Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Nick Walt on September 14, 2014, 01:40:45 pm
-
Hi Everyone,
I'm getting to the point where I'm finding that the 12-40mm f2.8 PRO (24-80mm equivalent) for the E-M1 doesn't have enough reach for many of the compositions I see (landscape or street).
I either crop a lot (non-optimal framing) or simply don't get the shot because it is just too far away. Often I see a particular pattern in the landscape and only want to frame that spot and not include everything around it. Walking closer is not an option as most of the time the composition is lost or is obscured, or getting too close to the person or scene changes things.
For example, this image is a significant crop:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/123872290@N05/15225025241/in/photostream/
When you found a focal length that matched your way of seeing did you experience a revelation? Obviously, this is about shooting for yourself and not for commercial requirements.
Cheers,
Nick
-
Interestingly there was an article in "Modern Photography" (I think it was that magazine) about 30-35 years ago that looked at focal length of the lens needed to duplicate many painted landscape and town scenes. The examples, if I remember correctly, were from the Dutch school of landscape painting. They found that an 85mm to 105 mm lens was needed to duplicate the painted scenes when they were able to duplicate where the artist was when they painted the picture. My memory is that a lot of letters to the editor disagreed but none presented any definite proof that the article was wrong.
But that also could be seen as how they, back in the 1700s or so, viewed the scene and not how we would like the scene viewed today. When I review my shots over the years, I find that I use 70-100 mm more often than other focal lengths except in cities where I favour wide angle views. I just feel better about the short telephoto shots and that's all it is - a feeling.
I will be interested to see what others say.
Dave S
-
Interesting topic, which I can relate to. I would not say "revelation," but over many years I have learned that almost all of the photos I really like were taken with lenses in the short tele range - perhaps 70-150mm FF equiv. Some wider, some longer, but most in that range (I am excluding specialty photos, such as birds or architectural interiors, that demand a longer or wider lens). Thus, I would not spend a lot of money on a really wide or really long lens. ANd, for my FF outfit, my 2 main lenses are a 24-105 and a 70-200, giving me overlap in my favorite range and saving me a lot of lens changes.
-
Over time I've found that my optimal range of coverage goes from 70° down to 15° diagonal, give or take a little either way. This encompasses ~14–75mm focal lengths with m43 or ~28–135mm with 135. Outside this range I begin to feel like I'm working to make the lens happy rather than vice versa. :) With a two-lens setup I like the wider lens to be close in mm to the diagonal measurement of the format and the longer one a bit more than double that. Using a 45/100mm pair on a Contax Aria SLR was just about perfect. With m43 a 20/45mm pair does the job.
-Dave-
-
So I'm not the only one who seems to prefer the telephoto range :)
I thought this is because my first camera was a Zenith with 58 mm lens.
I like to have an option with me that goes beyond 90 mm: on the Nikon D90 I used the 16-85 at the 85 (135 equiv) a lot.
I use the Fujifilm 18-55 at 55 (83 equiv) and often I'm not happy with the reach so I try to have the 55-200 with me despite the significant weight. Even on the RX100 I use the 100 mm equiv a lot.
As far as advice I have none other than carry a longer lens, or use one of the everything under the kitchen zooms if quality is ok with you.
-
So I'm not the only one who seems to prefer the telephoto range :)
I thought this is because my first camera was a Zenith with 58 mm lens.
I like to have an option with me that goes beyond 90 mm: on the Nikon D90 I used the 16-85 at the 85 (135 equiv) a lot.
I use the Fujifilm 18-55 at 55 (83 equiv) and often I'm not happy with the reach so I try to have the 55-200 with me despite the significant weight. Even on the RX100 I use the 100 mm equiv a lot.
As far as advice I have none other than carry a longer lens, or use one of the everything under the kitchen zooms if quality is ok with you.
I'd say you are not alone.
I recently bought a 70-200 Mark II and was considering returning it, then looked carefully at my favourite images taken along the Oregon coast three years ago - the very best was at 105 mm, and many were at 65 mm or longer. I kept the 70-200. Interestingly for that trip, I had just picked up a TSE24 II and found it was usually too wide.
Now that I've read the OP and some replies, I realize that the 70-200 is going to be a good choice (and I now know why). Incidentally, I'm at Cannon Beach right now on a second trip along the Oregon Coast - this evening I'm taking the 70-200 down to the sea.
Glenn
-
Interestingly there was an article in "Modern Photography" (I think it was that magazine) about 30-35 years ago that looked at focal length of the lens needed to duplicate many painted landscape and town scenes. The examples, if I remember correctly, were from the Dutch school of landscape painting. They found that an 85mm to 105 mm lens was needed to duplicate the painted scenes when they were able to duplicate where the artist was when they painted the picture. My memory is that a lot of letters to the editor disagreed but none presented any definite proof that the article was wrong.
But that also could be seen as how they, back in the 1700s or so, viewed the scene and not how we would like the scene viewed today. When I review my shots over the years, I find that I use 70-100 mm more often than other focal lengths except in cities where I favour wide angle views. I just feel better about the short telephoto shots and that's all it is - a feeling.
I will be interested to see what others say.
Dave S
I agree, though I have found myself using longer and longer lenses. For a first lens, I suggest an 80 or 90mm lens.
-
There's some freeware program someone turned me onto called "Exposure Plot." You can load a folder full of files into it and it will tell you the focal lengths of all the shots and tabulate them to tell which focal length you use the most as percentages and a bar graph.
I was surprised to see I used 35mm more (on a FX body) than I thought, as well as around a 80mm focal length. I use the Nikon "Holy Trinity Series" of three zooms so it tallied them all and gave me the figures I work with the most from those zooms. From that I can pick a fixed lens.
SG
-
You just need to wait until Oly releases the 40-150 f2.8 PRO zoom.
-
@David S: I agree, it is just a feeling. But, I guess a lot of how we engage the world through our senses is likely experienced as a feeling. Most people are biased towards either left or right handedness and some are happy using both. That feeling to which we are biased could be understood as a greater sense of connectedness. I definitely experience a pattern, seen as a composition within the bounds of a frame, as a feeling.
