that look as though the weight of a butterfly would cause the fibers to crumble.

“On the easel in front of you, you shall find a fresh pad of newsprint. You have five minutes in a medium of your choice to do a nice warm up sketch of the popcorn kernel I am passing out now.”

“What?” I mumbled to myself as everyone around me pulled out pens, charcoal, pencils and pastels, even my fellow biology classmates had found a tin of pencils and were passing them around to one another.

“Ready?” Professor Montgomery paused, looking around. He pulled a stick from behind his ear and handed it to me. “You may begin!”

With the oddly shaped pencil I paused with it’s point on the paper, not sure how to start. The lumpy, misshapen mass in my hand did not resemble popcorn in the least. The people around me were making wild gestures with their arms, beautiful curves appearing on the easels I could see. Taking a steadying breath I mimicked their motions and had the faintest of curves when the timer went off and we were told to stop.

“Perfect! Now that we’re all warmed up I would like to introduce our first two weeks model.” He swept his hands towards a side door that cracked open slightly. “This is our model’s first time sitting for a life drawing class so please, everyone give the warmest of welcomes to Mr. Alexander Malcolm!”

The model appeared from behind the door clad in a fluffy blue robe. His steps were sluggish and hesitant, I got the feeling he didn’t want to be there as much as I did. He slowly made his way towards the stage, but not climbing into position.

“Mr. Malcolm, if you please.” Professor Montgomery said gesturing towards the boxes.

Mr. Malcolm stared at the professor. From the reactions I could see of my classmates and the professor, the model was challenging him.

“Mind if I work up to disrobing?” A deep and thick Scots accent drifted my way.

“Fine!” Came the angry reply from Professor Montgomery. “But this is for tonight only! I have you for only four sittings and tonight is a shortened class due to first day bullshit! Tomorrow I expect you to be prepared from the moment the class arrives.”

Mr. Malcolm nodded tersely. He kept his head down as he approached the stage and settled himself on the wicker chair, which creaked with his weight.

“Mr. Malcolm will sit in this position for ten minutes, before adjusting to a different pose in a different direction.There will be five different poses, each lasting ten minutes tonight. Typically we do twelve fifteen minutes poses, but tonight we shall adjust! Please capture as much as possible given the circumstances. I want your drawings labeled per pose, with your name on it, and date at the end of the class. Other students use these pads so please try not to be heavy handed. You may begin!”

From my angle all I could see was the bulky collar, the top of his shoulder blades and his shoulder-length curly red hair. I tried to capture the way his shoulders fit the robe and disappeared behind the wicker chair. However, when I looked at the drawing the paper reflected back a mass of scribbles that no matter what way you looked at it, you could not tell what it was meant to be.

I huffed out a breath and tried again, this time focusing on his hair. Again the spirals on the page no more reflected the coils of Mr. Malcolm’s hair than it did the curve of his shoulder. Our time started to dwindle down on this first pose, Professor Montgomery began to adjust a small space heater to point towards the stage. I noticed the model’s shoulders tense and his arm begin to shake.

“Stop! Readjust!”

Mr. Malcolm stood and took a deep breath before untying the front of his robe. The fabric swung to his sides. He turned and began to sit on a block directly in front of me, I finally caught a glimpse of the man I was supposed to study. His muscles were well defined, smattered with freckles and curls of fair blonde and red hairs. They made a trail that lead to a patch of even thicker curls that surrounded, while flaccid, still a very impressive penis. My clinical mind took over, examining his every muscle and curve. The way the skin was stretch taught in areas, and bulged in others. I wondered what activities he must do to maintain the way he looked. Even sitting there wasn’t a roll or wrinkle of fat. His body was the perfect biology project.

“Stop! Readjust!”

I jolted from the sudden exclamation. Looking at my easel, I realized I hadn’t sketched a single line. I had to shake myself out of this. He was just a man. A very well defined, attractive man, but still just a man. Think of him as a patient and this is how you’re to figure out what’s wrong with him! Get your head on the assignment, Beauchamp!

Three more positions followed and with each one Mr. Malcolm slowly became more and more unclothed until finally the robe was laying across the floor out of his reach. My temper rose with each minute. This man was most likely being paid for this, but still he was being put on display in front of complete strangers who are meant to analyze his every feature. I could not understand why he was putting himself through this torture, he was clearly not comfortable no matter how long the class went on and I couldn’t blame him. Not only was he being exploited but the amount of females in the class started to overwhelm even me. These girls shouldn’t be allowed to look at him this way! He wasn’t theirs to oogle and treat like a piece of meat! He’s not yours either, a small voice reminded me. Yet, he felt like he was mine. I felt the need to cover him up and hide his body from sight, to protect him and comfort him….

My internal rant lead to the rapid end of class. I didn’t even hear the final instructions nor did I care I only had two of the required five drawings. I signed, dated, and numbered them before tearing the sheet off of the pad and handing it in. Mr. Malcolm had already disappeared from sight. Slowly I returned my supplies and stared at the door he had appeared from at the start of class. Tomorrow then, I thought and hitched my bag over my shoulder just as the side door squeaked open. The lights were dimmed even further than before and I could just catch the glint of his red hair as he darted out of the classroom.

“There’s the nudest!” A bellowing, familiar, laugh sounded.

“Shut it Ian, or I’ll make ye!”

“Och, come off it Jamie! Ye ken I’m just pullin yer leg! How was it? Did your cock come out to play and make the lassies faint with desire?” The sarcastic tone was cut off by a loud thump. I slipped through the door in time to see none other than Ian Murray rubbing his jaw from where Mr. Malcolm, or Jamie, had hit him. Ian merely laughed more.

“Are ye tellin me there wasn’t a single thing good to come from that class?” Ian’s tone was similar to that of his fiancee’s, sneaky and up to something.

“Nay!” Jamie roared as they made their way to the elevators. “I canna believe ye and my sister dared me and not only dared, but forced me to do this after losing a bet! There isn’t enough money in the world to make me want to come back tomorrow night! It’s definitely not worth the sixty pounds they’re paying me!”

Ian had his arm around Jamie’s shoulder as the two of them entered the elevator. As Jamie/Mr. Malcolm turned around we made eye contact, maybe the first of the night, but his eyes went wide. He was saying something to Ian but I couldn’t hear nor make it out as the doors shut and I was left alone on the abandoned art floor.

[topicprinter]

My co-founder wrote a really great post on the telltale signs of someone who's great at sales. A lot has already been written here, but he takes his personal experience as a sales leader in the trenches and spins out some unique insights.Some of the quotes are hard learned lessons that come straight from customers mouths, such as this one:Respond to my questions with certainty in-the-moment and you’re 10x more likely to earn my business. Let those concerns go unanswered by an hour and you can cut that probability in half… by two hours half it again… by one day half it again…and so on. It shows me that you don’t know the answers, which challenges your believability… or shows me that you don’t care enough to address them.I think Reddit might enjoy this. You can read the post on medium here: https://medium.com/@dooly/selling-trust-6b2c712cde8d , or if you'd like, enjoy it just below the break.Let me know what you think!Selling TRUSTDreamforce — Marc Benioff’s crown jewel in his ever growing SaaS empire and the epicentre of all things related to Salesforce. 140,000+ people looking for the next big thing, the deal(s) that will make their year, or, let’s face it, a chance to get your company to pay for you to go see a “free” Green Day/Red Hot Chilli Peppers/U2 concert! Dreamforce also happens to be an epicentre for all things connected to sales. I was at Dreamforce a couple of years ago as a guest speaker on a panel where the discussion quickly pivoted down a very interesting path.The original topic was relationship selling and how to leverage the network of your peers during the sales process. The plethora of platforms out there right now that help you figure out who you’re talking to, how to get to them, who in your company can point you there, etc. made this a pretty obvious conversation. It’s clearly far easier to talk to a prospect that you’ve been given a warm introduction to or at least a prospect that you know a thing or two about from their Twitter history. In today’s selling arena, let’s call this table stakes (or steaks as I used to think it was spelled — a far more delicious connotation).Back to the pivot in the conversation… Once we established that you can leverage your network to find out pretty much anything about anyone, right down to their opinions on politics and their favourite soup, we got into something more to the point.We can give them all the tools in the world, but what are the telltale signs that a salesperson is simply ‘good’ at what they do? How do I identify the rock stars and how do I best support them?Now, for a bit of colour on this, I’ve hired a fair few sales people over the years…fired a few too. You get to know what to look for and, if you’re reasonably adept (or honest) at introspection, you can probably figure out what makes you decent at what you do as well. For myself, I used to think that I was lucky — that luck literally followed me around from deal to deal. To an extent, that’s true, but it doesn’t explain repeated success. Luck may get you your start, or the occasional “bluebird” deal, but it doesn’t allow your sales trajectory to ascend to great heights.The reality is that there isn’t one right answer to what makes someone great at sales, but you will always find a few common threads between them. We’ve all heard the expression, “people buy from people they like.” To an extent, that’s correct. But the core compound to likability that catalyzes every good relationship is TRUST.Aside…my eldest son is in Grade 7 right now and my school days are a few years back in the rearview mirror, so I’m being re-educated on everything from Algebra to Science right now. The genesis for this post is actually much to his credit as he asked me to help him understand the distinction between an element and a compound. After explaining the difference between salt (NaCl) and sodium (Na), he was well on his way to figuring it out!Inspiration!In the context of selling, T-R-U-S-T is a compound made up of 5 key elements, talent, resilience, understanding, stories, and timing. You build TRUST with your prospects and clients by possessing parts of each.TalentThrough my years in selling I have become more and more convinced that the best sales people simply cannot be manufactured without having certain raw skills, talent being the foremost on the list. Now, talent is a pretty vague descriptor, so let’s break it down a bit further. Talent goes beyond the ability to craft a beautiful powerpoint deck or a proposal that sells itself. What talent really implies (at least in this instance) is an aptitude for being relatable to your prospect. I once explained it as “being a better chameleon.” My hope isn’t to encourage sales people to become fake or untrue to their own values — it doesn’t quite work like that. As sales people, though, you do need to be adaptable to the person that’s in front of you. After all, you’re not asking them to change who they are in order to do business with you, you’re asking them to have faith in you as a person. Personability, ‘the gift of the gab’, being able to read the room, the ability to connect with another person and making it seem easy — talent in this context is the first stage of building TRUST. My wife often says that this is how I duped her into marriage — proof that it works!Resilience…and while your job is to make it feel easy for your customer, know that it isn’t always going to be the case. Nobody on this planet is universally liked (cute babies excluded) and connecting with some people can take time. A brow-beaten, over-solicited buyer likely has a lot more on their mind than whether or not your solution is going to solve their problems. The best sales people are also the ones that can handle rejection delivered a million different ways. We’ve all heard the expression, “thick skinned,” and the best sales people personify this.Of course, resilience and preparation go hand-in-hand. Think about what you can do to handle the barrage of objections a customer might put before you. How can you minimize the time between a knock-down punch and your ability to get right back up and keep throwing? Tenacious resolve — that unfettered desire to win — isn’t genetic, but we all know people that are better at it than others. If you’ve ever done any work in New York, you’ll have a far greater appreciation than most on the impact of resilience in creating TRUST!UnderstandingWhile this somewhat ties in to the idea of being relatable, understanding is unique enough to stand on its own. Relatability is how you convey your understanding of a prospect, but the art of understanding requires something different, “empathy.” A huge part of sales is human psychology — which really boils down to the ability to put yourself in the shoes of the person across from you, process what they’re going through and then go about helping them navigate their way to a better place.When you show deep empathy toward others, their defensive energy goes down, and positive energy replaces it. That’s when you can get more creative in solving problems. — Stephen CoveyEveryone in sales should have heard the expression, “two ears, one mouth” by now! Interestingly, top performers seem to have this skill innately engrained in their systems — the ability to listen more than they speak. It allows them to seem as though they can see around corners because the prospect, more often than not, will unknowingly paint the blueprint for the rep on how to close the deal if you just let them talk! Listen with your eyes as well as your ears and you’ll understand the whole story even better — you can learn a ton from body language.Last point on understanding…demonstrating appreciation of your clients’ needs isn’t enough — that merely shows that you’ve done your homework (your clients expect that much of you). Empathy is the ability to understand the impact of those needs, the personal stake someone has in a decision, and the payload associated with your time. It’s something I call Outside-In selling and have dedicated a whole other blog post to (stay tuned). Suffice it to say that without having the ability to see and feel what your prospect is going through, the third element of TRUST will be out of reach and your believability will suffer.Stories…and when they resist believing you, tell it through the lens of someone else! One of the biggest, most recurrent themes I’ve heard from one sales rep to another….heck, I’d take that further and say from one sales organization to another, is the gulf between what people are selling and the corporate treasure troves containing the anecdotal evidence, the wins, the ROI contributions, and the overall personal/business impacts of what is being sold.At my previous company I felt this problem profoundly. When I moved my young family from Australia to the UK to run EMEA sales, I found myself in a situation where we had reps all across Europe selling into local markets. With different buying cultures, different competitors, etc. we were faced with the real challenge of creating meaningful collaboration between the different regions. The consistent ask from reps, whether they were in Cologne, Milan, London or Paris was for the relevant stories and anecdotal facts that they could leverage from one another’s existing customers. We created a Google sheet of stories, asked the customer success teams to contribute alongside the reps and did a company offsite to try to proliferate those stories. The challenge we faced was that the stories were super personal and very situational, so it was hard to get a high degree of recall without being in-the-moment. If we’d cracked the code on how to share these stories, the result on sales cycles would have been profound!Prospects may believe what you’re telling them about the unmet pains and needs your solution will provide, but without a shadow of a doubt they will believe the stories you tell them of other customers in similar situations. It not only helps bring your product to life in a real example, but it helps disarm a prospect from thinking that they’re your first guinea pig in a market. I’ve too often seen the Powerpoint deck with the “customer logos” page, propping you up artificially in a sales process….if you’re going to put logos in your deck, you’d better know a story or two from each of those companies. You will be asked!TimingMost in sales will be coached on deal cadence — the ability to read the tea leaves in a deal and submit a realistic forecast for a month/quarter/year (the longer the timeline the more we all expect it to become nebulous, of course). What about customer cadence? Who is taught well on how to set the pace of a conversation, when to interject, how to build waves of follow-ups to bring an opportunity to a successful conclusion? How do you develop a good sense of timing?We’ve already established the “two ears, one mouth” rule which should hint at your conversational timing. Often, though, we scramble to keep up with a highly educated, well-researched buyer when it comes to answering their questions, responding to their needs, doubling down on their pains and eliminating objections from a deal, whether they be related to competition, legal, product or other.I remember a customer once telling me the law of diminishing returns on his likelihood to buy from vendors:Respond to my questions with certainty in-the-moment and you’re 10x more likely to earn my business. Let those concerns go unanswered by an hour and you can cut that probability in half… by two hours half it again… by one day half it again…and so on. It shows me that you don’t know the answers, which challenges your believability… or shows me that you don’t care enough to address them.Now, that’s not a universal law, but I think you get the point — you create a perception through your ability to respond. It’s much better to be prepared with the right information in the right moment than it is to say “I don’t know.” If you really don’t know, commit to a timeline to get the answer and stick to it — always better to come back with a good answer than to make up a bad one!When you’ve been on the sales roller coaster enough times, you get a sense of when key moments are coming and hopefully can become a bit more rhythmic with the twists, turns and undulations of your deal flow. It does take awhile to get there! That said, the sooner you can figure out your sense of timing on a few different levels, the better.The TRUST EquationSo what does all of this mean? Every sales person is going to be measurably different in their degrees of Talent, Resilience, Understanding, Story Telling and Timing Sense. This is by no means a prescriptive formula with exact ratios of each element! Some of these skills can be taught better than others and some really do need to be innate. Results aside, the best measure of any of these skills is to ask customers, friends and peers how a person measures up in their TRUST equation. What are their shortcomings? Why? I can say that in my experience, finding a natural is the exception to the rule and when you do find them….hold on to them!Sometimes you don’t know a gifted salesperson until you’ve already signed the contract! Not because they did anything wrong, but because you didn’t feel like you were being sold to at all.At Dooly, we’ve built our platform with an appreciation for how all of what we’ve said above impacts your relationship with your customers (and ultimately, your ability to close business!). We recognize that the smarter you are, the more in tune with your buyer you can be. There is no greater contributor to your deal movement than being in harmony with your customer from your offering through to your interactions. Our goal is to bring you the tools that will help you earn the respect of your customers in the moments when they are most needed. With this, we’ll help you earn their TRUST.Happy selling!

