Noserider
Christiaan Phleger
Well I'll give a different point of view as my time as a news photographer as well as extensive sports shooting such as surfing.
Learning to use a longer focal length require not just the gear but the technique and the intention and commitment to stick with it.
I had many days when the 300/2.8 was my standard and the 80-200 was the wide angle, switching to the 400/2.8 and converting up to 600/4 and 800/5.6 would then feel 'longer'.
Learning when to use which FL is a good thing to focus on, in particular if you can change your position closer you can optimize each FL. Which leads to the next lesson of Positioning; small changes to your position relative to the subject can make a huge difference good and bad. Learn to keep your eyes on your subject as you move around you might find a good angle on the subject or the background or both.
One last item; sometimes the better lens to use is the in between FL that the 70-200 covers. The 105/135/180 primes I use are essential more so than the always useful 70-200.
Learning to use a longer focal length require not just the gear but the technique and the intention and commitment to stick with it.
I had many days when the 300/2.8 was my standard and the 80-200 was the wide angle, switching to the 400/2.8 and converting up to 600/4 and 800/5.6 would then feel 'longer'.
Learning when to use which FL is a good thing to focus on, in particular if you can change your position closer you can optimize each FL. Which leads to the next lesson of Positioning; small changes to your position relative to the subject can make a huge difference good and bad. Learn to keep your eyes on your subject as you move around you might find a good angle on the subject or the background or both.
One last item; sometimes the better lens to use is the in between FL that the 70-200 covers. The 105/135/180 primes I use are essential more so than the always useful 70-200.
BlackXList
Well-known
I think there's a bit of a pattern of what focal lengths people feel comfortable with here.
For me, I'm instantly comfortable with 28, 50 and 85mm, but I have to work a bit harder with 35mm.
For me it feels like there's a relationship between those lengths that feels very natural.
I want to start experimenting with Longer lengths, mostly 100 - 135 (because I don't really need anything longer than that 99.9% of the time.
For me, I'm instantly comfortable with 28, 50 and 85mm, but I have to work a bit harder with 35mm.
For me it feels like there's a relationship between those lengths that feels very natural.
I want to start experimenting with Longer lengths, mostly 100 - 135 (because I don't really need anything longer than that 99.9% of the time.
Noserider
Christiaan Phleger
Ive always felt that rather than a zoom a 135/180 prime is a better way to Learn how to shoot longer lenses. These days many 135's are very inexpensive especially the usually optically excellent slower 135's like the 3.5's and 2.8's
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I reckon the early 80's when computer aided design was taking off. I read a review of a lens in 1982 and cut out the page but never did anything else until a couple of years ago when I found the cutting and looked on ebay.
The lens in question was the Tokina 28-85mm AT-X f/3.5 to f/4.5 and it was a lot cheaper than I expected and a lot better than I expected too. As a result I kept just the camera body, a super fast standard lens and the zoom.
Here's a sample taken in macro mode and with the camera on auto everything ecept focus:-
They are not so (dirt) cheap these days but still a bargain, imo.
Regards, David
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
That's because they are a classic example, almost, of the Weber(-Fechner) Law. I said 'almost' as 28-50-89mm would be spot on if we round to the nearest integer. Weber started it and Fechner refined it and Steven's Power Law is also related.
It's one of those things you discover you can do easily with an old fashioned slide rule and a pencil and paper...
Regards, David
PS The next one in the 28-50-90 series would be 160mm or, the other way, about 15 or 16mm.
dee
Well-known
Moving to digital from Minolta , I placed my old 1997 silver 35-70 on the A35/A290 and latest A390 and the crop to 42 to 105 is just perfect to supplement a 35mm f1.8 Sony .
i liked the original 35-70 , but , frankly, I was amazed at how 'right' the nominal '42-105' feels for architecture details etc . It's also good for Grandkids chasing !!
I bought another earlier version in black for £20 of the A35 because it looks better !!
I love the rendering of Rokkors and the colours of the much derided CCD 14 mp Sony sensor -cue the additional £100 mint ,used A390 with the luxury of twin sensor live view , which I never use ! LOL
[ a slight autistic glitch finds distortion with 35mm and below , so this range is perfect.]
dee
i liked the original 35-70 , but , frankly, I was amazed at how 'right' the nominal '42-105' feels for architecture details etc . It's also good for Grandkids chasing !!
I bought another earlier version in black for £20 of the A35 because it looks better !!
I love the rendering of Rokkors and the colours of the much derided CCD 14 mp Sony sensor -cue the additional £100 mint ,used A390 with the luxury of twin sensor live view , which I never use ! LOL
[ a slight autistic glitch finds distortion with 35mm and below , so this range is perfect.]
dee
x-ray
Veteran
I really don't have a default lens in either RF or SLR. It all comes down to what I'm shooting. With my Leicas I've owned a couple of 135's but never really used them due to the tiny image in the VF so I stay in the 15-90 range. I do gravitate to more mid range lenses often but that's due to the subjects I shoot. If I had to carry two lenses only in RF it would be my 75 and 35's. With my SLR's I've owned the gamut from 8mm to 500mm. I carry G series zooms with my D800 kit (16-35, 24-70 and 70-200). I have a selection of primes that I carry with my Df from 20-135 and have another set of longer G glass for both cameras. No one lens will do everything.
narsuitus
Well-known
I "go-to" a lens when I need it. When I first started working for a newspaper, the 50mm was my default lens and the 28mm and 135mm were the other two lenses I normally carried with my 35mm film camera.