@PeterAit: I like the idea of overlapping focals covering your most preferred length.
@Telecaster: A very interesting articulation of your preferred focal lengths. What caused you to consider focal lengths as a ratio of your camera's sensor size? What is the significance of that understanding?
@armand: When I was looking at the Fuji X-T1 I was also interested in the 55-200. Although, at the time, I had no idea of what my preferred focal length would be or what type of photography I would be most biased towards (if anything).
@GlennNK: I take it that you are using FF, is that correct? The 70-200 does seem to be a sweet spot for many.
@melchiorpavone: I think that this is where my bias is. I've seen that a few people prefer the Olympus 75mm f1.8 (150mm equivalent - a truly transparent lens by all accounts) and I've been thinking that this will fit with how I see and engage. But, I'm not sure if this is a valid way to approach lens choice hence this thread.
@Some Guy: Thanks for the recommendation. A great way to understand preference.
@Paulo Bizzaro: Yes, I've been thinking about the Olympus 40-150 f2.8 PRO and the 75mm f1.8. If I could I would get both as they have quite different use cases.
A friend recently said I should learn to shoot better with the 12-40mm that I have. However, I keep coming up against the framing limits of its 40mm (80mm equivalent) and so I am asking this question. Is it a valid approach to be seeking out my preferred focal length in a lens, or should I make it work within my current lens' limitation?
Cheers, everyone.
Nick
-
I guess you could get one of the cheaper m43s telephotos until you figure what focal length you prefer before going for the 75 and 50-140 2.8 as they are not cheap or light for that matter.
-
Hi Everyone,
I'm getting to the point where I'm finding that the 12-40mm f2.8 PRO (24-80mm equivalent) for the E-M1 doesn't have enough reach for many of the compositions I see (landscape or street).
I either crop a lot (non-optimal framing) or simply don't get the shot because it is just too far away. Often I see a particular pattern in the landscape and only want to frame that spot and not include everything around it. Walking closer is not an option as most of the time the composition is lost or is obscured, or getting too close to the person or scene changes things.
For example, this image is a significant crop:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/123872290@N05/15225025241/in/photostream/
When you found a focal length that matched your way of seeing did you experience a revelation? Obviously, this is about shooting for yourself and not for commercial requirements.
Cheers,
Nick
Your post is describing what you see not the way you see.
-
@melchiorpavone: I think that this is where my bias is. I've seen that a few people prefer the Olympus 75mm f1.8 (150mm equivalent - a truly transparent lens by all accounts) and I've been thinking that this will fit with how I see and engage. But, I'm not sure if this is a valid way to approach lens choice hence this thread.
Cheers, everyone.
Nick
Most people who are still learning try to pack too much into their photos. A good remedy is to force them to use a slightly longer focal length than normal, and cut out the extraneous matter.
-
Most people who are still learning try to pack too much into their photos. A good remedy is to force them to use a slightly longer focal length than normal, and cut out the extraneous matter.
Agree - this is why I'm using longer focal lengths - to isolate the most interesting/meaningful part of the scene.
Stitched panoramas can be interesting, but I usually find there isn't a focal point that grabs my attention.
Glenn
-
Agree - this is why I'm using longer focal lengths - to isolate the most interesting/meaningful part of the scene.
Stitched panoramas can be interesting, but I usually find there isn't a focal point that grabs my attention.
Glenn
It's interesting, I learned very early on to compose tight and with few elements. I was 15 years old or so. I used to read Modern Photography and look at the great photos by the masters, and I learned from them. I own eight lenses from 21mm to 560mm, but have never owned a 35mm lens. For me, this is the most useless focal length of all.
-
It depends on the scene and what you want to include to determine the lens. Making blanket statements and only using one length isn't a good plan.
-
For landscape, I think it depends on where you live. Here in the east, with 40-50 inches of rain/year, we need shorter lenses to be
able to see the whole scene. Out west, or even in our mountains, longer works better.
I think "the way you see" depends on what the scene says to you, and that would determine what focal length one would use.
-
It depends on the scene and what you want to include to determine the lens. Making blanket statements and only using one length isn't a good plan.
Agree - that's why I use a zoom.
I'm getting older and I live near the ocean and don't swim as well as I once did (and the water is very cold), and the terrain is mountainous. Oh, and I don't like continuously changing lenses for fear of dropping one.
So I leave foot zooming and lens changing for the younger guys. ;D
G
-
It depends on the scene and what you want to include to determine the lens. Making blanket statements and only using one length isn't a good plan.
Yes, it is. It teaches you how to see better. Some of my very best photographs were made with my Leicaflex SL and 90mm Elmarit-R. I learned to seek out scenes that worked with that combination.
-
Can you post some of your very best work so we can see how it works for you?
-
Interestingly there was an article in "Modern Photography" (I think it was that magazine) about 30-35 years ago that looked at focal length of the lens needed to duplicate many painted landscape and town scenes. The examples, if I remember correctly, were from the Dutch school of landscape painting. They found that an 85mm to 105 mm lens was needed to duplicate the painted scenes when they were able to duplicate where the artist was when they painted the picture. My memory is that a lot of letters to the editor disagreed but none presented any definite proof that the article was wrong.
But that also could be seen as how they, back in the 1700s or so, viewed the scene and not how we would like the scene viewed today. When I review my shots over the years, I find that I use 70-100 mm more often than other focal lengths except in cities where I favour wide angle views. I just feel better about the short telephoto shots and that's all it is - a feeling.
I will be interested to see what others say.
Dave S
There is a lot of truth is this statement. Painters when looking at the landscape will start to compose at least 30 feet from where they stand. Otherwise you will be painting your shoe tops. A odd perspective to draw and construct in a painting. The distortions that would arise in such a case are accepted in photography and often look bizarre in painting.