[grgedoors02142]

Ask the staff: Pick one focal length or lens to rule them all

Can you guess the focal length? Photo by Wenmei Hill

We handle a lot of glass in the DPReview office, but there always seems to be a handful of lenses or fixed lens cameras that everyone is extra eager to lay some paws on. Which got us thinking of a fun hypothetical: If we could only choose one lens to use for the rest of time, what would it be?

To keep things interesting, and to vary the answers, we opened the question up to include one lens in particular or one focal length. The photograph that accompanies each answer was shot with that staff member's chosen lens or focal length. We purposely didn't list the gear used. See if you can guess!

Carey Rose

Any guesses what focal length Carey gravitates toward?

Before I worked at DPReview, I would have immediately chosen the 35mm focal length. Now that I’ve worked at DPReview for some time, I have to say… I haven’t really changed my mind.

Splurging on a battered old D700 after college left me without enough money to pick up anything approaching a fast zoom, so I started building up a collection of affordable Nikon AF-D primes: a 50mm F1.8, a 35mm F2, an 85mm F1.8. I quickly realized that I just wasn’t a zoom guy, and the 35mm F2 was glued to my camera most of the time. A used X100 was a natural next step for a more portable setup when I scored a good deal on one. Even today, after using lens after lens and camera after camera for review after review, the 35mm focal length remains my go-to. It doesn’t matter whether I’m headed to shoot an event, a wedding, an environmental portrait, or just strolling around when some nice light hits, it’s more likely I’ll have a 35mm lens with me than any other.

Wenmei Hill

Wenmei likes versatility. Did she choose a zoom or a prime?

I’m going to take the easy way out and pick a zoom lens rather than a single focal length. My choice is the Nikon AF-S 24-120mm F4G ED VR, and my excuse is that the majority of shooting I do (documentary lifestyle and candid portraiture) requires a flexibility that is difficult to get with a single focal length.

I’m choosing the 24-120mm even though it’s not one of my ‘favorite’ lenses because it is relatively small, lightweight and versatile enough to get the variety of shots I look for when photographing. I am able to immerse myself in a scene at 24mm but also step back for a portrait at 120mm, using the longer focal length to get pleasing bokeh and separation from the background.

Shooting it on a DX-format body gives me even more reach at the long end (180mm equivalent) for portraits. I already use this lens as my everyday lens when I don’t have a particular creative plan and want to be prepared for anything, so it’s the one I’d choose if I had to pick just one.

Dale Baskin

Dale chose a specific focal length that he didn't always love. Can you guess what it is?

This will probably seem like I’m going for the low hanging fruit, but I would choose 35mm. I used to be a solid 50mm guy, and if I wanted to go a bit wider I switched to 28mm, skipping 35mm entirely. My shift to 35mm began in earnest when I started shooting Fujifilm’s X100 series of cameras, which have a 35mm equivalent lens.

Now, one could argue that I’m choosing 35mm because I really enjoy the camera to which it’s attached, but that’s not the case. In fact, when I first started shooting the X100 I enjoyed it despite the focal length. It was actually the one thing I didn’t care for about the camera. However, as I continued to use it, I learned to adjust my style to take advantage of the 35mm field of view. After a few months, I found myself really enjoying it, so I decided to do a little experiment: I was about to embark on a trip to Brazil and decided to shoot my entire adventure at 35mm. The idea was both exciting and scary; I knew from experience that I would be giving up some shots by not having the right lens. However, I like to travel light, and I hate carrying camera gear, so I threw down the gauntlet and accepted my own challenge.

The upshot? I had a great trip and captured a lot of memorable images. Did I miss a few shots along the way? Sure, I did. But on the flip side, I got some great photos I would have otherwise missed because I forced myself to visualize every scene at 35mm instead of mentally switching to a different focal length. Now, no matter what camera I happen to be testing, one of the first lenses I always put on the front is a 35mm (or equivalent).

Sam Spencer

Sam chose a specialty lens. This image was shot using a similar lens, albeit with a different focal length. Do you know what it is?

Forever? Forever ever? I’m sure I could do the practical thing and say ’24-70’, or be a motorsports spectator the rest of my life and say ’70-200’, but I’m weirder than that. If it was a lens for me to shoot what makes me happy for the rest of my days, it’d be the Nikon PC-E 85mm F2.8 for product, portrait, and automotive photography. The maximum magnification of 1:2 means I can get close for product, and use the tilt to either get more of the product in focus, or isolate the focal point. I like medium telephoto lenses for the narrower field of view that makes selecting a background out of a busy environment much easier, and even F2.8 can be bright enough to blur the background at 85mm. I’m a control freak, not a speed demon, so I’ll be watching eBay for a copy…

Dan Bracaglia

Dan's image was shot with the equivalent of his favorite focal length. The image was cropped in slightly, still any ideas what he chose?

The first and only lens I'd owned for many years was a 50mm. But as my interest in photography (and other activities) grew I found myself yearning for other lenses. If you'd asked me this question when I was 16 years old and shooting a lot of skateboarding, I probably would have said a fisheye is my favorite lens. If you'd asked me again when I was 18 or 19 years old and starting to get into photojournalism, I'd probably have said 24mm. If you'd ask me when I was 24-28 years-old, and reviewing cameras for a living, all why exploring the streets of NYC/Seattle, I most likely would have said 35mm. But these days, I've come full circle and 50mm is my focal length of choice if I could only shoot one lens for the rest of my life.

Sometimes overlooked or seen as pedestrian, there are plenty of reasons why a normal 50mm lens is number one in my heart and bag: For starters the nifty fifty is as practical as they come. Most manufacturers make a reasonably fast, yet inexpensive 50mm equiv. Moreover, I'd argue its the most versatile focal length of them all: in a pinch it can be used for portraiture or detail shots, in the same way a tele can. And it can also be used in some capacity as a wide-angle, if you have the room to move (I've shot many concerts with just a 50mm, without feeling a need for something wider). And if you get a reversal ring, you can mount a nifty fifty backward and use it for macro shooting!

For years I've carried a Nikon 50mm F1.8 in my bag as the ultimate backup for just about anything I'm shooting: weddings, concerts, portrait sessions, travel. It's light cheap and versatile. But these days, the lens spends as much time mounted on my camera as glass I own costing 6x as much.

Jeff Keller

Jeff chose a workhorse zoom. Can you guess which one?

Since I’m always shooting with something work-related, I don’t get to use my EOS 5D III very often. But when I do, my daily driver is the Canon EF 24-105mm F4L IS USM. Not the most exciting choice of lens, I admit, but for land- and cityscapes that I enjoy taking, it definitely fits the bill. The image stabilization works well, it focuses silently and the weatherproofing is helpful when you’re out at Snoqualmie Falls and it’s throwing mist. Naturally, not long after I bought the 24-105, the Mark II arrived, with new optics, better autofocus and new coatings to reduce lens flare and ghosting. The lens is larger and heavier than my Mark I model, which I consider a good size for its focal length and aperture.

It’s nice to see that Canon isn’t the only one offering a lens with this focal range. Sigma’s 24-105mm F4 DG OS HSM Art lens is even bigger and heavier than Canon’s Mark II version, but the build quality is excellent. And, according to DxO, it’s also a sharper lens. And did I mention that it’s a bit cheaper? Thus, if I was stranded in a world with wonderful landscapes and cool architecture, the Sigma 24-105mm F4 Art would be permanently mounted on my 5D III.

Vladimir Bobov

Vladimir is our newest DPR team member. He makes sure the site works properly. Any guesses what focal length he chose?

I wasn't sure whether to bother praising the 50mm focal length. I figured that it's so common, that talking about it would be either redundant at best or boring at worst. However, sorting my photo collection by focal length showed that I took more photos with a 50mm (on a 35mm full frame camera) than with any other lens, including the more versatile zooms.

So why pick the "normal" prime for the rest of my life? Versatility and portability. It's the perfect lens for candid portraits in a casual setting - fast enough to use in low light, and small enough to not intimidate the subject. Wide enough for full-body and group portraits, and good enough for head-and-shoulders (especially when paired with an APS-C camera). I've also been able to use it effectively for landscapes, close-ups, product, and food photography. So although I'd certainly miss the other focal lengths, with enough creativity and trickery, the 50 and I could live happily ever after.

Richard Butler

Richard chose a favorite lens that doesn't yet exist. This image falls toward the tele-end of his made-up range. Can you guess what it is?

If I have to live within the constraints of reality, then I’d be tempted to say a 35mm just for its Goldilocks-like flexibility. But, it seems only fair that if I agree to be bound by an arbitrary restriction, I’m should get to relax the need to limit myself to lenses that actually exist. The problem is that I really like 35-40mm equivalent lenses but also love something around 90mm equiv. for portraiture and a lifetime seems like a long time to have to go without.

Equally, if I have a 24 or 28mm equivalent lens, I get back into the habit of ‘seeing’ wide-angle scenes and I’m sure there’s some aphorism about making one’s life spicy. This is why I’m pushing back against reality: the need for a 90mm equiv, rules out the use of a 24-70mm equiv and, over time, the limiting equivalent aperture of an 18-55mm F2.8 on APS-C would leave me frustrated. Sigma’s 18-35mm F1.8 is a work of genius that I wish were available on mirrorless systems, so I’m going to put my faith in the men and women of Aizu and trust that they’ll make me a 16-60mm F2 for APS-C mirrorless. I mean, how hard could it be?

Allison Johnson

Allison chose a specific zoom lens, can you guess which one?

Maybe a truly bold person picks a prime to shoot with for the rest of their life, but I’m going to play it safe and pick a zoom, whatever that says about me. The Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 is not the very best lens I’ve ever shot with, but it’s fairly versatile, sturdy and relatively small. It’s the right size (along with the OM-D cameras I’ve used it with) so that it’s doable to carry around all day in my purse, and I like having a fairly wide 24mm equiv. out to 80mm for a little more reach when I want it.

Really, it’s not special in any way except that it’s a solid standard zoom for a system I like. I’ve had many happy days shooting with it, including one wonderful afternoon at a defunct nuclear power plant (seriously, it was awesome). If picking a zoom makes me basic, then so be it.

Barney Britton

Any guesses what lens Barney chose?

If I was trying to impress you, and if I wasn’t such a died-in-the-wool contrarian, my choice for ‘go-to’ camera and lens would be a Nikon D810 and a 35mm lens – something good, like the Nikon 35mm F1.4 or Sigma Art 35mm F1.4, or perhaps an old ’sleeper' favorite, like the Nikon AF-D 35mm F2, for the hipsters. If you were to ask me what focal length I use most, I’d say that probably around 90% of my photography could be achieved with a 35mm lens. If you were to ask some of my comment-thread critics on the other hand, they’d tell you that 90% of my photography could be achieved with an iPhone, or their 5-year old daughter, or their blind grandmother, or their blind grandmother’s 5 year-old iPhone, but that’s beside the point.

But I’m not trying to impress you. Which is why I’m going to cheat a little, and make a case for a zoom lens, and one that doesn’t get a lot of love in these parts – the Nikon AF-S 24-120mm F4. The current version of Nikon’s ‘street-sweeper’ do-everything zoom, it’s true that the 24-120mm isn’t the sharpest lens in Nikon’s stable, or the best-controlled when it comes to distortion, or the toughest, and all the rest. It’s a kit zoom. A pretty good kit zoom, in my opinion, but still. So why – if I had to choose only one lens – would I pick the 24-120mm? Because it just works. I know that if I go out shooting with the D810 and 24-120mm, come rain or shine (or snow, or hail, or desert dust, or any of the other nasties I’ve thrown at it) I can capture pretty much anything I might want or need to. It’s almost boring. I wish I had more of an excuse to attach other lenses, but to be honest, most of the time I just don’t. I actually sold a bunch of my Nikon glass recently, because it wasn’t getting used.

