Any lens above 35mm on a aps-c camera is not street photography?!

[x_tan]

Originally Posted by Kirill

You can seat at your balcony with 400mm lens and street photography.

Rear Window by Alfred Hitchcock

[RPCrowe]

The street photographers of the past used mostly 50mm lenses. Not because 50mm was the best; or even the best for street photography, but because there were really no other lenses for the early Leica cameras which most of the street photographers used that did not require an auxillary viewfinder which would have made the shooting slow and clumsy.

We often find that photo styles are predicated on the equipment available tothe photographers...

[sjones]

It's erroneous to assume that past photographers used the 50mm simply due to equipment constraints---some, certainly, but not all. Actually, Henri Cartier-Bresson was probably the most noted photographer to use a 50mm consistently, and he did so because it coincided with his vision, so to speak. He had a choice, he chose a standard (normal), and in regards to street photography, he managed quite well with it.

Why should it be so difficult to believe that a standard lens might just in fact be a great lens for street photography, especially since it is! That's not even debatable (see Henri Cartier-Bresson). As it stands, numerous contemporary street photographers continue to use an assortment of standard and wide lenses.

Really, someone can say, hey, I'm going to play in a rock band, but were not going to use electric guitars. Fine; I had a friend who used an acoustic to rip out one of the best versions of Motorhead's "Ace of Spades" that I had ever heard. But if this same person turns around and claims that electric guitars in general are not good for rock music, or that they are simply used due to some type of technical limitation, then serious questions arise. Opinions and subjectivity can offer only so much leeway.

Of course, the standard lens might not be the best for street photography, but standards and wides, in general, are axiomatically not bad for street photography. People have had decades to use different cameras and focal lengths to approach street photography, but the majority of great street shots to this day still employ a wide or a standard.

Really, if one wants to use anything but a wide or standard for street, fine, great, no laws against it---experiment with abandon; but any attempt to dismiss the value of the wides or standards for street photography is tantamount to dismissing telephoto lenses for birds-in-flight photography….or dumping on Gibsons, Fenders, and other electric guitars for rock.

While every hobby or profession has its silly little dictators, overall, it is not a result of elitism, nostalgia, nor obdurate tradition but, instead, a result of proven utilitarian effectiveness that standards and wides have been so frequently lauded for street photography.

Don't get me wrong; our equipment affects our output, but even as technology expands the possibilities, it does not necessarily mean that these new possibilities are aesthetically superior, for the simple fact that the value of art is not codependent on technology. Most folks would have preferred color right from the very beginning, but not everyone.

And as for the auxiliary viewfinder, I use one for my 50mm because I actually prefer it to the in-camera viewfinder, so I would hardly consider it a hindrance, on the contrary. Look through a Leica Barnack, and you'll quickly see why. If nothing else, Garry Winogrand obviously had no problem using a 28mm auxiliary viewfinder.

As stated, while true that the Leica Barnack models (excluding the IIIG) only had a tiny viewfinder for 50mm, it was for this reason that many users were used to using auxiliary viewfinders. The Leica M2, released in 1957, had frame lines for 35, 50, and 90. The earlier released M3 had them for 50, 90, and 135, so going longer would not have been a problem for even those most averse to using an auxiliary viewfinder.

Anyway, said my bit, I'm out…PM's always welcome.

[dharrisphotog]

On an crop body, anywhere between 24-35 is good. On an full frame of 35mm, 28-50. I find a strong relationship between longer focal lengths and a photographers nerve.

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by Razeus

I find a strong relationship between longer focal lengths and a photographers nerve.

This. Shooting with a 35mm or less means your subject most likely sees you photographing them (assuming you intend to single out one or two subjects). There is an inherent risk of conflict in that. Shooting with a birding lens means you can hide out of sight and grab shots without the subject knowing. Both methods have merit depending on your subjects.

[gjl711]

Originally Posted by M_Six

This. Shooting with a 35mm or less means your subject most likely sees you photographing them

One would think that shooting that short also influences the subject. People behave differently when they know they are getting their picture taken.

[osh_sekta]

I love my old 135mm [note also, that it's on a crop] just because of that reason - I can take some pics without subject seeing me or being unaware for long enough time for me to manually focus that bastard lens and take a pic. It is my subjective opinion, but I think, when persons sees you, it's already another faze of happenings in that moment and not the one, you raised your camera for.

[dharrisphotog]

I use my 50mm. It's a good length for not being in someone's face and me blending in without them noticing me. Some notice me though due to the size of my D700. I'm going to use the 28mm in more crowded situations when it's not to obvious I'm in your face with a camera (i.e. convention, carnival, etc.).