Peter
-
Forgetting work photography - (though I quite often will do a location portrait shoot with just an 85mm lens) personally I find shooting with a single prime lens to be my preferred method. What lens to take with me on an outing depends on my mood and when I'm out I never agonise over bringing the 'wrong' lens.
So my Ricoh GR which is very pocketable has a 28mm - no choice there. The Micro Four thirds I would often take with my Voightlander 50mm. The Canon FF seems to work well with the 85mm, 50mm or 35mm - but this is not a camera I usually choose to lug around anymore for fun.
For general location portraiture the 85mm is my favourite for sure. The 35 and 50mm are also great to put the subject in context.
When I'm out with a particular lens I just ignore anything that doesn't suit the lens. It's a great discipline I think to be confined to one focal length. It makes you really get to feel at one with the lens. For me the worst possible scenario would be to be out with a bag full of lenses from 16mm - 300mm. What on earth would I shoot with so much choice.....
So my parting shot would be - try a fixed focal length lens and shoot with it exclusively for a while to learn it inside out. Then perhaps try a different one. Each lens seems to have it's own personality so I don't think it's as easy as just quoting focal lengths anyway. The weight, feel in the hand, manual focus perhaps, aperture etc all combine in any particular picture.
The focal lengths I have quoted above are full-frame equivalents for the M43 and Ricoh.
Jim
-
Peter: You have some lovely paintings on your web site. They were a delight to look at. My inability to paint is the reason I photograph landscapes. It's about as close as I'll ever get to being an artist.
It's hard to tell where you were standing when you painted them, or did you use a photo to paint from? (My friend who is an illustrator uses photos in most cases). In any case, would you say most of yours are "normal" perspective from were you painted or more "telephoto" or "wide angle"?
-
@Telecaster: A very interesting articulation of your preferred focal lengths. What caused you to consider focal lengths as a ratio of your camera's sensor size? What is the significance of that understanding?
That's just empirical observation. I bought a Leica CL decades ago and it came with a 40mm lens. I loved the coverage it gave…suited me better than a 35mm lens and could also sub for a 50mm. It was only later that I connected 40mm with "slightly shorter than the format diagonal." Since the CL also has a 90mm frameline I eventually bought a used 90 and found the two lenses complemented each other very well. With other camera systems & formats the same formula always works for me re. a two-lens outfit.
I also like to pick just one focal length for a particular photo outing and make it work. With the 135 format this usually means a 50 or 85/90mm lens, though sometimes I'll go with a 28mm to exercise my wider eye (so to speak). :)
-Dave-
-
Can you post some of your very best work so we can see how it works for you?
All made with 90mm Summicron-R. I would not necessarily call these my 'best' work, but these are some of my favorites.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/5613947768
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/5613370203
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/5613942946
In the last one, the artist is trying to interest the woman in his painting, of which he is very proud (see his hand on his chest), whereas she is thinking "What else you got?" The 90mm isolates the artist and prospective customer, with the painting slightly out of focus. The distant background is far out of focus. The fact that it is sunny in the background is unfortunate, but you cannot control everything.
-
Those are nice pictures. But I don't understand how selecting and taking one specific lens helped you. Had you selected a telephoto to use that day, you would not have been able to get the third shot. While having only one lens forces you to look for shots that work with that lens, you could be passing up very interesting shots that require a lens you didn't have. Of course, if you're shooting people, a normal or wide angle lens works most of the time. If had a choice of only one lens to walk around with, I think it would be normal or slightly wide angle. I seem to shoot more that way even when I have a zoom on the camera.
-
Those are nice pictures. But I don't understand how selecting and taking one specific lens helped you. Had you selected a telephoto to use that day, you would not have been able to get the third shot. While having only one lens forces you to look for shots that work with that lens, you could be passing up very interesting shots that require a lens you didn't have. Of course, if you're shooting people, a normal or wide angle lens works most of the time. If had a choice of only one lens to walk around with, I think it would be normal or slightly wide angle. I seem to shoot more that way even when I have a zoom on the camera.
It helped me by forcing me to crop out the useless crap, and to find scenes that best fit that lens. All three were taken with a 90mm telephoto. Are you unfamiliar with Leica lens terminology? Here is the lens:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/90mm_f/2_Summicron-R
(http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/images/b/bb/R-90f2-i.jpg)
A normal or wide-angle lens is the last choice for photographing people, as I have just shown you. Why do you say the opposite?
-
I was thinking about walk-around street photography. I think a moderate 35mm or maybe normal 50mm would be more useful most of the time. However, if you want close-up for portraiture, then yes you're correct that a medium zoom is preferable especially to isolate the subject from the background.
-
I was thinking about walk-around street photography. I think a moderate 35mm or maybe normal 50mm would be more useful most of the time. However, if you want close-up for portraiture, then yes you're correct that a medium zoom is preferable especially to isolate the subject from the background.
I think what would be more useful most of the time is beside the point here. The photographer is saying that he likes to shoot at 90mm because it excludes perhaps distracting objects. One might choose a 35mm lens to encompass much more - though of course by careful observation and framing it is also quite possible to keep a wider angle shot clutter free.
One day on a beach in North Devon i spent a couple of hours with my wife when the tide was right out photographing the beach and surfers walking around. My camera was a Panasonic GH2 and I just had the 14mm (28mm equivalent) fitted. With no choice on lens it required a bit of running around sometimes to get in the right place rather than standing still and zooming in and out. Here is one example -
-
@Jim Pascoe: Hi Jim, I'm finding that, particularly with landscape, I am seeing compositions that require a significantly longer focal length and no amount of relocation has helped. Cropping in post has confirmed the need for a longer focal length. Actually, it is probably my experimentation with cropping in post that has caused me to start seeing tighter compositions within a much broader field of view. Even when on the street I find I need a longer focal length, unless I want to capture that larger environment.
My question arises when I try to rationalise this against the point that you made about relocating and re-framing with a wider lens. Is this me discovering my natural view of the world and should I consider choosing a lens to match this? Have other people gone through the same process and have they confirmed that their photography improved or evolved after they began shooting with a lens that better suited them? Did time with this lens also help them make the most of other, perhaps wider, lenses?