The image above was taken just after a torrential downpour last December which turned into a hail storm. The camera and lens were - like me - soaked. Could I have taken it on something better? Maybe, but I wouldn’t have wanted to risk damaging a more expensive lens in those conditions. And would it be a better picture had I done so? Or a happier memory? No.

What would you choose?

If you could only shoot with one lens, or one focal length for the rest of your life, what would you choose? Feel free to share your answer in the comments! 

from DIYS http://ift.tt/2mHg4L7

[rtscrndr53704]

Ask the staff: Pick one focal length or lens to rule them all

Can you guess the focal length? Photo by Wenmei Hill

We handle a lot of glass in the DPReview office, but there always seems to be a handful of lenses or fixed lens cameras that everyone is extra eager to lay some paws on. Which got us thinking of a fun hypothetical: If we could only choose one lens to use for the rest of time, what would it be?

To keep things interesting, and to vary the answers, we opened the question up to include one lens in particular or one focal length. The photograph that accompanies each answer was shot with that staff member's chosen lens or focal length. We purposely didn't list the gear used. See if you can guess!

Carey Rose

Any guesses what focal length Carey gravitates toward?

Before I worked at DPReview, I would have immediately chosen the 35mm focal length. Now that I’ve worked at DPReview for some time, I have to say… I haven’t really changed my mind.

Splurging on a battered old D700 after college left me without enough money to pick up anything approaching a fast zoom, so I started building up a collection of affordable Nikon AF-D primes: a 50mm F1.8, a 35mm F2, an 85mm F1.8. I quickly realized that I just wasn’t a zoom guy, and the 35mm F2 was glued to my camera most of the time. A used X100 was a natural next step for a more portable setup when I scored a good deal on one. Even today, after using lens after lens and camera after camera for review after review, the 35mm focal length remains my go-to. It doesn’t matter whether I’m headed to shoot an event, a wedding, an environmental portrait, or just strolling around when some nice light hits, it’s more likely I’ll have a 35mm lens with me than any other.

Wenmei Hill

Wenmei likes versatility. Did she choose a zoom or a prime?

I’m going to take the easy way out and pick a zoom lens rather than a single focal length. My choice is the Nikon AF-S 24-120mm F4G ED VR, and my excuse is that the majority of shooting I do (documentary lifestyle and candid portraiture) requires a flexibility that is difficult to get with a single focal length.

I’m choosing the 24-120mm even though it’s not one of my ‘favorite’ lenses because it is relatively small, lightweight and versatile enough to get the variety of shots I look for when photographing. I am able to immerse myself in a scene at 24mm but also step back for a portrait at 120mm, using the longer focal length to get pleasing bokeh and separation from the background.

Shooting it on a DX-format body gives me even more reach at the long end (180mm equivalent) for portraits. I already use this lens as my everyday lens when I don’t have a particular creative plan and want to be prepared for anything, so it’s the one I’d choose if I had to pick just one.

Dale Baskin

Dale chose a specific focal length that he didn't always love. Can you guess what it is?

This will probably seem like I’m going for the low hanging fruit, but I would choose 35mm. I used to be a solid 50mm guy, and if I wanted to go a bit wider I switched to 28mm, skipping 35mm entirely. My shift to 35mm began in earnest when I started shooting Fujifilm’s X100 series of cameras, which have a 35mm equivalent lens.

Now, one could argue that I’m choosing 35mm because I really enjoy the camera to which it’s attached, but that’s not the case. In fact, when I first started shooting the X100 I enjoyed it despite the focal length. It was actually the one thing I didn’t care for about the camera. However, as I continued to use it, I learned to adjust my style to take advantage of the 35mm field of view. After a few months, I found myself really enjoying it, so I decided to do a little experiment: I was about to embark on a trip to Brazil and decided to shoot my entire adventure at 35mm. The idea was both exciting and scary; I knew from experience that I would be giving up some shots by not having the right lens. However, I like to travel light, and I hate carrying camera gear, so I threw down the gauntlet and accepted my own challenge.

The upshot? I had a great trip and captured a lot of memorable images. Did I miss a few shots along the way? Sure, I did. But on the flip side, I got some great photos I would have otherwise missed because I forced myself to visualize every scene at 35mm instead of mentally switching to a different focal length. Now, no matter what camera I happen to be testing, one of the first lenses I always put on the front is a 35mm (or equivalent).

Sam Spencer

Sam chose a specialty lens. This image was shot using a similar lens, albeit with a different focal length. Do you know what it is?

Forever? Forever ever? I’m sure I could do the practical thing and say ’24-70’, or be a motorsports spectator the rest of my life and say ’70-200’, but I’m weirder than that. If it was a lens for me to shoot what makes me happy for the rest of my days, it’d be the Nikon PC-E 85mm F2.8 for product, portrait, and automotive photography. The maximum magnification of 1:2 means I can get close for product, and use the tilt to either get more of the product in focus, or isolate the focal point. I like medium telephoto lenses for the narrower field of view that makes selecting a background out of a busy environment much easier, and even F2.8 can be bright enough to blur the background at 85mm. I’m a control freak, not a speed demon, so I’ll be watching eBay for a copy…

Dan Bracaglia

Dan's image was shot with the equivalent of his favorite focal length. The image was cropped in slightly, still any ideas what he chose?

The first and only lens I'd owned for many years was a 50mm. But as my interest in photography (and other activities) grew I found myself yearning for other lenses. If you'd asked me this question when I was 16 years old and shooting a lot of skateboarding, I probably would have said a fisheye is my favorite lens. If you'd asked me again when I was 18 or 19 years old and starting to get into photojournalism, I'd probably have said 24mm. If you'd ask me when I was 24-28 years-old, and reviewing cameras for a living, all why exploring the streets of NYC/Seattle, I most likely would have said 35mm. But these days, I've come full circle and 50mm is my focal length of choice if I could only shoot one lens for the rest of my life.

Sometimes overlooked or seen as pedestrian, there are plenty of reasons why a normal 50mm lens is number one in my heart and bag: For starters the nifty fifty is as practical as they come. Most manufacturers make a reasonably fast, yet inexpensive 50mm equiv. Moreover, I'd argue its the most versatile focal length of them all: in a pinch it can be used for portraiture or detail shots, in the same way a tele can. And it can also be used in some capacity as a wide-angle, if you have the room to move (I've shot many concerts with just a 50mm, without feeling a need for something wider). And if you get a reversal ring, you can mount a nifty fifty backward and use it for macro shooting!

For years I've carried a Nikon 50mm F1.8 in my bag as the ultimate backup for just about anything I'm shooting: weddings, concerts, portrait sessions, travel. It's light cheap and versatile. But these days, the lens spends as much time mounted on my camera as glass I own costing 6x as much.

Jeff Keller

Jeff chose a workhorse zoom. Can you guess which one?

Since I’m always shooting with something work-related, I don’t get to use my EOS 5D III very often. But when I do, my daily driver is the Canon EF 24-105mm F4L IS USM. Not the most exciting choice of lens, I admit, but for land- and cityscapes that I enjoy taking, it definitely fits the bill. The image stabilization works well, it focuses silently and the weatherproofing is helpful when you’re out at Snoqualmie Falls and it’s throwing mist. Naturally, not long after I bought the 24-105, the Mark II arrived, with new optics, better autofocus and new coatings to reduce lens flare and ghosting. The lens is larger and heavier than my Mark I model, which I consider a good size for its focal length and aperture.

It’s nice to see that Canon isn’t the only one offering a lens with this focal range. Sigma’s 24-105mm F4 DG OS HSM Art lens is even bigger and heavier than Canon’s Mark II version, but the build quality is excellent. And, according to DxO, it’s also a sharper lens. And did I mention that it’s a bit cheaper? Thus, if I was stranded in a world with wonderful landscapes and cool architecture, the Sigma 24-105mm F4 Art would be permanently mounted on my 5D III.

Vladimir Bobov

Vladimir is our newest DPR team member. He makes sure the site works properly. Any guesses what focal length he chose?

I wasn't sure whether to bother praising the 50mm focal length. I figured that it's so common, that talking about it would be either redundant at best or boring at worst. However, sorting my photo collection by focal length showed that I took more photos with a 50mm (on a 35mm full frame camera) than with any other lens, including the more versatile zooms.

So why pick the "normal" prime for the rest of my life? Versatility and portability. It's the perfect lens for candid portraits in a casual setting - fast enough to use in low light, and small enough to not intimidate the subject. Wide enough for full-body and group portraits, and good enough for head-and-shoulders (especially when paired with an APS-C camera). I've also been able to use it effectively for landscapes, close-ups, product, and food photography. So although I'd certainly miss the other focal lengths, with enough creativity and trickery, the 50 and I could live happily ever after.

Richard Butler

Richard chose a favorite lens that doesn't yet exist. This image falls toward the tele-end of his made-up range. Can you guess what it is?

If I have to live within the constraints of reality, then I’d be tempted to say a 35mm just for its Goldilocks-like flexibility. But, it seems only fair that if I agree to be bound by an arbitrary restriction, I’m should get to relax the need to limit myself to lenses that actually exist. The problem is that I really like 35-40mm equivalent lenses but also love something around 90mm equiv. for portraiture and a lifetime seems like a long time to have to go without.

Equally, if I have a 24 or 28mm equivalent lens, I get back into the habit of ‘seeing’ wide-angle scenes and I’m sure there’s some aphorism about making one’s life spicy. This is why I’m pushing back against reality: the need for a 90mm equiv, rules out the use of a 24-70mm equiv and, over time, the limiting equivalent aperture of an 18-55mm F2.8 on APS-C would leave me frustrated. Sigma’s 18-35mm F1.8 is a work of genius that I wish were available on mirrorless systems, so I’m going to put my faith in the men and women of Aizu and trust that they’ll make me a 16-60mm F2 for APS-C mirrorless. I mean, how hard could it be?

Allison Johnson

Allison chose a specific zoom lens, can you guess which one?

Maybe a truly bold person picks a prime to shoot with for the rest of their life, but I’m going to play it safe and pick a zoom, whatever that says about me. The Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 is not the very best lens I’ve ever shot with, but it’s fairly versatile, sturdy and relatively small. It’s the right size (along with the OM-D cameras I’ve used it with) so that it’s doable to carry around all day in my purse, and I like having a fairly wide 24mm equiv. out to 80mm for a little more reach when I want it.

Really, it’s not special in any way except that it’s a solid standard zoom for a system I like. I’ve had many happy days shooting with it, including one wonderful afternoon at a defunct nuclear power plant (seriously, it was awesome). If picking a zoom makes me basic, then so be it.

Barney Britton

Any guesses what lens Barney chose?

If I was trying to impress you, and if I wasn’t such a died-in-the-wool contrarian, my choice for ‘go-to’ camera and lens would be a Nikon D810 and a 35mm lens – something good, like the Nikon 35mm F1.4 or Sigma Art 35mm F1.4, or perhaps an old ’sleeper' favorite, like the Nikon AF-D 35mm F2, for the hipsters. If you were to ask me what focal length I use most, I’d say that probably around 90% of my photography could be achieved with a 35mm lens. If you were to ask some of my comment-thread critics on the other hand, they’d tell you that 90% of my photography could be achieved with an iPhone, or their 5-year old daughter, or their blind grandmother, or their blind grandmother’s 5 year-old iPhone, but that’s beside the point.

But I’m not trying to impress you. Which is why I’m going to cheat a little, and make a case for a zoom lens, and one that doesn’t get a lot of love in these parts – the Nikon AF-S 24-120mm F4. The current version of Nikon’s ‘street-sweeper’ do-everything zoom, it’s true that the 24-120mm isn’t the sharpest lens in Nikon’s stable, or the best-controlled when it comes to distortion, or the toughest, and all the rest. It’s a kit zoom. A pretty good kit zoom, in my opinion, but still. So why – if I had to choose only one lens – would I pick the 24-120mm? Because it just works. I know that if I go out shooting with the D810 and 24-120mm, come rain or shine (or snow, or hail, or desert dust, or any of the other nasties I’ve thrown at it) I can capture pretty much anything I might want or need to. It’s almost boring. I wish I had more of an excuse to attach other lenses, but to be honest, most of the time I just don’t. I actually sold a bunch of my Nikon glass recently, because it wasn’t getting used.

The image above was taken just after a torrential downpour last December which turned into a hail storm. The camera and lens were - like me - soaked. Could I have taken it on something better? Maybe, but I wouldn’t have wanted to risk damaging a more expensive lens in those conditions. And would it be a better picture had I done so? Or a happier memory? No.

What would you choose?

If you could only shoot with one lens, or one focal length for the rest of your life, what would you choose? Feel free to share your answer in the comments! 

from DIYS http://ift.tt/2mHg4L7

[exfrenchdorsl4p0a1]

Ask the staff: Pick one focal length or lens to rule them all

Can you guess the focal length? Photo by Wenmei Hill

We handle a lot of glass in the DPReview office, but there always seems to be a handful of lenses or fixed lens cameras that everyone is extra eager to lay some paws on. Which got us thinking of a fun hypothetical: If we could only choose one lens to use for the rest of time, what would it be?

To keep things interesting, and to vary the answers, we opened the question up to include one lens in particular or one focal length. The photograph that accompanies each answer was shot with that staff member's chosen lens or focal length. We purposely didn't list the gear used. See if you can guess!

Carey Rose

Any guesses what focal length Carey gravitates toward?

Before I worked at DPReview, I would have immediately chosen the 35mm focal length. Now that I’ve worked at DPReview for some time, I have to say… I haven’t really changed my mind.