Cheers
-
@Jim Pascoe: Hi Jim, I'm finding that, particularly with landscape, I am seeing compositions that require a significantly longer focal length and no amount of relocation has helped. Cropping in post has confirmed the need for a longer focal length. Actually, it is probably my experimentation with cropping in post that has caused me to start seeing tighter compositions within a much broader field of view. Even when on the street I find I need a longer focal length.
My question arises when I try to rationalise this against the point that you made about relocating and re-framing with a wider lens. Is this me discovering my natural view of the world and should I consider choosing a lens to match this? Have other people gone through the same process and have they confirmed that their photography improved or evolved after they began shooting with a lens that better suited them? Did time with this lens also help them make the most of other, perhaps wider, lenses?
Cheers
Nick - you definitely need to choose lenses that suit YOU and nobody else. Too many people slavishly follow what others have done before. They see a really superb picture and note it was made with so and so lens at a particular f-stop and shutter speed and with a certain camera-lens combination. They then mistakenly think that if they replicate all that they too will produce the same excellent picture. Photography is not like that and the best photography has little to do with the equipment.
I think the discipline of using one focal length teaches you to use the the lens to it's maximum potential - what focal length to use is your choice. But whatever you choose you will get better if you practise a lot with it. This does not preclude of course eventually having a number of lenses - each could be you favourite for a particular kind of photography. If you just photographed snails with a 50mm macro lens and nothing else for many months you would become a really superb snail photographer. Not suggesting that should be your subject - but trying to be a jack-of-all-trades is not the best way to improve in my opinion. The picture I posted was with a 28mm (equivalent) - not saying that is my favourite - just on that day that's what I decided to use.
Excel at one thing and then you can move on to the next. Learn one lens really well and then acquire another if you need it. You don't have to be able to shoot everything all the time. Regarding landscapes it's probably much easier to make a really good picture with a longer lens than a wide one. With wide angle you really do have to
Jim
-
Hi Everyone,
I'm getting to the point where I'm finding that the 12-40mm f2.8 PRO (24-80mm equivalent) for the E-M1 doesn't have enough reach for many of the compositions I see (landscape or street).
I either crop a lot (non-optimal framing) or simply don't get the shot because it is just too far away. Often I see a particular pattern in the landscape and only want to frame that spot and not include everything around it. Walking closer is not an option as most of the time the composition is lost or is obscured, or getting too close to the person or scene changes things.
For example, this image is a significant crop:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/123872290@N05/15225025241/in/photostream/
When you found a focal length that matched your way of seeing did you experience a revelation? Obviously, this is about shooting for yourself and not for commercial requirements.
Cheers,
Nick
I read through the comments and let me give you my perspective on this. I shoot mostly landscapes and I instruct landscape photography workshops. I also shoot wild life on occasion, street, people, etc.
For landscape I use 35mm full frame cameras only and the focal lengths I use are from 14mm to 200mm and a few times longer using a teleconverter. In my opinion there is not a single focal length or a small range of focal lengths that is right. It all depends on what you shoot and where you are and what interests you. In some locations a 14mm lens is right but for me this is not very often. Many landscapes do lend themselves very well to ultra wide lenses simply because there is not a good composition to be made. There is simply too much that does not fit into a single frame. Personally my workhorse lenses are the 24-70 and 70-200 zoom lenses. I will typically have each lens on a separate body so I can switch between them as needed. Some days I will shoot mostly with the 70-200 to pick out details of the landscape. Other days I will shoot a lot with the 24-70 to have the broader view. It depends a lot on the weather. If there are interesting clouds in the sky the wider focal lengths will be used and if there is a blank sky the longer focal lengths are more useful. Other factors are interesting foregrounds that fit with a larger scene. Sometimes there isn't.
What I'm trying to say is: When shooting landscapes it's all about seeing the picture and then frame it using a lens that fits that given where you have positioned yourself or can position yourself. Not the other way around. I think you will get a better idea of what I'm saying by seeing my pictures here http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/ and if you go into the galleries there is exif info on focal lengths.
-
I was poorly trying to make the point that Hans has described so eloquently. You don't use the lens to see the shot. You see the shot and then pick the lens that best captures it.
-
I was poorly trying to make the point that Hans has described so eloquently. You don't use the lens to see the shot. You see the shot and then pick the lens that best captures it.
Thanks Alan :)
Maybe one more thing to add to the OP: I often find that some landscape shooters, especially in the beginning, have a great difficulty in seeing the shot other than the obvious big landscape. To help to accomplish that a zoom lens is greatly helpful in seeing the shot through the viewfinder by zooming in and out thought the zoom range (with patience...). It's more difficult to mentally exclude all the irrelevant stuff from the essential shot with the naked eyes even for more experienced shooters. That's what I have found from meeting lots of landscape shooters in my workshops.
-
Thanks Alan :)
Maybe one more thing to add to the OP: I often find that some landscape shooters, especially in the beginning, have a great difficulty in seeing the shot other than the obvious big landscape. To help to accomplish that a zoom lens is greatly helpful in seeing the shot through the viewfinder by zooming in and out thought the zoom range (with patience...). It's more difficult to mentally exclude all the irrelevant stuff from the essential shot with the naked eyes even for more experienced shooters. That's what I have found from meeting lots of landscape shooters in my workshops.
And to the OP I should add that this a perfectly valid way of working which I cannot argue with. Personally I prefer the 'restriction' of one lens and focal length at a time. It's all a personal thing of course. In fact as I said earlier - it is quite reasonable to have a variety of favourite lenses too!
Jim
Just to add - Hans, you have some incredibly beautiful images on your website!