Splurging on a battered old D700 after college left me without enough money to pick up anything approaching a fast zoom, so I started building up a collection of affordable Nikon AF-D primes: a 50mm F1.8, a 35mm F2, an 85mm F1.8. I quickly realized that I just wasn’t a zoom guy, and the 35mm F2 was glued to my camera most of the time. A used X100 was a natural next step for a more portable setup when I scored a good deal on one. Even today, after using lens after lens and camera after camera for review after review, the 35mm focal length remains my go-to. It doesn’t matter whether I’m headed to shoot an event, a wedding, an environmental portrait, or just strolling around when some nice light hits, it’s more likely I’ll have a 35mm lens with me than any other.

Wenmei Hill

Wenmei likes versatility. Did she choose a zoom or a prime?

I’m going to take the easy way out and pick a zoom lens rather than a single focal length. My choice is the Nikon AF-S 24-120mm F4G ED VR, and my excuse is that the majority of shooting I do (documentary lifestyle and candid portraiture) requires a flexibility that is difficult to get with a single focal length.

I’m choosing the 24-120mm even though it’s not one of my ‘favorite’ lenses because it is relatively small, lightweight and versatile enough to get the variety of shots I look for when photographing. I am able to immerse myself in a scene at 24mm but also step back for a portrait at 120mm, using the longer focal length to get pleasing bokeh and separation from the background.

Shooting it on a DX-format body gives me even more reach at the long end (180mm equivalent) for portraits. I already use this lens as my everyday lens when I don’t have a particular creative plan and want to be prepared for anything, so it’s the one I’d choose if I had to pick just one.

Dale Baskin

Dale chose a specific focal length that he didn't always love. Can you guess what it is?

This will probably seem like I’m going for the low hanging fruit, but I would choose 35mm. I used to be a solid 50mm guy, and if I wanted to go a bit wider I switched to 28mm, skipping 35mm entirely. My shift to 35mm began in earnest when I started shooting Fujifilm’s X100 series of cameras, which have a 35mm equivalent lens.

Now, one could argue that I’m choosing 35mm because I really enjoy the camera to which it’s attached, but that’s not the case. In fact, when I first started shooting the X100 I enjoyed it despite the focal length. It was actually the one thing I didn’t care for about the camera. However, as I continued to use it, I learned to adjust my style to take advantage of the 35mm field of view. After a few months, I found myself really enjoying it, so I decided to do a little experiment: I was about to embark on a trip to Brazil and decided to shoot my entire adventure at 35mm. The idea was both exciting and scary; I knew from experience that I would be giving up some shots by not having the right lens. However, I like to travel light, and I hate carrying camera gear, so I threw down the gauntlet and accepted my own challenge.

The upshot? I had a great trip and captured a lot of memorable images. Did I miss a few shots along the way? Sure, I did. But on the flip side, I got some great photos I would have otherwise missed because I forced myself to visualize every scene at 35mm instead of mentally switching to a different focal length. Now, no matter what camera I happen to be testing, one of the first lenses I always put on the front is a 35mm (or equivalent).

Sam Spencer

Sam chose a specialty lens. This image was shot using a similar lens, albeit with a different focal length. Do you know what it is?

Forever? Forever ever? I’m sure I could do the practical thing and say ’24-70’, or be a motorsports spectator the rest of my life and say ’70-200’, but I’m weirder than that. If it was a lens for me to shoot what makes me happy for the rest of my days, it’d be the Nikon PC-E 85mm F2.8 for product, portrait, and automotive photography. The maximum magnification of 1:2 means I can get close for product, and use the tilt to either get more of the product in focus, or isolate the focal point. I like medium telephoto lenses for the narrower field of view that makes selecting a background out of a busy environment much easier, and even F2.8 can be bright enough to blur the background at 85mm. I’m a control freak, not a speed demon, so I’ll be watching eBay for a copy…

Dan Bracaglia

Dan's image was shot with the equivalent of his favorite focal length. The image was cropped in slightly, still any ideas what he chose?

The first and only lens I'd owned for many years was a 50mm. But as my interest in photography (and other activities) grew I found myself yearning for other lenses. If you'd asked me this question when I was 16 years old and shooting a lot of skateboarding, I probably would have said a fisheye is my favorite lens. If you'd asked me again when I was 18 or 19 years old and starting to get into photojournalism, I'd probably have said 24mm. If you'd ask me when I was 24-28 years-old, and reviewing cameras for a living, all why exploring the streets of NYC/Seattle, I most likely would have said 35mm. But these days, I've come full circle and 50mm is my focal length of choice if I could only shoot one lens for the rest of my life.

Sometimes overlooked or seen as pedestrian, there are plenty of reasons why a normal 50mm lens is number one in my heart and bag: For starters the nifty fifty is as practical as they come. Most manufacturers make a reasonably fast, yet inexpensive 50mm equiv. Moreover, I'd argue its the most versatile focal length of them all: in a pinch it can be used for portraiture or detail shots, in the same way a tele can. And it can also be used in some capacity as a wide-angle, if you have the room to move (I've shot many concerts with just a 50mm, without feeling a need for something wider). And if you get a reversal ring, you can mount a nifty fifty backward and use it for macro shooting!

For years I've carried a Nikon 50mm F1.8 in my bag as the ultimate backup for just about anything I'm shooting: weddings, concerts, portrait sessions, travel. It's light cheap and versatile. But these days, the lens spends as much time mounted on my camera as glass I own costing 6x as much.

Jeff Keller

Jeff chose a workhorse zoom. Can you guess which one?

Since I’m always shooting with something work-related, I don’t get to use my EOS 5D III very often. But when I do, my daily driver is the Canon EF 24-105mm F4L IS USM. Not the most exciting choice of lens, I admit, but for land- and cityscapes that I enjoy taking, it definitely fits the bill. The image stabilization works well, it focuses silently and the weatherproofing is helpful when you’re out at Snoqualmie Falls and it’s throwing mist. Naturally, not long after I bought the 24-105, the Mark II arrived, with new optics, better autofocus and new coatings to reduce lens flare and ghosting. The lens is larger and heavier than my Mark I model, which I consider a good size for its focal length and aperture.

It’s nice to see that Canon isn’t the only one offering a lens with this focal range. Sigma’s 24-105mm F4 DG OS HSM Art lens is even bigger and heavier than Canon’s Mark II version, but the build quality is excellent. And, according to DxO, it’s also a sharper lens. And did I mention that it’s a bit cheaper? Thus, if I was stranded in a world with wonderful landscapes and cool architecture, the Sigma 24-105mm F4 Art would be permanently mounted on my 5D III.

Vladimir Bobov

Vladimir is our newest DPR team member. He makes sure the site works properly. Any guesses what focal length he chose?

I wasn't sure whether to bother praising the 50mm focal length. I figured that it's so common, that talking about it would be either redundant at best or boring at worst. However, sorting my photo collection by focal length showed that I took more photos with a 50mm (on a 35mm full frame camera) than with any other lens, including the more versatile zooms.

So why pick the "normal" prime for the rest of my life? Versatility and portability. It's the perfect lens for candid portraits in a casual setting - fast enough to use in low light, and small enough to not intimidate the subject. Wide enough for full-body and group portraits, and good enough for head-and-shoulders (especially when paired with an APS-C camera). I've also been able to use it effectively for landscapes, close-ups, product, and food photography. So although I'd certainly miss the other focal lengths, with enough creativity and trickery, the 50 and I could live happily ever after.

Richard Butler

Richard chose a favorite lens that doesn't yet exist. This image falls toward the tele-end of his made-up range. Can you guess what it is?

If I have to live within the constraints of reality, then I’d be tempted to say a 35mm just for its Goldilocks-like flexibility. But, it seems only fair that if I agree to be bound by an arbitrary restriction, I’m should get to relax the need to limit myself to lenses that actually exist. The problem is that I really like 35-40mm equivalent lenses but also love something around 90mm equiv. for portraiture and a lifetime seems like a long time to have to go without.

Equally, if I have a 24 or 28mm equivalent lens, I get back into the habit of ‘seeing’ wide-angle scenes and I’m sure there’s some aphorism about making one’s life spicy. This is why I’m pushing back against reality: the need for a 90mm equiv, rules out the use of a 24-70mm equiv and, over time, the limiting equivalent aperture of an 18-55mm F2.8 on APS-C would leave me frustrated. Sigma’s 18-35mm F1.8 is a work of genius that I wish were available on mirrorless systems, so I’m going to put my faith in the men and women of Aizu and trust that they’ll make me a 16-60mm F2 for APS-C mirrorless. I mean, how hard could it be?

Allison Johnson

Allison chose a specific zoom lens, can you guess which one?

Maybe a truly bold person picks a prime to shoot with for the rest of their life, but I’m going to play it safe and pick a zoom, whatever that says about me. The Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 is not the very best lens I’ve ever shot with, but it’s fairly versatile, sturdy and relatively small. It’s the right size (along with the OM-D cameras I’ve used it with) so that it’s doable to carry around all day in my purse, and I like having a fairly wide 24mm equiv. out to 80mm for a little more reach when I want it.

Really, it’s not special in any way except that it’s a solid standard zoom for a system I like. I’ve had many happy days shooting with it, including one wonderful afternoon at a defunct nuclear power plant (seriously, it was awesome). If picking a zoom makes me basic, then so be it.

Barney Britton

Any guesses what lens Barney chose?

If I was trying to impress you, and if I wasn’t such a died-in-the-wool contrarian, my choice for ‘go-to’ camera and lens would be a Nikon D810 and a 35mm lens – something good, like the Nikon 35mm F1.4 or Sigma Art 35mm F1.4, or perhaps an old ’sleeper' favorite, like the Nikon AF-D 35mm F2, for the hipsters. If you were to ask me what focal length I use most, I’d say that probably around 90% of my photography could be achieved with a 35mm lens. If you were to ask some of my comment-thread critics on the other hand, they’d tell you that 90% of my photography could be achieved with an iPhone, or their 5-year old daughter, or their blind grandmother, or their blind grandmother’s 5 year-old iPhone, but that’s beside the point.

But I’m not trying to impress you. Which is why I’m going to cheat a little, and make a case for a zoom lens, and one that doesn’t get a lot of love in these parts – the Nikon AF-S 24-120mm F4. The current version of Nikon’s ‘street-sweeper’ do-everything zoom, it’s true that the 24-120mm isn’t the sharpest lens in Nikon’s stable, or the best-controlled when it comes to distortion, or the toughest, and all the rest. It’s a kit zoom. A pretty good kit zoom, in my opinion, but still. So why – if I had to choose only one lens – would I pick the 24-120mm? Because it just works. I know that if I go out shooting with the D810 and 24-120mm, come rain or shine (or snow, or hail, or desert dust, or any of the other nasties I’ve thrown at it) I can capture pretty much anything I might want or need to. It’s almost boring. I wish I had more of an excuse to attach other lenses, but to be honest, most of the time I just don’t. I actually sold a bunch of my Nikon glass recently, because it wasn’t getting used.

The image above was taken just after a torrential downpour last December which turned into a hail storm. The camera and lens were - like me - soaked. Could I have taken it on something better? Maybe, but I wouldn’t have wanted to risk damaging a more expensive lens in those conditions. And would it be a better picture had I done so? Or a happier memory? No.

What would you choose?

If you could only shoot with one lens, or one focal length for the rest of your life, what would you choose? Feel free to share your answer in the comments! 

from DIYS http://ift.tt/2mHg4L7

[pat78701]

Ask the staff: Pick one focal length or lens to rule them all

Can you guess the focal length? Photo by Wenmei Hill

We handle a lot of glass in the DPReview office, but there always seems to be a handful of lenses or fixed lens cameras that everyone is extra eager to lay some paws on. Which got us thinking of a fun hypothetical: If we could only choose one lens to use for the rest of time, what would it be?

To keep things interesting, and to vary the answers, we opened the question up to include one lens in particular or one focal length. The photograph that accompanies each answer was shot with that staff member's chosen lens or focal length. We purposely didn't list the gear used. See if you can guess!

Carey Rose

Any guesses what focal length Carey gravitates toward?

Before I worked at DPReview, I would have immediately chosen the 35mm focal length. Now that I’ve worked at DPReview for some time, I have to say… I haven’t really changed my mind.

Splurging on a battered old D700 after college left me without enough money to pick up anything approaching a fast zoom, so I started building up a collection of affordable Nikon AF-D primes: a 50mm F1.8, a 35mm F2, an 85mm F1.8. I quickly realized that I just wasn’t a zoom guy, and the 35mm F2 was glued to my camera most of the time. A used X100 was a natural next step for a more portable setup when I scored a good deal on one. Even today, after using lens after lens and camera after camera for review after review, the 35mm focal length remains my go-to. It doesn’t matter whether I’m headed to shoot an event, a wedding, an environmental portrait, or just strolling around when some nice light hits, it’s more likely I’ll have a 35mm lens with me than any other.

Wenmei Hill

Wenmei likes versatility. Did she choose a zoom or a prime?

I’m going to take the easy way out and pick a zoom lens rather than a single focal length. My choice is the Nikon AF-S 24-120mm F4G ED VR, and my excuse is that the majority of shooting I do (documentary lifestyle and candid portraiture) requires a flexibility that is difficult to get with a single focal length.

I’m choosing the 24-120mm even though it’s not one of my ‘favorite’ lenses because it is relatively small, lightweight and versatile enough to get the variety of shots I look for when photographing. I am able to immerse myself in a scene at 24mm but also step back for a portrait at 120mm, using the longer focal length to get pleasing bokeh and separation from the background.

Shooting it on a DX-format body gives me even more reach at the long end (180mm equivalent) for portraits. I already use this lens as my everyday lens when I don’t have a particular creative plan and want to be prepared for anything, so it’s the one I’d choose if I had to pick just one.

Dale Baskin

Dale chose a specific focal length that he didn't always love. Can you guess what it is?

This will probably seem like I’m going for the low hanging fruit, but I would choose 35mm. I used to be a solid 50mm guy, and if I wanted to go a bit wider I switched to 28mm, skipping 35mm entirely. My shift to 35mm began in earnest when I started shooting Fujifilm’s X100 series of cameras, which have a 35mm equivalent lens.

Now, one could argue that I’m choosing 35mm because I really enjoy the camera to which it’s attached, but that’s not the case. In fact, when I first started shooting the X100 I enjoyed it despite the focal length. It was actually the one thing I didn’t care for about the camera. However, as I continued to use it, I learned to adjust my style to take advantage of the 35mm field of view. After a few months, I found myself really enjoying it, so I decided to do a little experiment: I was about to embark on a trip to Brazil and decided to shoot my entire adventure at 35mm. The idea was both exciting and scary; I knew from experience that I would be giving up some shots by not having the right lens. However, I like to travel light, and I hate carrying camera gear, so I threw down the gauntlet and accepted my own challenge.

The upshot? I had a great trip and captured a lot of memorable images. Did I miss a few shots along the way? Sure, I did. But on the flip side, I got some great photos I would have otherwise missed because I forced myself to visualize every scene at 35mm instead of mentally switching to a different focal length. Now, no matter what camera I happen to be testing, one of the first lenses I always put on the front is a 35mm (or equivalent).

Sam Spencer

Sam chose a specialty lens. This image was shot using a similar lens, albeit with a different focal length. Do you know what it is?

Forever? Forever ever? I’m sure I could do the practical thing and say ’24-70’, or be a motorsports spectator the rest of my life and say ’70-200’, but I’m weirder than that. If it was a lens for me to shoot what makes me happy for the rest of my days, it’d be the Nikon PC-E 85mm F2.8 for product, portrait, and automotive photography. The maximum magnification of 1:2 means I can get close for product, and use the tilt to either get more of the product in focus, or isolate the focal point. I like medium telephoto lenses for the narrower field of view that makes selecting a background out of a busy environment much easier, and even F2.8 can be bright enough to blur the background at 85mm. I’m a control freak, not a speed demon, so I’ll be watching eBay for a copy…

Dan Bracaglia

Dan's image was shot with the equivalent of his favorite focal length. The image was cropped in slightly, still any ideas what he chose?

The first and only lens I'd owned for many years was a 50mm. But as my interest in photography (and other activities) grew I found myself yearning for other lenses. If you'd asked me this question when I was 16 years old and shooting a lot of skateboarding, I probably would have said a fisheye is my favorite lens. If you'd asked me again when I was 18 or 19 years old and starting to get into photojournalism, I'd probably have said 24mm. If you'd ask me when I was 24-28 years-old, and reviewing cameras for a living, all why exploring the streets of NYC/Seattle, I most likely would have said 35mm. But these days, I've come full circle and 50mm is my focal length of choice if I could only shoot one lens for the rest of my life.

Sometimes overlooked or seen as pedestrian, there are plenty of reasons why a normal 50mm lens is number one in my heart and bag: For starters the nifty fifty is as practical as they come. Most manufacturers make a reasonably fast, yet inexpensive 50mm equiv. Moreover, I'd argue its the most versatile focal length of them all: in a pinch it can be used for portraiture or detail shots, in the same way a tele can. And it can also be used in some capacity as a wide-angle, if you have the room to move (I've shot many concerts with just a 50mm, without feeling a need for something wider). And if you get a reversal ring, you can mount a nifty fifty backward and use it for macro shooting!

For years I've carried a Nikon 50mm F1.8 in my bag as the ultimate backup for just about anything I'm shooting: weddings, concerts, portrait sessions, travel. It's light cheap and versatile. But these days, the lens spends as much time mounted on my camera as glass I own costing 6x as much.

Jeff Keller

Jeff chose a workhorse zoom. Can you guess which one?

Since I’m always shooting with something work-related, I don’t get to use my EOS 5D III very often. But when I do, my daily driver is the Canon EF 24-105mm F4L IS USM. Not the most exciting choice of lens, I admit, but for land- and cityscapes that I enjoy taking, it definitely fits the bill. The image stabilization works well, it focuses silently and the weatherproofing is helpful when you’re out at Snoqualmie Falls and it’s throwing mist. Naturally, not long after I bought the 24-105, the Mark II arrived, with new optics, better autofocus and new coatings to reduce lens flare and ghosting. The lens is larger and heavier than my Mark I model, which I consider a good size for its focal length and aperture.

It’s nice to see that Canon isn’t the only one offering a lens with this focal range. Sigma’s 24-105mm F4 DG OS HSM Art lens is even bigger and heavier than Canon’s Mark II version, but the build quality is excellent. And, according to DxO, it’s also a sharper lens. And did I mention that it’s a bit cheaper? Thus, if I was stranded in a world with wonderful landscapes and cool architecture, the Sigma 24-105mm F4 Art would be permanently mounted on my 5D III.

Vladimir Bobov

Vladimir is our newest DPR team member. He makes sure the site works properly. Any guesses what focal length he chose?

I wasn't sure whether to bother praising the 50mm focal length. I figured that it's so common, that talking about it would be either redundant at best or boring at worst. However, sorting my photo collection by focal length showed that I took more photos with a 50mm (on a 35mm full frame camera) than with any other lens, including the more versatile zooms.

So why pick the "normal" prime for the rest of my life? Versatility and portability. It's the perfect lens for candid portraits in a casual setting - fast enough to use in low light, and small enough to not intimidate the subject. Wide enough for full-body and group portraits, and good enough for head-and-shoulders (especially when paired with an APS-C camera). I've also been able to use it effectively for landscapes, close-ups, product, and food photography. So although I'd certainly miss the other focal lengths, with enough creativity and trickery, the 50 and I could live happily ever after.

Richard Butler

Richard chose a favorite lens that doesn't yet exist. This image falls toward the tele-end of his made-up range. Can you guess what it is?

If I have to live within the constraints of reality, then I’d be tempted to say a 35mm just for its Goldilocks-like flexibility. But, it seems only fair that if I agree to be bound by an arbitrary restriction, I’m should get to relax the need to limit myself to lenses that actually exist. The problem is that I really like 35-40mm equivalent lenses but also love something around 90mm equiv. for portraiture and a lifetime seems like a long time to have to go without.

Equally, if I have a 24 or 28mm equivalent lens, I get back into the habit of ‘seeing’ wide-angle scenes and I’m sure there’s some aphorism about making one’s life spicy. This is why I’m pushing back against reality: the need for a 90mm equiv, rules out the use of a 24-70mm equiv and, over time, the limiting equivalent aperture of an 18-55mm F2.8 on APS-C would leave me frustrated. Sigma’s 18-35mm F1.8 is a work of genius that I wish were available on mirrorless systems, so I’m going to put my faith in the men and women of Aizu and trust that they’ll make me a 16-60mm F2 for APS-C mirrorless. I mean, how hard could it be?

Allison Johnson

Allison chose a specific zoom lens, can you guess which one?

Maybe a truly bold person picks a prime to shoot with for the rest of their life, but I’m going to play it safe and pick a zoom, whatever that says about me. The Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 is not the very best lens I’ve ever shot with, but it’s fairly versatile, sturdy and relatively small. It’s the right size (along with the OM-D cameras I’ve used it with) so that it’s doable to carry around all day in my purse, and I like having a fairly wide 24mm equiv. out to 80mm for a little more reach when I want it.

Really, it’s not special in any way except that it’s a solid standard zoom for a system I like. I’ve had many happy days shooting with it, including one wonderful afternoon at a defunct nuclear power plant (seriously, it was awesome). If picking a zoom makes me basic, then so be it.

Barney Britton

Any guesses what lens Barney chose?

If I was trying to impress you, and if I wasn’t such a died-in-the-wool contrarian, my choice for ‘go-to’ camera and lens would be a Nikon D810 and a 35mm lens – something good, like the Nikon 35mm F1.4 or Sigma Art 35mm F1.4, or perhaps an old ’sleeper' favorite, like the Nikon AF-D 35mm F2, for the hipsters. If you were to ask me what focal length I use most, I’d say that probably around 90% of my photography could be achieved with a 35mm lens. If you were to ask some of my comment-thread critics on the other hand, they’d tell you that 90% of my photography could be achieved with an iPhone, or their 5-year old daughter, or their blind grandmother, or their blind grandmother’s 5 year-old iPhone, but that’s beside the point.

But I’m not trying to impress you. Which is why I’m going to cheat a little, and make a case for a zoom lens, and one that doesn’t get a lot of love in these parts – the Nikon AF-S 24-120mm F4. The current version of Nikon’s ‘street-sweeper’ do-everything zoom, it’s true that the 24-120mm isn’t the sharpest lens in Nikon’s stable, or the best-controlled when it comes to distortion, or the toughest, and all the rest. It’s a kit zoom. A pretty good kit zoom, in my opinion, but still. So why – if I had to choose only one lens – would I pick the 24-120mm? Because it just works. I know that if I go out shooting with the D810 and 24-120mm, come rain or shine (or snow, or hail, or desert dust, or any of the other nasties I’ve thrown at it) I can capture pretty much anything I might want or need to. It’s almost boring. I wish I had more of an excuse to attach other lenses, but to be honest, most of the time I just don’t. I actually sold a bunch of my Nikon glass recently, because it wasn’t getting used.

The image above was taken just after a torrential downpour last December which turned into a hail storm. The camera and lens were - like me - soaked. Could I have taken it on something better? Maybe, but I wouldn’t have wanted to risk damaging a more expensive lens in those conditions. And would it be a better picture had I done so? Or a happier memory? No.

What would you choose?

If you could only shoot with one lens, or one focal length for the rest of your life, what would you choose? Feel free to share your answer in the comments! 

from DIYS http://ift.tt/2mHg4L7

[repwincoml4a0a5]

Ask the staff: Pick one focal length or lens to rule them all

Can you guess the focal length? Photo by Wenmei Hill

We handle a lot of glass in the DPReview office, but there always seems to be a handful of lenses or fixed lens cameras that everyone is extra eager to lay some paws on. Which got us thinking of a fun hypothetical: If we could only choose one lens to use for the rest of time, what would it be?

To keep things interesting, and to vary the answers, we opened the question up to include one lens in particular or one focal length. The photograph that accompanies each answer was shot with that staff member's chosen lens or focal length. We purposely didn't list the gear used. See if you can guess!

Carey Rose

Any guesses what focal length Carey gravitates toward?

Before I worked at DPReview, I would have immediately chosen the 35mm focal length. Now that I’ve worked at DPReview for some time, I have to say… I haven’t really changed my mind.

Splurging on a battered old D700 after college left me without enough money to pick up anything approaching a fast zoom, so I started building up a collection of affordable Nikon AF-D primes: a 50mm F1.8, a 35mm F2, an 85mm F1.8. I quickly realized that I just wasn’t a zoom guy, and the 35mm F2 was glued to my camera most of the time. A used X100 was a natural next step for a more portable setup when I scored a good deal on one. Even today, after using lens after lens and camera after camera for review after review, the 35mm focal length remains my go-to. It doesn’t matter whether I’m headed to shoot an event, a wedding, an environmental portrait, or just strolling around when some nice light hits, it’s more likely I’ll have a 35mm lens with me than any other.

Wenmei Hill

Wenmei likes versatility. Did she choose a zoom or a prime?

I’m going to take the easy way out and pick a zoom lens rather than a single focal length. My choice is the Nikon AF-S 24-120mm F4G ED VR, and my excuse is that the majority of shooting I do (documentary lifestyle and candid portraiture) requires a flexibility that is difficult to get with a single focal length.

I’m choosing the 24-120mm even though it’s not one of my ‘favorite’ lenses because it is relatively small, lightweight and versatile enough to get the variety of shots I look for when photographing. I am able to immerse myself in a scene at 24mm but also step back for a portrait at 120mm, using the longer focal length to get pleasing bokeh and separation from the background.

Shooting it on a DX-format body gives me even more reach at the long end (180mm equivalent) for portraits. I already use this lens as my everyday lens when I don’t have a particular creative plan and want to be prepared for anything, so it’s the one I’d choose if I had to pick just one.

Dale Baskin

Dale chose a specific focal length that he didn't always love. Can you guess what it is?

This will probably seem like I’m going for the low hanging fruit, but I would choose 35mm. I used to be a solid 50mm guy, and if I wanted to go a bit wider I switched to 28mm, skipping 35mm entirely. My shift to 35mm began in earnest when I started shooting Fujifilm’s X100 series of cameras, which have a 35mm equivalent lens.

Now, one could argue that I’m choosing 35mm because I really enjoy the camera to which it’s attached, but that’s not the case. In fact, when I first started shooting the X100 I enjoyed it despite the focal length. It was actually the one thing I didn’t care for about the camera. However, as I continued to use it, I learned to adjust my style to take advantage of the 35mm field of view. After a few months, I found myself really enjoying it, so I decided to do a little experiment: I was about to embark on a trip to Brazil and decided to shoot my entire adventure at 35mm. The idea was both exciting and scary; I knew from experience that I would be giving up some shots by not having the right lens. However, I like to travel light, and I hate carrying camera gear, so I threw down the gauntlet and accepted my own challenge.

The upshot? I had a great trip and captured a lot of memorable images. Did I miss a few shots along the way? Sure, I did. But on the flip side, I got some great photos I would have otherwise missed because I forced myself to visualize every scene at 35mm instead of mentally switching to a different focal length. Now, no matter what camera I happen to be testing, one of the first lenses I always put on the front is a 35mm (or equivalent).

Sam Spencer

Sam chose a specialty lens. This image was shot using a similar lens, albeit with a different focal length. Do you know what it is?