-
I often find that some landscape shooters, especially in the beginning, have a great difficulty in seeing the shot other than the obvious big landscape. To help to accomplish that a zoom lens is greatly helpful in seeing the shot through the viewfinder by zooming in and out
Alternatively, and arguably preferably, use DIRE Studio's MII Artist's Viewfinder (http://www.artistsviewfinder.com) - full details here (http://www.direstudio.com/artists-viewfinder-33)
-
Alternatively, and arguably preferably, use DIRE Studio's MII Artist's Viewfinder (http://www.artistsviewfinder.com) - full details here (http://www.direstudio.com/artists-viewfinder-33)
I tried it, but would not recommend it. The best approach is to use the camera in my opinion and zoom in and out while composing. Either in the view finder or in live view. My preference is the view finder.
-
And to the OP I should add that this a perfectly valid way of working which I cannot argue with. Personally I prefer the 'restriction' of one lens and focal length at a time. It's all a personal thing of course. In fact as I said earlier - it is quite reasonable to have a variety of favourite lenses too!
Jim
Just to add - Hans, you have some incredibly beautiful images on your website!
Jim, I can see your point and I would go as far as to say it's a good exercise. However in my view it is a bit opposite what you really want as the focal length determines compositions possible. Zoom with the feet is possible within limits but in many cases for landscapes this is not really possible. Of course, there is much more to making an image than "just" composition.
And thanks :)
-
I was poorly trying to make the point that Hans has described so eloquently. You don't use the lens to see the shot. You see the shot and then pick the lens that best captures it.
No, I do not. I do both. Sometimes I put on a given lens and then go out and find scenes to shoot with it, often because I do not want to carry all of them with me. I can't!
My experience is that Americans tend to try to cram too much into one shot, instead of making each photo tell part of the story and using a succession of images to tell the whole story. This is what's known as a 'photo story', and is ultimately derived from cinema. Sometimes l deliberately crop "too tight" and leave the viewer in the dark to some extent about the context. Here is an example:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/14375474170/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/14375474170/)
The fellow on the left is applying make-up to the one on the right. When they saw me, they stopped and reacted as you see in the photo. By placing the faces near the edges, a certain 'tension' is created. You don't need to see the whole head of either man. The viewer is immediately drawn to the eyes of the one in the upper left first. Only then do you realize the one on the right is also looking at the camera. His head is slightly in front of the plane of focus, whereas the one in the upper left is in focus, so that also leads the eye to the one in the upper left.
-
I was thinking about walk-around street photography. I think a moderate 35mm or maybe normal 50mm would be more useful most of the time.
I totally disagree. My experience is the complete opposite.
-
I totally disagree. My experience is the complete opposite.
Personally I agree with melchiorpavone. I use mostly a 14-150 Tamron lens optimized for M4/3 which gives a field of view equivalent 28-300 in FF terms. The two cameras I am using are the Olympus EM5 and the Panasonic Lumix GX7. Both have tilting LCDs and can be shot at stomach level. Because it isn't always possible to walk right into someone's space, which has the potential of alerting them to myself thus destroying the vision I had of the scene. If someone is happy to stand back and latterly crop an image then it is less of an issue. Today I shot street with a 12-50 which meant if I had got any keepers - only one or two - then cropping will be needed. If I use the longer focal length lens I still have the ability to restrict my shooting to 35 or 50mm in order to conform to the dictum that these focal lengths should be used. I sometimes shoot at the top of buildings to capture images of statues and similar carvings. To sum up flexibility is what I work to and not restrictive focal lengths. The Tamron lens is imo sharp at all focal lengths. It is a lens that has only been on the market a couple of months. Compact and a joy to use. :)
-
@Jim, Alan, Hans, and others. Thank you all for such insightful comments and supporting each other towards consensus even while maintaining a difference of preference.
@Hans: Thank you, Hans, for such a succinct and insightful post about how you approach your use of lenses. After reading your comment, and the responses by Alan, Jim, and others, I have come to understand much more clearly my preferred approach to the selection and use of lenses.
From your comments I can see that my preference is for the method, as Alan so well puts it, "...to see the shot and then pick the lens that best captures it", rather than the other approach of first choosing the lens and then going in search of the shot that best fits it (if I understand you correctly, Jim).
So, to answer my original question about finding a focal length to fit one's vision: I think that this discussion has expanded on this to conclude that it is a focal length that best captures the vision in that moment.
So, in conclusion, yes, use the focal length that matches how I see. Whether that is choosing a telephoto to pick out particularly pleasing patterns on a hillside, or a wide-angle to capture beautiful folding foothills approaching a mountain side.
@Hans: Hans, you mentioned that, for landscapes, you only use full-frame cameras. I think this is an interesting point to make and I reflected on this in light of my recent concerns about the resolution and image quality of m43. Particularly as I contemplate committing myself further to the m43 system through the purchase of additional expensive lenses.
Perhaps I should continue to utilise the image quality of the E-M1 as best I can until I have a need to go full-frame, and not worry about over investing in m43 lenses. Certainly, by all accounts, the top lenses available for the E-M1 (from the 43 and m43 range) are far better than anything available from Canon or Nikon for their APS-C cameras, and possibly comparable to some of the top lenses for full-frame. By the time I come up against the limits of m43 there might be a new sensor that could allow me to continue with my investment in m43.
The other option is to buy something like the Sony A7/A7R and excellent second-hand manual focus lenses - specifically for landscape, and keep the Olympus kit for everything else.
BTW, Hans, your images are absolutely wonderfully beautiful.
Thank you all, again.
Cheers,
Nick
-
Nick - one last thing. Do listen to all the views here - but as you have probably realised there is no 'right' way. You have to experiment yourself and my advice would be not to try and replicate other photographers but try to be different and find your own message in your photography. The biggest challenge is not the technical, but the seeing and conveying of your vision.
Jim
-
Agree - this is why I'm using longer focal lengths - to isolate the most interesting/meaningful part of the scene.
It can work both ways. 'De-cluttering' certainly is important to a photograph but so is context and relationship between different elements. A tight frame-filled shot had little depth or place for your eye to go.
Have a look at better wedding photography (and even wildlife photography). Rather than tight shots of each 'thing' (bride, cake etc.) showing them in context with other things or layering things in front usually makes for a much more compelling and visually interesting image. A bride getting ready framed by a doorframe is a totally different feeling shot to a frame filling tight shot. This is why you see a shift towards horizontal compositions and wider lenses.