Forever? Forever ever? I’m sure I could do the practical thing and say ’24-70’, or be a motorsports spectator the rest of my life and say ’70-200’, but I’m weirder than that. If it was a lens for me to shoot what makes me happy for the rest of my days, it’d be the Nikon PC-E 85mm F2.8 for product, portrait, and automotive photography. The maximum magnification of 1:2 means I can get close for product, and use the tilt to either get more of the product in focus, or isolate the focal point. I like medium telephoto lenses for the narrower field of view that makes selecting a background out of a busy environment much easier, and even F2.8 can be bright enough to blur the background at 85mm. I’m a control freak, not a speed demon, so I’ll be watching eBay for a copy…

Dan Bracaglia

Dan's image was shot with the equivalent of his favorite focal length. The image was cropped in slightly, still any ideas what he chose?

The first and only lens I'd owned for many years was a 50mm. But as my interest in photography (and other activities) grew I found myself yearning for other lenses. If you'd asked me this question when I was 16 years old and shooting a lot of skateboarding, I probably would have said a fisheye is my favorite lens. If you'd asked me again when I was 18 or 19 years old and starting to get into photojournalism, I'd probably have said 24mm. If you'd ask me when I was 24-28 years-old, and reviewing cameras for a living, all why exploring the streets of NYC/Seattle, I most likely would have said 35mm. But these days, I've come full circle and 50mm is my focal length of choice if I could only shoot one lens for the rest of my life.

Sometimes overlooked or seen as pedestrian, there are plenty of reasons why a normal 50mm lens is number one in my heart and bag: For starters the nifty fifty is as practical as they come. Most manufacturers make a reasonably fast, yet inexpensive 50mm equiv. Moreover, I'd argue its the most versatile focal length of them all: in a pinch it can be used for portraiture or detail shots, in the same way a tele can. And it can also be used in some capacity as a wide-angle, if you have the room to move (I've shot many concerts with just a 50mm, without feeling a need for something wider). And if you get a reversal ring, you can mount a nifty fifty backward and use it for macro shooting!

For years I've carried a Nikon 50mm F1.8 in my bag as the ultimate backup for just about anything I'm shooting: weddings, concerts, portrait sessions, travel. It's light cheap and versatile. But these days, the lens spends as much time mounted on my camera as glass I own costing 6x as much.

Jeff Keller

Jeff chose a workhorse zoom. Can you guess which one?

Since I’m always shooting with something work-related, I don’t get to use my EOS 5D III very often. But when I do, my daily driver is the Canon EF 24-105mm F4L IS USM. Not the most exciting choice of lens, I admit, but for land- and cityscapes that I enjoy taking, it definitely fits the bill. The image stabilization works well, it focuses silently and the weatherproofing is helpful when you’re out at Snoqualmie Falls and it’s throwing mist. Naturally, not long after I bought the 24-105, the Mark II arrived, with new optics, better autofocus and new coatings to reduce lens flare and ghosting. The lens is larger and heavier than my Mark I model, which I consider a good size for its focal length and aperture.

It’s nice to see that Canon isn’t the only one offering a lens with this focal range. Sigma’s 24-105mm F4 DG OS HSM Art lens is even bigger and heavier than Canon’s Mark II version, but the build quality is excellent. And, according to DxO, it’s also a sharper lens. And did I mention that it’s a bit cheaper? Thus, if I was stranded in a world with wonderful landscapes and cool architecture, the Sigma 24-105mm F4 Art would be permanently mounted on my 5D III.

Vladimir Bobov

Vladimir is our newest DPR team member. He makes sure the site works properly. Any guesses what focal length he chose?

I wasn't sure whether to bother praising the 50mm focal length. I figured that it's so common, that talking about it would be either redundant at best or boring at worst. However, sorting my photo collection by focal length showed that I took more photos with a 50mm (on a 35mm full frame camera) than with any other lens, including the more versatile zooms.

So why pick the "normal" prime for the rest of my life? Versatility and portability. It's the perfect lens for candid portraits in a casual setting - fast enough to use in low light, and small enough to not intimidate the subject. Wide enough for full-body and group portraits, and good enough for head-and-shoulders (especially when paired with an APS-C camera). I've also been able to use it effectively for landscapes, close-ups, product, and food photography. So although I'd certainly miss the other focal lengths, with enough creativity and trickery, the 50 and I could live happily ever after.

Richard Butler

Richard chose a favorite lens that doesn't yet exist. This image falls toward the tele-end of his made-up range. Can you guess what it is?

If I have to live within the constraints of reality, then I’d be tempted to say a 35mm just for its Goldilocks-like flexibility. But, it seems only fair that if I agree to be bound by an arbitrary restriction, I’m should get to relax the need to limit myself to lenses that actually exist. The problem is that I really like 35-40mm equivalent lenses but also love something around 90mm equiv. for portraiture and a lifetime seems like a long time to have to go without.

Equally, if I have a 24 or 28mm equivalent lens, I get back into the habit of ‘seeing’ wide-angle scenes and I’m sure there’s some aphorism about making one’s life spicy. This is why I’m pushing back against reality: the need for a 90mm equiv, rules out the use of a 24-70mm equiv and, over time, the limiting equivalent aperture of an 18-55mm F2.8 on APS-C would leave me frustrated. Sigma’s 18-35mm F1.8 is a work of genius that I wish were available on mirrorless systems, so I’m going to put my faith in the men and women of Aizu and trust that they’ll make me a 16-60mm F2 for APS-C mirrorless. I mean, how hard could it be?

Allison Johnson

Allison chose a specific zoom lens, can you guess which one?

Maybe a truly bold person picks a prime to shoot with for the rest of their life, but I’m going to play it safe and pick a zoom, whatever that says about me. The Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 is not the very best lens I’ve ever shot with, but it’s fairly versatile, sturdy and relatively small. It’s the right size (along with the OM-D cameras I’ve used it with) so that it’s doable to carry around all day in my purse, and I like having a fairly wide 24mm equiv. out to 80mm for a little more reach when I want it.

Really, it’s not special in any way except that it’s a solid standard zoom for a system I like. I’ve had many happy days shooting with it, including one wonderful afternoon at a defunct nuclear power plant (seriously, it was awesome). If picking a zoom makes me basic, then so be it.

Barney Britton

Any guesses what lens Barney chose?

If I was trying to impress you, and if I wasn’t such a died-in-the-wool contrarian, my choice for ‘go-to’ camera and lens would be a Nikon D810 and a 35mm lens – something good, like the Nikon 35mm F1.4 or Sigma Art 35mm F1.4, or perhaps an old ’sleeper' favorite, like the Nikon AF-D 35mm F2, for the hipsters. If you were to ask me what focal length I use most, I’d say that probably around 90% of my photography could be achieved with a 35mm lens. If you were to ask some of my comment-thread critics on the other hand, they’d tell you that 90% of my photography could be achieved with an iPhone, or their 5-year old daughter, or their blind grandmother, or their blind grandmother’s 5 year-old iPhone, but that’s beside the point.

But I’m not trying to impress you. Which is why I’m going to cheat a little, and make a case for a zoom lens, and one that doesn’t get a lot of love in these parts – the Nikon AF-S 24-120mm F4. The current version of Nikon’s ‘street-sweeper’ do-everything zoom, it’s true that the 24-120mm isn’t the sharpest lens in Nikon’s stable, or the best-controlled when it comes to distortion, or the toughest, and all the rest. It’s a kit zoom. A pretty good kit zoom, in my opinion, but still. So why – if I had to choose only one lens – would I pick the 24-120mm? Because it just works. I know that if I go out shooting with the D810 and 24-120mm, come rain or shine (or snow, or hail, or desert dust, or any of the other nasties I’ve thrown at it) I can capture pretty much anything I might want or need to. It’s almost boring. I wish I had more of an excuse to attach other lenses, but to be honest, most of the time I just don’t. I actually sold a bunch of my Nikon glass recently, because it wasn’t getting used.

The image above was taken just after a torrential downpour last December which turned into a hail storm. The camera and lens were - like me - soaked. Could I have taken it on something better? Maybe, but I wouldn’t have wanted to risk damaging a more expensive lens in those conditions. And would it be a better picture had I done so? Or a happier memory? No.

What would you choose?

If you could only shoot with one lens, or one focal length for the rest of your life, what would you choose? Feel free to share your answer in the comments! 

from DIYS http://ift.tt/2mHg4L7

[porchenclose10019]

Ask the staff: Pick one focal length or lens to rule them all

Can you guess the focal length? Photo by Wenmei Hill

We handle a lot of glass in the DPReview office, but there always seems to be a handful of lenses or fixed lens cameras that everyone is extra eager to lay some paws on. Which got us thinking of a fun hypothetical: If we could only choose one lens to use for the rest of time, what would it be?

To keep things interesting, and to vary the answers, we opened the question up to include one lens in particular or one focal length. The photograph that accompanies each answer was shot with that staff member's chosen lens or focal length. We purposely didn't list the gear used. See if you can guess!

Carey Rose

Any guesses what focal length Carey gravitates toward?

Before I worked at DPReview, I would have immediately chosen the 35mm focal length. Now that I’ve worked at DPReview for some time, I have to say… I haven’t really changed my mind.

Splurging on a battered old D700 after college left me without enough money to pick up anything approaching a fast zoom, so I started building up a collection of affordable Nikon AF-D primes: a 50mm F1.8, a 35mm F2, an 85mm F1.8. I quickly realized that I just wasn’t a zoom guy, and the 35mm F2 was glued to my camera most of the time. A used X100 was a natural next step for a more portable setup when I scored a good deal on one. Even today, after using lens after lens and camera after camera for review after review, the 35mm focal length remains my go-to. It doesn’t matter whether I’m headed to shoot an event, a wedding, an environmental portrait, or just strolling around when some nice light hits, it’s more likely I’ll have a 35mm lens with me than any other.

Wenmei Hill

Wenmei likes versatility. Did she choose a zoom or a prime?

I’m going to take the easy way out and pick a zoom lens rather than a single focal length. My choice is the Nikon AF-S 24-120mm F4G ED VR, and my excuse is that the majority of shooting I do (documentary lifestyle and candid portraiture) requires a flexibility that is difficult to get with a single focal length.

I’m choosing the 24-120mm even though it’s not one of my ‘favorite’ lenses because it is relatively small, lightweight and versatile enough to get the variety of shots I look for when photographing. I am able to immerse myself in a scene at 24mm but also step back for a portrait at 120mm, using the longer focal length to get pleasing bokeh and separation from the background.

Shooting it on a DX-format body gives me even more reach at the long end (180mm equivalent) for portraits. I already use this lens as my everyday lens when I don’t have a particular creative plan and want to be prepared for anything, so it’s the one I’d choose if I had to pick just one.

Dale Baskin

Dale chose a specific focal length that he didn't always love. Can you guess what it is?

This will probably seem like I’m going for the low hanging fruit, but I would choose 35mm. I used to be a solid 50mm guy, and if I wanted to go a bit wider I switched to 28mm, skipping 35mm entirely. My shift to 35mm began in earnest when I started shooting Fujifilm’s X100 series of cameras, which have a 35mm equivalent lens.

Now, one could argue that I’m choosing 35mm because I really enjoy the camera to which it’s attached, but that’s not the case. In fact, when I first started shooting the X100 I enjoyed it despite the focal length. It was actually the one thing I didn’t care for about the camera. However, as I continued to use it, I learned to adjust my style to take advantage of the 35mm field of view. After a few months, I found myself really enjoying it, so I decided to do a little experiment: I was about to embark on a trip to Brazil and decided to shoot my entire adventure at 35mm. The idea was both exciting and scary; I knew from experience that I would be giving up some shots by not having the right lens. However, I like to travel light, and I hate carrying camera gear, so I threw down the gauntlet and accepted my own challenge.

The upshot? I had a great trip and captured a lot of memorable images. Did I miss a few shots along the way? Sure, I did. But on the flip side, I got some great photos I would have otherwise missed because I forced myself to visualize every scene at 35mm instead of mentally switching to a different focal length. Now, no matter what camera I happen to be testing, one of the first lenses I always put on the front is a 35mm (or equivalent).

Sam Spencer

Sam chose a specialty lens. This image was shot using a similar lens, albeit with a different focal length. Do you know what it is?

Forever? Forever ever? I’m sure I could do the practical thing and say ’24-70’, or be a motorsports spectator the rest of my life and say ’70-200’, but I’m weirder than that. If it was a lens for me to shoot what makes me happy for the rest of my days, it’d be the Nikon PC-E 85mm F2.8 for product, portrait, and automotive photography. The maximum magnification of 1:2 means I can get close for product, and use the tilt to either get more of the product in focus, or isolate the focal point. I like medium telephoto lenses for the narrower field of view that makes selecting a background out of a busy environment much easier, and even F2.8 can be bright enough to blur the background at 85mm. I’m a control freak, not a speed demon, so I’ll be watching eBay for a copy…

Dan Bracaglia

Dan's image was shot with the equivalent of his favorite focal length. The image was cropped in slightly, still any ideas what he chose?

The first and only lens I'd owned for many years was a 50mm. But as my interest in photography (and other activities) grew I found myself yearning for other lenses. If you'd asked me this question when I was 16 years old and shooting a lot of skateboarding, I probably would have said a fisheye is my favorite lens. If you'd asked me again when I was 18 or 19 years old and starting to get into photojournalism, I'd probably have said 24mm. If you'd ask me when I was 24-28 years-old, and reviewing cameras for a living, all why exploring the streets of NYC/Seattle, I most likely would have said 35mm. But these days, I've come full circle and 50mm is my focal length of choice if I could only shoot one lens for the rest of my life.

Sometimes overlooked or seen as pedestrian, there are plenty of reasons why a normal 50mm lens is number one in my heart and bag: For starters the nifty fifty is as practical as they come. Most manufacturers make a reasonably fast, yet inexpensive 50mm equiv. Moreover, I'd argue its the most versatile focal length of them all: in a pinch it can be used for portraiture or detail shots, in the same way a tele can. And it can also be used in some capacity as a wide-angle, if you have the room to move (I've shot many concerts with just a 50mm, without feeling a need for something wider). And if you get a reversal ring, you can mount a nifty fifty backward and use it for macro shooting!

For years I've carried a Nikon 50mm F1.8 in my bag as the ultimate backup for just about anything I'm shooting: weddings, concerts, portrait sessions, travel. It's light cheap and versatile. But these days, the lens spends as much time mounted on my camera as glass I own costing 6x as much.

Jeff Keller

Jeff chose a workhorse zoom. Can you guess which one?

Since I’m always shooting with something work-related, I don’t get to use my EOS 5D III very often. But when I do, my daily driver is the Canon EF 24-105mm F4L IS USM. Not the most exciting choice of lens, I admit, but for land- and cityscapes that I enjoy taking, it definitely fits the bill. The image stabilization works well, it focuses silently and the weatherproofing is helpful when you’re out at Snoqualmie Falls and it’s throwing mist. Naturally, not long after I bought the 24-105, the Mark II arrived, with new optics, better autofocus and new coatings to reduce lens flare and ghosting. The lens is larger and heavier than my Mark I model, which I consider a good size for its focal length and aperture.

It’s nice to see that Canon isn’t the only one offering a lens with this focal range. Sigma’s 24-105mm F4 DG OS HSM Art lens is even bigger and heavier than Canon’s Mark II version, but the build quality is excellent. And, according to DxO, it’s also a sharper lens. And did I mention that it’s a bit cheaper? Thus, if I was stranded in a world with wonderful landscapes and cool architecture, the Sigma 24-105mm F4 Art would be permanently mounted on my 5D III.

Vladimir Bobov

Vladimir is our newest DPR team member. He makes sure the site works properly. Any guesses what focal length he chose?

I wasn't sure whether to bother praising the 50mm focal length. I figured that it's so common, that talking about it would be either redundant at best or boring at worst. However, sorting my photo collection by focal length showed that I took more photos with a 50mm (on a 35mm full frame camera) than with any other lens, including the more versatile zooms.

So why pick the "normal" prime for the rest of my life? Versatility and portability. It's the perfect lens for candid portraits in a casual setting - fast enough to use in low light, and small enough to not intimidate the subject. Wide enough for full-body and group portraits, and good enough for head-and-shoulders (especially when paired with an APS-C camera). I've also been able to use it effectively for landscapes, close-ups, product, and food photography. So although I'd certainly miss the other focal lengths, with enough creativity and trickery, the 50 and I could live happily ever after.

Richard Butler

Richard chose a favorite lens that doesn't yet exist. This image falls toward the tele-end of his made-up range. Can you guess what it is?

If I have to live within the constraints of reality, then I’d be tempted to say a 35mm just for its Goldilocks-like flexibility. But, it seems only fair that if I agree to be bound by an arbitrary restriction, I’m should get to relax the need to limit myself to lenses that actually exist. The problem is that I really like 35-40mm equivalent lenses but also love something around 90mm equiv. for portraiture and a lifetime seems like a long time to have to go without.

Equally, if I have a 24 or 28mm equivalent lens, I get back into the habit of ‘seeing’ wide-angle scenes and I’m sure there’s some aphorism about making one’s life spicy. This is why I’m pushing back against reality: the need for a 90mm equiv, rules out the use of a 24-70mm equiv and, over time, the limiting equivalent aperture of an 18-55mm F2.8 on APS-C would leave me frustrated. Sigma’s 18-35mm F1.8 is a work of genius that I wish were available on mirrorless systems, so I’m going to put my faith in the men and women of Aizu and trust that they’ll make me a 16-60mm F2 for APS-C mirrorless. I mean, how hard could it be?

Allison Johnson

Allison chose a specific zoom lens, can you guess which one?

Maybe a truly bold person picks a prime to shoot with for the rest of their life, but I’m going to play it safe and pick a zoom, whatever that says about me. The Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 is not the very best lens I’ve ever shot with, but it’s fairly versatile, sturdy and relatively small. It’s the right size (along with the OM-D cameras I’ve used it with) so that it’s doable to carry around all day in my purse, and I like having a fairly wide 24mm equiv. out to 80mm for a little more reach when I want it.

Really, it’s not special in any way except that it’s a solid standard zoom for a system I like. I’ve had many happy days shooting with it, including one wonderful afternoon at a defunct nuclear power plant (seriously, it was awesome). If picking a zoom makes me basic, then so be it.

Barney Britton

Any guesses what lens Barney chose?

If I was trying to impress you, and if I wasn’t such a died-in-the-wool contrarian, my choice for ‘go-to’ camera and lens would be a Nikon D810 and a 35mm lens – something good, like the Nikon 35mm F1.4 or Sigma Art 35mm F1.4, or perhaps an old ’sleeper' favorite, like the Nikon AF-D 35mm F2, for the hipsters. If you were to ask me what focal length I use most, I’d say that probably around 90% of my photography could be achieved with a 35mm lens. If you were to ask some of my comment-thread critics on the other hand, they’d tell you that 90% of my photography could be achieved with an iPhone, or their 5-year old daughter, or their blind grandmother, or their blind grandmother’s 5 year-old iPhone, but that’s beside the point.

But I’m not trying to impress you. Which is why I’m going to cheat a little, and make a case for a zoom lens, and one that doesn’t get a lot of love in these parts – the Nikon AF-S 24-120mm F4. The current version of Nikon’s ‘street-sweeper’ do-everything zoom, it’s true that the 24-120mm isn’t the sharpest lens in Nikon’s stable, or the best-controlled when it comes to distortion, or the toughest, and all the rest. It’s a kit zoom. A pretty good kit zoom, in my opinion, but still. So why – if I had to choose only one lens – would I pick the 24-120mm? Because it just works. I know that if I go out shooting with the D810 and 24-120mm, come rain or shine (or snow, or hail, or desert dust, or any of the other nasties I’ve thrown at it) I can capture pretty much anything I might want or need to. It’s almost boring. I wish I had more of an excuse to attach other lenses, but to be honest, most of the time I just don’t. I actually sold a bunch of my Nikon glass recently, because it wasn’t getting used.

The image above was taken just after a torrential downpour last December which turned into a hail storm. The camera and lens were - like me - soaked. Could I have taken it on something better? Maybe, but I wouldn’t have wanted to risk damaging a more expensive lens in those conditions. And would it be a better picture had I done so? Or a happier memory? No.

What would you choose?

If you could only shoot with one lens, or one focal length for the rest of your life, what would you choose? Feel free to share your answer in the comments! 

from DIYS http://ift.tt/2mHg4L7

[chpatdoorsl3z0a1]

Ask the staff: Pick one focal length or lens to rule them all

Can you guess the focal length? Photo by Wenmei Hill

We handle a lot of glass in the DPReview office, but there always seems to be a handful of lenses or fixed lens cameras that everyone is extra eager to lay some paws on. Which got us thinking of a fun hypothetical: If we could only choose one lens to use for the rest of time, what would it be?

To keep things interesting, and to vary the answers, we opened the question up to include one lens in particular or one focal length. The photograph that accompanies each answer was shot with that staff member's chosen lens or focal length. We purposely didn't list the gear used. See if you can guess!

Carey Rose

Any guesses what focal length Carey gravitates toward?

Before I worked at DPReview, I would have immediately chosen the 35mm focal length. Now that I’ve worked at DPReview for some time, I have to say… I haven’t really changed my mind.

Splurging on a battered old D700 after college left me without enough money to pick up anything approaching a fast zoom, so I started building up a collection of affordable Nikon AF-D primes: a 50mm F1.8, a 35mm F2, an 85mm F1.8. I quickly realized that I just wasn’t a zoom guy, and the 35mm F2 was glued to my camera most of the time. A used X100 was a natural next step for a more portable setup when I scored a good deal on one. Even today, after using lens after lens and camera after camera for review after review, the 35mm focal length remains my go-to. It doesn’t matter whether I’m headed to shoot an event, a wedding, an environmental portrait, or just strolling around when some nice light hits, it’s more likely I’ll have a 35mm lens with me than any other.

Wenmei Hill

Wenmei likes versatility. Did she choose a zoom or a prime?

I’m going to take the easy way out and pick a zoom lens rather than a single focal length. My choice is the Nikon AF-S 24-120mm F4G ED VR, and my excuse is that the majority of shooting I do (documentary lifestyle and candid portraiture) requires a flexibility that is difficult to get with a single focal length.

I’m choosing the 24-120mm even though it’s not one of my ‘favorite’ lenses because it is relatively small, lightweight and versatile enough to get the variety of shots I look for when photographing. I am able to immerse myself in a scene at 24mm but also step back for a portrait at 120mm, using the longer focal length to get pleasing bokeh and separation from the background.

Shooting it on a DX-format body gives me even more reach at the long end (180mm equivalent) for portraits. I already use this lens as my everyday lens when I don’t have a particular creative plan and want to be prepared for anything, so it’s the one I’d choose if I had to pick just one.

Dale Baskin

Dale chose a specific focal length that he didn't always love. Can you guess what it is?

This will probably seem like I’m going for the low hanging fruit, but I would choose 35mm. I used to be a solid 50mm guy, and if I wanted to go a bit wider I switched to 28mm, skipping 35mm entirely. My shift to 35mm began in earnest when I started shooting Fujifilm’s X100 series of cameras, which have a 35mm equivalent lens.

Now, one could argue that I’m choosing 35mm because I really enjoy the camera to which it’s attached, but that’s not the case. In fact, when I first started shooting the X100 I enjoyed it despite the focal length. It was actually the one thing I didn’t care for about the camera. However, as I continued to use it, I learned to adjust my style to take advantage of the 35mm field of view. After a few months, I found myself really enjoying it, so I decided to do a little experiment: I was about to embark on a trip to Brazil and decided to shoot my entire adventure at 35mm. The idea was both exciting and scary; I knew from experience that I would be giving up some shots by not having the right lens. However, I like to travel light, and I hate carrying camera gear, so I threw down the gauntlet and accepted my own challenge.

The upshot? I had a great trip and captured a lot of memorable images. Did I miss a few shots along the way? Sure, I did. But on the flip side, I got some great photos I would have otherwise missed because I forced myself to visualize every scene at 35mm instead of mentally switching to a different focal length. Now, no matter what camera I happen to be testing, one of the first lenses I always put on the front is a 35mm (or equivalent).

Sam Spencer

Sam chose a specialty lens. This image was shot using a similar lens, albeit with a different focal length. Do you know what it is?

Forever? Forever ever? I’m sure I could do the practical thing and say ’24-70’, or be a motorsports spectator the rest of my life and say ’70-200’, but I’m weirder than that. If it was a lens for me to shoot what makes me happy for the rest of my days, it’d be the Nikon PC-E 85mm F2.8 for product, portrait, and automotive photography. The maximum magnification of 1:2 means I can get close for product, and use the tilt to either get more of the product in focus, or isolate the focal point. I like medium telephoto lenses for the narrower field of view that makes selecting a background out of a busy environment much easier, and even F2.8 can be bright enough to blur the background at 85mm. I’m a control freak, not a speed demon, so I’ll be watching eBay for a copy…

Dan Bracaglia

Dan's image was shot with the equivalent of his favorite focal length. The image was cropped in slightly, still any ideas what he chose?

The first and only lens I'd owned for many years was a 50mm. But as my interest in photography (and other activities) grew I found myself yearning for other lenses. If you'd asked me this question when I was 16 years old and shooting a lot of skateboarding, I probably would have said a fisheye is my favorite lens. If you'd asked me again when I was 18 or 19 years old and starting to get into photojournalism, I'd probably have said 24mm. If you'd ask me when I was 24-28 years-old, and reviewing cameras for a living, all why exploring the streets of NYC/Seattle, I most likely would have said 35mm. But these days, I've come full circle and 50mm is my focal length of choice if I could only shoot one lens for the rest of my life.

Sometimes overlooked or seen as pedestrian, there are plenty of reasons why a normal 50mm lens is number one in my heart and bag: For starters the nifty fifty is as practical as they come. Most manufacturers make a reasonably fast, yet inexpensive 50mm equiv. Moreover, I'd argue its the most versatile focal length of them all: in a pinch it can be used for portraiture or detail shots, in the same way a tele can. And it can also be used in some capacity as a wide-angle, if you have the room to move (I've shot many concerts with just a 50mm, without feeling a need for something wider). And if you get a reversal ring, you can mount a nifty fifty backward and use it for macro shooting!

For years I've carried a Nikon 50mm F1.8 in my bag as the ultimate backup for just about anything I'm shooting: weddings, concerts, portrait sessions, travel. It's light cheap and versatile. But these days, the lens spends as much time mounted on my camera as glass I own costing 6x as much.

Jeff Keller

Jeff chose a workhorse zoom. Can you guess which one?

Since I’m always shooting with something work-related, I don’t get to use my EOS 5D III very often. But when I do, my daily driver is the Canon EF 24-105mm F4L IS USM. Not the most exciting choice of lens, I admit, but for land- and cityscapes that I enjoy taking, it definitely fits the bill. The image stabilization works well, it focuses silently and the weatherproofing is helpful when you’re out at Snoqualmie Falls and it’s throwing mist. Naturally, not long after I bought the 24-105, the Mark II arrived, with new optics, better autofocus and new coatings to reduce lens flare and ghosting. The lens is larger and heavier than my Mark I model, which I consider a good size for its focal length and aperture.

It’s nice to see that Canon isn’t the only one offering a lens with this focal range. Sigma’s 24-105mm F4 DG OS HSM Art lens is even bigger and heavier than Canon’s Mark II version, but the build quality is excellent. And, according to DxO, it’s also a sharper lens. And did I mention that it’s a bit cheaper? Thus, if I was stranded in a world with wonderful landscapes and cool architecture, the Sigma 24-105mm F4 Art would be permanently mounted on my 5D III.

Vladimir Bobov

Vladimir is our newest DPR team member. He makes sure the site works properly. Any guesses what focal length he chose?

I wasn't sure whether to bother praising the 50mm focal length. I figured that it's so common, that talking about it would be either redundant at best or boring at worst. However, sorting my photo collection by focal length showed that I took more photos with a 50mm (on a 35mm full frame camera) than with any other lens, including the more versatile zooms.