-
Thanks, Jim. I think I am going through the process that every photographer will likely go through to learn to understand how to accommodate their way of seeing. As you suspect I had been heavily influenced by the "pick a lens and make it work" approach that works for many. Typically, these photographers like to work with the 28, 35 and 50mm focal lengths. I do, too. For the past year I have enjoyed using my 26mm equivalent Nokia Lumia 920, and I'm tempted to get the Ricoh GR (28mm equivalent).
As I began to look at longer lenses, like the Olympus 75mm f1.8, I read many say that the focal length just didn't work for them. This kind of comment caused me some confusion and made me ask the question in this thread. All of you have answered it and helped me to recognise and let go the preconceptions I've been hanging on to.
Jim, even though you have a preference for the single lens discipline you have been particularly affirmative of other approaches and I take note of your latest comment.
I was thinking that in the medium term I was going to get one or the other (75mm or the upcoming 40-150mm f2.8 PRO) but getting both fits the logic of this discussion. The PRO won't be available before I return to India so I'll go with the 75mm.
Cheers,
Nick
-
@Mark: I agree and can also attest to this problem from my own experience. Going by what Hans said, which was summarized by Alan's comment to pick the right lens to capture your vision, those overly tight compositions were me not seeing correctly and not choosing the right focal length.
-
It can work both ways. 'De-cluttering' certainly is important to a photograph but so is context and relationship between different elements. A tight frame-filled shot had little depth or place for your eye to go.
I find 'conventional' portraits mostly boring for that reason. They tend to be flattering mugshots and little else.
Which is probably why I tend to use wide angles for photographing people.
-
@Stamper: Hi Stamper, it is interesting to see the almost polarized preferences for wide and long focal lengths. There are a few m43 photographers who use the 75mm extensively for both standard portraiture and environmental portraiture, as well as for regular street. Check out Sohail Karmani's great work:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/sohailkarmani/14960744276/in/photostream/
Actually, he is pretty flexible. Using anything from a Panasonic 100-300 to a Voigtlander 17.5, and the Olympus 75.
-
It can work both ways. 'De-cluttering' certainly is important to a photograph but so is context and relationship between different elements. A tight frame-filled shot had little depth or place for your eye to go.
Have a look at better wedding photography (and even wildlife photography). Rather than tight shots of each 'thing' (bride, cake etc.) showing them in context with other things or layering things in front usually makes for a much more compelling an visually interesting image.
No, it doesn't.
A bide getting ready framed by a doorframe is a totally different feeling shot to a frame filling tight shot. This is why you see a shift towards horizontal compositions and wider lenses.
No, it depends on the package and what you are trying to accomplish. You need some of both.
You see a shift towards "horizontal compositions and wider lenses" because of the large number of rank amateurs with no training joining the ranks of 'professional' wedding photography.
-
No, it doesn't.
In your opinion maybe. But a bunch of images of people with no sense of location or place are of little interest to most people who do not know them.
You see a shift towards "horizontal compositions and wider lenses" because of the large number of rank amateurs with no training joining the ranks of 'professional' wedding photography.
So what training is there available for wedding photographers? Other than working as an assistant?
There's the old fashioned style of shooting which is what you seem to prefer and there's those of us who prefer less dull photos. :P
.
-
In your opinion maybe. But a bunch of images of people with no sense of location or place are of little interest to most people who do not know them.
So what training is there available for wedding photographers? Other than working as an assistant?
There's the old fashioned style of shooting which is what you seem to prefer and there's those of us who prefer less dull photos. :P
.
Quite, it's relatively easy to shoot a competent portrait with a long lens, much harder when shooting wider and having to control the background elements too. Of course each to their own - there is no right or wrong here.
Jim
-
In your opinion maybe. But a bunch of images of people with no sense of location or place are of little interest to most people who do not know them.
This is false. Look:
http://supermodelicons.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/veruschka_smi_0005.jpg (http://supermodelicons.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/veruschka_smi_0005.jpg)
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_T8jmzzBIK-Y/TJpf5TbK_rI/AAAAAAAAJN0/SLklVzaP--Y/s1600/Veruschka+1960s.jpg (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_T8jmzzBIK-Y/TJpf5TbK_rI/AAAAAAAAJN0/SLklVzaP--Y/s1600/Veruschka+1960s.jpg)
http://spgspgspg.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/V1.jpg (http://spgspgspg.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/V1.jpg)
Do you really give a damn about the context or what's behind Verushka? Do you?
So what training is there available for wedding photographers? Other than working as an assistant?
There's the old fashioned style of shooting which is what you seem to prefer and there's those of us who prefer less dull photos. :P
How about authentic, moving slices of reality?
-
This is false. Look:
http://supermodelicons.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/veruschka_smi_0005.jpg (http://supermodelicons.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/veruschka_smi_0005.jpg)
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_T8jmzzBIK-Y/TJpf5TbK_rI/AAAAAAAAJN0/SLklVzaP--Y/s1600/Veruschka+1960s.jpg (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_T8jmzzBIK-Y/TJpf5TbK_rI/AAAAAAAAJN0/SLklVzaP--Y/s1600/Veruschka+1960s.jpg)
http://spgspgspg.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/V1.jpg (http://spgspgspg.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/V1.jpg)
Do you really give a damn about the context or what's behind Verushka? Do you?
I don't particularly give a damn about those photos that's for sure. ;D I'm not saying there aren't good portrait shots done with a 85mm-ish lens, but most are boring mugshots. In my view.
So what training is there available for wedding photographers? Other than working as an assistant?
There's the old fashioned style of shooting which is what you seem to prefer and there's those of us who prefer less dull photos :P
How about authentic, moving slices of reality?
Is that really meant to be a reply to my question or is it just some random text?
-
A similar related topic is that the two M4/3 cameras I own have aspect ratio modes that can be configured using Raw. These certainly make a difference when shooting street. I find the 1.1 particularly appealing. and for wider shots the 16.9 is useful.