So why pick the "normal" prime for the rest of my life? Versatility and portability. It's the perfect lens for candid portraits in a casual setting - fast enough to use in low light, and small enough to not intimidate the subject. Wide enough for full-body and group portraits, and good enough for head-and-shoulders (especially when paired with an APS-C camera). I've also been able to use it effectively for landscapes, close-ups, product, and food photography. So although I'd certainly miss the other focal lengths, with enough creativity and trickery, the 50 and I could live happily ever after.

Richard Butler

Richard chose a favorite lens that doesn't yet exist. This image falls toward the tele-end of his made-up range. Can you guess what it is?

If I have to live within the constraints of reality, then I’d be tempted to say a 35mm just for its Goldilocks-like flexibility. But, it seems only fair that if I agree to be bound by an arbitrary restriction, I’m should get to relax the need to limit myself to lenses that actually exist. The problem is that I really like 35-40mm equivalent lenses but also love something around 90mm equiv. for portraiture and a lifetime seems like a long time to have to go without.

Equally, if I have a 24 or 28mm equivalent lens, I get back into the habit of ‘seeing’ wide-angle scenes and I’m sure there’s some aphorism about making one’s life spicy. This is why I’m pushing back against reality: the need for a 90mm equiv, rules out the use of a 24-70mm equiv and, over time, the limiting equivalent aperture of an 18-55mm F2.8 on APS-C would leave me frustrated. Sigma’s 18-35mm F1.8 is a work of genius that I wish were available on mirrorless systems, so I’m going to put my faith in the men and women of Aizu and trust that they’ll make me a 16-60mm F2 for APS-C mirrorless. I mean, how hard could it be?

Allison Johnson

Allison chose a specific zoom lens, can you guess which one?

Maybe a truly bold person picks a prime to shoot with for the rest of their life, but I’m going to play it safe and pick a zoom, whatever that says about me. The Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 is not the very best lens I’ve ever shot with, but it’s fairly versatile, sturdy and relatively small. It’s the right size (along with the OM-D cameras I’ve used it with) so that it’s doable to carry around all day in my purse, and I like having a fairly wide 24mm equiv. out to 80mm for a little more reach when I want it.

Really, it’s not special in any way except that it’s a solid standard zoom for a system I like. I’ve had many happy days shooting with it, including one wonderful afternoon at a defunct nuclear power plant (seriously, it was awesome). If picking a zoom makes me basic, then so be it.

Barney Britton

Any guesses what lens Barney chose?

If I was trying to impress you, and if I wasn’t such a died-in-the-wool contrarian, my choice for ‘go-to’ camera and lens would be a Nikon D810 and a 35mm lens – something good, like the Nikon 35mm F1.4 or Sigma Art 35mm F1.4, or perhaps an old ’sleeper' favorite, like the Nikon AF-D 35mm F2, for the hipsters. If you were to ask me what focal length I use most, I’d say that probably around 90% of my photography could be achieved with a 35mm lens. If you were to ask some of my comment-thread critics on the other hand, they’d tell you that 90% of my photography could be achieved with an iPhone, or their 5-year old daughter, or their blind grandmother, or their blind grandmother’s 5 year-old iPhone, but that’s beside the point.

But I’m not trying to impress you. Which is why I’m going to cheat a little, and make a case for a zoom lens, and one that doesn’t get a lot of love in these parts – the Nikon AF-S 24-120mm F4. The current version of Nikon’s ‘street-sweeper’ do-everything zoom, it’s true that the 24-120mm isn’t the sharpest lens in Nikon’s stable, or the best-controlled when it comes to distortion, or the toughest, and all the rest. It’s a kit zoom. A pretty good kit zoom, in my opinion, but still. So why – if I had to choose only one lens – would I pick the 24-120mm? Because it just works. I know that if I go out shooting with the D810 and 24-120mm, come rain or shine (or snow, or hail, or desert dust, or any of the other nasties I’ve thrown at it) I can capture pretty much anything I might want or need to. It’s almost boring. I wish I had more of an excuse to attach other lenses, but to be honest, most of the time I just don’t. I actually sold a bunch of my Nikon glass recently, because it wasn’t getting used.

The image above was taken just after a torrential downpour last December which turned into a hail storm. The camera and lens were - like me - soaked. Could I have taken it on something better? Maybe, but I wouldn’t have wanted to risk damaging a more expensive lens in those conditions. And would it be a better picture had I done so? Or a happier memory? No.

What would you choose?

If you could only shoot with one lens, or one focal length for the rest of your life, what would you choose? Feel free to share your answer in the comments! 

from DIYS http://ift.tt/2mHg4L7

[giveuselife-blog]

Finance Your Startup in the Community

New Post has been published on https://giveuselife.org/finance-your-startup-in-the-community/

Finance Your Startup in the Community

Locating personal finance to your startup may be easiest inside your personal network community.

Your ‘network’ may be in terms of relationships, geography, the field of hobby or association. community Financed Enterprise is not a generally popular time period. However, there are an increasing number of approaches that groups are financially supported via a community. Some are very conventional, including coops that commenced inside the 19th century and new ones are rising all of the time. An instance is crowdfunding, that springs very these days from the social networking phenomenon. The impetus is coming from two directions. The first is the disaffection for Wall Street and all that ‘massive banking’ represents. The other is the burgeoning ‘nearby’ motion, the natural offspring of environmentalism. Maintaining investment to your very own community has blessings and downsides. A number of the plusses are that you realize the humans imparting cash and your Commercial enterprise is ‘visible’ to them. Banks have a very bureaucratic approach and lending selections need to be ‘passed up the road’ to a company workplace someplace else. With community personal finance, your get admission to the lenders is simple and in maximum cases can be face-to-face. Minuses encompass the reverse of that coin: you’ll have nowhere to ‘disguise’. I usually tell Business debtors to ‘over-speak’ with their bankers. If you borrow from the ones you realize, the time spent on speaking with them is probably to take a whole lot of your electricity (and emotion). Circle of relatives and Pals (A few say additionally, Fools) For lots generations, startup menu have looked to their Family and Buddies for personal finance, whether or not fairness or mortgage money. This is regularly extended to customers and suppliers, too. In line with the Angel Capital Education Foundation , startup menu yearly enhance $60 billion via Buddies and Family. Thus it is likely the largest unmarried supply of ‘series A’ investment that there is. There are Some strong caveats to this direction for the reason that emotion and relationships are to the fore. You will be targeted on getting the money, but you want to know their factor of view, too. Treat them as though they were a Commercial enterprise and supply them the coolest cause to help. Be clear approximately how you will repay them and use a promissory notice to make it legal. Have a backup plan. If the mortgage from a family member needs to be referred to as in for reasons like the lender misplaced a job, you want to be able to pay off quickly or risk a Family feud. Ask yourself if it is the right path inside the first location, and beware that it’s difficult to fee and structure the right deal for each party. Consider how matters might be if your startup menu is going stomach-up. Checking drawback risks is regularly the key to aa hit startup. community Financed Business 

community Supported Agriculture (CSA) is now a significant method of presenting small-scale financial help to farmers. Usually, members in community purchase stocks inside the produce of farms pre-season and obtain transport as and whilst the precise plants or meat will become available. The method has now spread to different sectors of the economic system, in particular in age and meals. There are examples in seafood (Port Clyde, ME) and eating places where shoppers make investments and get repaid in food and other perks through the years. This has a tendency to be a very effective, but quite unstable manner of raising funds for the investor. I lost numerous hundred bucks, supporting a small book place in my village, wherein my up-front cash turned into to have been repaid in books on a monthly foundation with a small quantity of interest. The Enterprise model turned into not cautiously enough prepared and the startup menu changed into poorly managed and resulted in failure.

Apparently, about years later in the area around the corner, some other network supported Enterprise has opened – an eating place. not handiest did these founders sell shares to nearby supporters, however, they, themselves, are shopping for produce from nearby CSA farms. There are numerous different approaches similarly to the CSA version of pre-funding product sales by subscription or ‘shares’. Cooperatives domestically and nationally. There are nearly 30,000 of them within the US. I used to serve on the board of the Brattleboro food Coop, a -save retailer in my local Vermont city. We had reached capacity in our predominant shop with a $16 million turnover and determined to construct an entirely new store at a price of numerous million. Coop contributors in the locality advanced nicely over $1 million in 3 and five-12 months loans as a part of the shareholder equity to returned the financial institution and another financing. similarly, another neighborhood coop partnered inside the building – Coop Energy – with the aid of offering the sunroof. An extensive proportion of plants is small and locally orientated. Many are amongst farmers and banking. Financial savings and mortgage Associations are, in effect, coops. A few started small and nearby but have grown into big entities, with the energy of neighborhood assist. An example is Land o’ Lakes, now quite much a country wide emblem of dairy products. Direct Public Services An immediate public offering is a manner for a company to “move public” without the intermediaries that orchestrate an IPO. An organization completes required providing documents and securities filings, which allows them to sell shares immediately to the general public – the organization’s customers and community. The latest instance of a DPO is Quimper Mercantile in Port Townsend, WA, that has raised over $500,000 in a DPO to open a fashionable store. They were assisted through Reducing Side Capital. some other of CEC’s clients is people’s network Marketplace, whose model of grassroots investing allows Californians of all financial backgrounds to emerge as Founders and Shareholders in developing a food keep in West Oakland. Crowdfunding you may without a doubt have heard of Kickstarter. An MBA student of mine raised over $15,000 (on a $10,000 target) seed cash locally for Raleigh Metropolis Farm in North Carolina, thru a Kickstarter marketing campaign. nicely, the motion is a great deal more sizeable and frequently domestically orientated. You may take a look at my crowdfunding page for greater information. The jobs Act which is due to come into force this yr permits all of us to invest as much as $10,000 12 months, or up to ten percent of their net profits if they earn less than $one hundred,000 12 months, in non-public businesses. This contrasts with the existing, given that crowd funders are largely rewarded non-financially. One of the first structures of the block may be Earlyshares, a fairness-primarily based crowdfunding platform. Revenue-based funding & Patron Financing any other new technique to funding Commercial enterprise is Sales-based funding. The concept is that as opposed to the hazard being related to the capital boom of the investment, the lender takes a chance at the Revenue, by way of charging a percentage of the pinnacle line. A US company referred to as RevenueLoan now offers a Sales-based funding product, however on noticeably massive quantities for startups. As they are saying, “Sales based totally Financing (RBF) is a hybrid financing method that fills a need in the growth capital Market for agencies with about $1 to $10 million in Revenue and a validated plan for growth. Maker network

Traditional pastimes enjoyed with the aid of the maker lifestyle include engineering-orientated pastimes including electronics, robotics, 3-D printing, 2-D plotter Slicing, water-jet Cutting, and the usage of CNC equipment (even applied to embroidery), in addition to more conventional activities which include metalworking, woodworking, and traditional arts and crafts. The complete print-on-call for an industry is any other instance, in which authors can produce books even one at a time. While these are not funders, they reduce the charges that would otherwise be associated with small-scale production. However, there are hybrids that combine maker facilities with startup seed investment, as well as incubation space in factory-like settings. Business Accelerators and Incubators Not like many Business assistance packages, Commercial enterprise incubators do now not serve any and all groups. Marketers who wish to enter an Enterprise incubation software need to apply for admission. In addition, they tend to be physical places wherein You may start your Enterprise below a collective roof. Many incubators/accelerators are competitive to enroll in, but as soon as in seed capital is provided. At the same time as it’s miles feasible to generalize approximately accelerators, there are almost as many versions as there are similarities. Enterprise Accelerators may also cognizance on the unique geographies (along with cities or States), commercial sectors (including facts era or clean power), industrial strategies (which includes manufacturing or commercial kitchens). Accelerators can offer physical space on short or medium phrases, networking, mentoring, investment or introduction to funding, schooling, peer institution aid. these may range in time, as an instance: pre-launch, startup, early degree. other network Finance Possibilities Many different groups or ‘local’ personal finance Opportunities exist. There can be financial incentives such as presents available from neighborhood authorities organizations, or business plan competitions run through local development our bodies and educational establishments, for example. Relying upon the governance structure of your startup, there may be software budget which might be on hand. for instance, in the one’s States in which the L3C shape (restricted legal responsibility organization that limits the level of income) exists, you can get Foundation investment. There are also mixtures of A number of the one-of-a-kind network investment avenues to be explored. for instance, you may use crowdfunding to extend the Own family and Friends direction. you can add different people to your network and, with the aid of having a larger lender base, each contributor’s danger might be decreased due to the fact they’d be supplying smaller sums. The disadvantage of the hybrid would be the time you will need to decide to Preserve creditors informed of progress. How will you Do It? Brainstorm with Buddies and associates, but do it in an organized manner. You probably have fixed ideas approximately how you are going to elevate money for your startup and it’ll be important to spawning new ideas. On a solo foundation, One of the methods I take advantage of is thoughts-mapping (several unfastened applications and apps are on the Internet); it shall we I get all my scattered thoughts in brief cited in one visual area. It helps me see the wood for the timber. Affinity diagrams might be something You could use in a group. It sounds daunting, however, all you need is a few wall space and sticky-notes. Members work on their personal ideas and publish them. When you have all of them on the wall You could start to see which ideas are related, or which may additionally generate new ideas. Be as wild as You could about in which You may capital or loans from. You would be amazed approximately how many assets there are, and just how many people would love to assist. William Keyser, a veteran entrepreneur, is Handling Director of Mission Founders LLC: The way to start a Commercial enterprise. Startup Owl gives a wealth of loose facts and recommendation to would-be and early degree Entrepreneurs. Will is a veteran entrepreneur with VC enjoy and he is devoted to helping Business startups to make clear their Business motive; sharpen their Enterprise model; higher their business plan; velocity their Marketplace entry; provide Purchaser value; personal finance their Business right; grow their Commercial enterprise strongly; survive their Business challenges more successfully than they might do on their personal. Will teaches method and entrepreneurship in an MBA program and serves on non-income forums.