-
A similar related topic is that the two M4/3 cameras I own have aspect ratio modes that can be configured using Raw. These certainly make a difference when shooting street. I find the 1.1 particularly appealing. and for wider shots the 16.9 is useful.
Why not shoot with entire m4/3 sensor and crop afterwards? Particularly with street work, as if something interesting happens and you have the wrong crop mode, then chances are you may miss it whilst swapping aspect ratios.
I've had cameras that offer an in camera crop and all it does is crop pixels. Now if a camera had a square sensor and offered alternative crops within the entire circle, now that would indeed be useful as very different shapes would not simply be less MPs. Though I have some very vague recollection that some m4/3 sensors are slightly bigger than the official size which may be used by alternative aspect ratios
Further on this - I wish MFDSLRs had square sensors like they did with 6x6 film. Using such cameras in portrait is less than ergonomic shall we say and shooting square for commercial work is great because you can get a horizontal and vertical crop from same frame. So art editor can use same shot for different layouts in magazines/ads etc saves time shooting and with PP work compared to doing two versions of each image or just framing much wider to allow a vertical crop of a horizontal sensor, losing MPs again for both variations.
-
This is false. Look:
http://supermodelicons.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/veruschka_smi_0005.jpg (http://supermodelicons.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/veruschka_smi_0005.jpg)
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_T8jmzzBIK-Y/TJpf5TbK_rI/AAAAAAAAJN0/SLklVzaP--Y/s1600/Veruschka+1960s.jpg (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_T8jmzzBIK-Y/TJpf5TbK_rI/AAAAAAAAJN0/SLklVzaP--Y/s1600/Veruschka+1960s.jpg)
http://spgspgspg.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/V1.jpg (http://spgspgspg.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/V1.jpg)
Do you really give a damn about the context or what's behind Verushka? Do you?
How about authentic, moving slices of reality?
The first of those is reasonable - but the other two do absolutely nothing for me. The last one looks like the worst type of 1970's pin-ups. But each to their own, both in pictures and the gear used to make them....
Jim
-
Why not shoot with entire m4/3 sensor and crop afterwards? Particularly with street work, as if something interesting happens and you have the wrong crop mode, then chances are you may miss it whilst swapping aspect ratios.
I've had cameras that offer an in camera crop and all it does is crop pixels. Now if a camera had a square sensor and offered alternative crops within the entire circle, now that would indeed be useful as very different shapes would not simply be less MPs. Though I have some very vague recollection that some m4/3 sensors are slightly bigger than the official size which may be used by alternative aspect ratios
Further on this - I wish MFDSLRs had square sensors like they did with 6x6 film. Using such cameras in portrait is less than ergonomic shall we say and shooting square for commercial work is great because you can get a horizontal and vertical crop from same frame. So art editor can use same shot for different layouts in magazines/ads etc saves time shooting and with PP work compared to doing two versions of each image or just framing much wider to allow a vertical crop of a horizontal sensor, losing MPs again for both variations.
JJJ they invented zoom lenses so that you don't have to do that. I'm not against cropping but some sort of framing should be attempted in order to get a reasonable composition. Is that what you do? Shoot everything wide and crop afterwards?
-
I don't particularly give a damn about those photos that's for sure. ;D I'm not saying there aren't good portrait shots done with a 85mm-ish lens, but most are boring mugshots. In my view.
How about authentic, moving slices of reality?Is that really meant to be a reply to my question or is it just some random text?
Most attempts to be "creative" in wedding photography are cringeworthy. Most especially odious are the "Dutch angle" shots.
-
could probably take just about all my photos with my 24-105 f4 IS-II
But love the Zeiss f 2.8 21mm for some things. No substitute. Of course the 24 and 50mm for T/S... and 135mm (+/- 1.4 tele-extender) is nice for the skaters... uh, oh...!
Have 70-200 but only need it rarely for outdoors.
-
JJJ they invented zoom lenses so that you don't have to do that.
Except zooming has no bearing on aspect ratio which is what was actually being discussed.
I'm not against cropping but some sort of framing should be attempted in order to get a reasonable composition. Is that what you do? Shoot everything wide and crop afterwards?
Missed point entirely and managed to get a sly insult in too. I frame with the whole sensor, then if need be I then crop to a different aspect ratio later. Much better than faffing around with it in camera, which is a waste of time and pixels. Nothing to do with focal length or shooting randomly.
Do you even bother to read posts before replying snarkily, as there's no evidence here that you do or in other recent threads?
-
Most attempts to be "creative" in wedding photography are cringeworthy. Most especially odious are the "Dutch angle" shots.
Most attempts at creativity in all types of photography are not very good, so what's your point again?
So where are the amazing photos that you do, that are so much better and more interesting than all the rubbish you are so down on.
-
Except zooming has no bearing on aspect ratio which is what was actually being discussed.
Missed point entirely and managed to get a sly insult in too. I frame with the whole sensor, then if need be I then crop to a different aspect ratio later. Much better than faffing around with it in camera, which is a waste of time and pixels. Nothing to do with focal length or shooting randomly.
Do you even bother to read posts before replying snarkily, as there's no evidence here that you do or in other recent threads?
Cropping loses pixels? :(
-
Most attempts at creativity in all types of photography are not very good, so what's your point again?
So where are the amazing photos that you do, that are so much better and more interesting than all the rubbish you are so down on.
The point is that I don't try to be "creative". If the subject matter is worthy, that's enough.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/
-
The point is that I don't try to be "creative". If the subject matter is worthy, that's enough.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/
Good answer...! We share admiration for the same subjects I see.
But I do so like zooms since they will get me "in the ballpark" to begin so that cropping loss is minimal
-
As an aside... far too many folks here getting riled up over nothing. There are many different styles and they all work some places but maybe not everywhere
Folks see insults a little too easily as well. Disagreement does not mean insult in m experience.
-
Good answer...! We share admiration for the same subjects I see.
But I do so like zooms since they will get me "in the ballpark" to begin so that cropping loss is minimal
I like "dairy" shots. That's the kind of nature photography that appeals to me.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/7443478746/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/7443464458/
-
When you found a focal length that matched your way of seeing did you experience a revelation? Obviously, this is about shooting for yourself and not for commercial requirements.
There is no such thing as a magic focal length. It all depends on perspective and what you are trying to achieve. You could photograph the same landscape scene all your life and still find new and interesting ways to portray it. In fact, this is a great exercise to give yourself. Try to totally exploit a scene. Try photographing at the same total view a scene with different focal lengths at different camera differences. Really eye popping.
Now if what you mean is duplicating something else, then yes there are certain perspectives that have been dominant in the arts over the centuries. When I first started it seemed everyone was going SUPERWIDE happy and oversaturated Fuji Velvia happy.
-
As an aside... far too many folks here getting riled up over nothing. There are many different styles and they all work some places but maybe not everywhere
Folks see insults a little too easily as well. Disagreement does not mean insult in m experience.
However in context of posts made elsewhere, Stamper now likes to have a sly dig at me. It gets boring, so I call him out on it.
-
Most attempts at creativity in all types of photography are not very good, so what's your point again?
So where are the amazing photos that you do, that are so much better and more interesting than all the rubbish you are so down on.
The point is that I don't try to be "creative". If the subject matter is worthy, that's enough.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/
Actually it isn't, dull photos of something that may well be interesting in itself are still dull.
Those who sneer at creativity or post processing almost invariably do so not for any valid reason, but simply because they have no ability in those areas. So instead they like to put down those who do have some ability or talent.
Not an admirable attitude really.
-
Cropping loses pixels? :(
Is that a serious question?
-
The point is that I don't try to be "creative". If the subject matter is worthy, that's enough.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/
Actually it isn't, dull photos of something that may well be interesting in itself are still dull.
Those who sneer at creativity or post processing almost invariably do so not for any valid reason, but simply because they have no ability in those areas. So instead they like to put down those who do have some ability or talent.
Not an admirable attitude really.
True enough, but not what I meant. Dutch angle shots are trite and boring. Hold the camera level! Same thing with "shaky camera" in movies and commercials. Idiotic.
-
There is no such thing as a magic focal length.
Yes, there is. Don't contradict me. The area that the eye sees most sharply corresponds roughly to the angle of a 90 mm lens.
It all depends on perspective and what you are trying to achieve. You could photograph the same landscape scene all your life and still find new and interesting ways to portray it. In fact, this is a great exercise to give yourself. Try to totally exploit a scene. Try photographing at the same total view a scene with different focal lengths at different camera differences. Really eye popping.
There is more to photography than landscapes, of course.
Now if what you mean is duplicating something else, then yes there are certain perspectives that have been dominant in the arts over the centuries. When I first started it seemed everyone was going SUPERWIDE happy and oversaturated Fuji Velvia happy.
Not me!
-
Is that a serious question?
If you carefully re read Reply #61 then you will possibly see a contradiction in your statement but only if you re read it carefully.
-
True enough, but not what I meant. Dutch angle shots are trite and boring. Hold the camera level! Same thing with "shaky camera" in movies and commercials. Idiotic.
Not true. Dutch angles have their place, as does shakeycam. I have used both to excellent effect on many a shoot. There is, however no substitute for good camera operating, whatever the shot.
For an excellent example of creative, effective shakeycam use, watch the NASA camera-free animation of the Mars Science Laboratory re-entry.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t_RRZcVk5Q4
-
If you carefully re read Reply #61 then you will possibly see a contradiction in your statement but only if you re read it carefully.
Looks like you need to spend less time being snarky and antagonistic and be more careful about your reading.
Cropping in post from entire sensor gives the user all the pixels from which to crop, as opposed to having just part of the sensor set to record. Which may not be the appropriate aspect ratio and if you have no time to faff changing aspect, then you've lost potential pixels.
-
Looks like you need to spend less time being snarky and antagonistic and be more careful about your reading.
Cropping in post from entire sensor gives the user all the pixels from which to crop, as opposed to having just part of the sensor set to record. Which may not be the appropriate aspect ratio and if you have no time to faff changing aspect, then you've lost potential pixels.
But after you have cropped you have less pixels?
-
Don't know if you are completely missing the point or you are just being pointlessly argumentative.
-
Don't know if you are completely missing the point or you are just being pointlessly argumentative.
To whom is this directed?
-
The post directly above it. Pretty obvious if you actually read the conversation.
But if one is responding to a post further up you would quote the relevant parts and reply, just like this.
There is no such thing as a magic focal length. It all depends on perspective and what you are trying to achieve.
Yes, there is. Don't contradict me. The area that the eye sees most sharply corresponds roughly to the angle of a 90 mm lens
The master has spoken. Do not cross him again or he will smite you down like an insignificant nematode.
-
True enough, but not what I meant. Dutch angle shots are trite and boring. Hold the camera level! Same thing with "shaky camera" in movies and commercials. Idiotic.
Yeah being creative and trying different things should be banned.
BTW the things you despise are part of film grammar and are used to convey certain meanings or feeling to a scene.
Not true. Dutch angles have their place, as does shakeycam. I have used both to excellent effect on many a shoot. There is, however no substitute for good camera operating, whatever the shot.
Doing shakeycam takes skill and good direction to do well too as does knowing when to use it - just like with any technique.
-
The post directly above it. Pretty obvious if you actually read the conversation.
No, it isn't obvious. Why don't you quote what you are replying to?
-
Yeah being creative and trying different things should be banned.
BTW the things you despise are part of film grammar and are used to convey certain meanings or feeling to a scene.
LOL. No. You have to know the grammar. Dutch angles are intended to show psychological tension or unusual situations or a confused state of mind. Are you familiar with film noir?
https://www.google.com/search?q=film+noir+dutch+angle&biw=1372&bih=807&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=ersgVMbdPKi98QHL5YA4&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ
But Dutch angles have absolutely no place in wedding photography! Are you (expletives deleted) kidding me?