When I needed to use focal lengths longer than 135, there were a few things I had to keep in mind:
1. I had to get used to the high prices of those long focal lengths.
2. I had to get used to the bulk and weight of those long focal lengths.
3. It was hard to handhold the long focal lengths without camera shake ruining the image.
Today, image stabilization or vibration reduction helps but I had to use a tripod or monopod.
Focal Lengths by Narsuitus, on Flickr
When I needed to use focal lengths longer than 135, there were a few things I had to keep in mind:
1. I had to get used to the high prices of those long focal lengths.
2. I had to get used to the bulk and weight of those long focal lengths.
3. It was hard to handhold the long focal lengths without camera shake ruining the image.
Today, image stabilization or vibration reduction helps but I had to use a tripod or monopod.
Focal Lengths by Narsuitus, on Flickr
oftheherd
Veteran
My first two lenses after using the 50mm that can with my first SLR were a kit of cheap Yashikors; 28mm and 135mm, which were sort of a standard next two lenses.
I tend to see wide over long. So it didn't take me long to like an 18mm, and disregard a 35mm. I just don't see the point. I also like my 24mm. But there are uses for longer lenses and I have primes at 135mm, 200mm, and 300mm. I rather miss the Sigma 600mm cat I had before a house fire. That was a really fun lens to use for a lot of things. Sharp too.
When I want a lot of focal lengths covered without a lot of weight, I have three zooms that cover from 18mm to 150mm and macro.
But I think each person has to figure what they like to have by trying different focal lengths, and make sure they have that one covered.
I tend to see wide over long. So it didn't take me long to like an 18mm, and disregard a 35mm. I just don't see the point. I also like my 24mm. But there are uses for longer lenses and I have primes at 135mm, 200mm, and 300mm. I rather miss the Sigma 600mm cat I had before a house fire. That was a really fun lens to use for a lot of things. Sharp too.
When I want a lot of focal lengths covered without a lot of weight, I have three zooms that cover from 18mm to 150mm and macro.
But I think each person has to figure what they like to have by trying different focal lengths, and make sure they have that one covered.
GarageBoy
Well-known
I use 70 (the long end of a standard zoom) and 90 a lot for street scapes. Great for architectural details
mfogiel
Veteran
Never. Sometimes I go out with a longer lens, typically when I want to catch people unaware, but it wears out quickly. The longest "normal" for me is 60mm.
Macro ELMARIT 60/2.8
20156107 by marek fogiel, on Flickr
Macro ELMARIT 60/2.8
20156107 by marek fogiel, on Flickr
dee
Well-known
Another excellent telephoto is a 135 f3.5 Rokkor on aa 4/3rds Leica Digilux 3 with ultra thin adapter which is now jammed on the camera .
It's great , lightweight 270 at 4/3rds .
I have the twin Panasonic L1 , so the Leica sports a 45mm [ 90 ] or 35 F1,8 [ 70 ] , both of which suit me fine . .
It's great , lightweight 270 at 4/3rds .
I have the twin Panasonic L1 , so the Leica sports a 45mm [ 90 ] or 35 F1,8 [ 70 ] , both of which suit me fine . .
Noserider
Christiaan Phleger
Yeah like narsuitus my newspaper time was always walk out of the house with a wide, tele and maybe normal lens and always spare film. Most daily assignments wouldn't require a full kit but I found that certain combinations of lenses worked well to minimize weight and exposure to theft (I was shooting often in tourist zones with the accompanying camera theft problems).
Most days the first decision was sports oriented; if I was shooting track, football and baseball where I had the time the 400mm f/2.8 was always going despite the size and weight (ever lugged one around a mall for a simple grip and grin? not fun). If I was catching sports on a long busy saturday I'd switch the long glass to a 300mm f/2.8 and while it may seem to some that its not much lighter or smaller i got used to carrying one and coming off of a few 10 hour shooting days with a 400/2.8 the 300/2.8 was a featherweight. A couple of converters and I'd have the flexibility to get what I needed.
With the long glass out the way I'd consider the wide option; in most cases a 24mm f/2.8 was a standard; wide enough when used as a purely wide landscape lens and fast enough to use in tight spaces available light. This lens could be swapped with a 20mm f/3.5 or a 16mm fisheye combined with a 28mm f/2 for the extra speed.
Next would be the crucial mid lengths; these are the ones that everyone replaced with the 70-200 type fast zooms, which are fine but lock you into carrying each and every time the same heavy ass lens. I found that with forethought and 'creativity' a limited selection of faster mid-tele glass could really lighten my daily load. So; the thoughtful selection of an 85mm f/2 or 1.4; or 105mm f/2.5; or 135mm f/2 or 2.8: or 180mm f/2.8 could allow for the flexibility for full day variety shooting with a significant weight savings.
Of course a 50mm f/1.8 or 1.4 would be used as a body cap, but with one long lens, one mid length tele and one wide (with a 50) I could shoot a full variety of shooting situations for the newspaper and not have it be too much weight
Most days the first decision was sports oriented; if I was shooting track, football and baseball where I had the time the 400mm f/2.8 was always going despite the size and weight (ever lugged one around a mall for a simple grip and grin? not fun). If I was catching sports on a long busy saturday I'd switch the long glass to a 300mm f/2.8 and while it may seem to some that its not much lighter or smaller i got used to carrying one and coming off of a few 10 hour shooting days with a 400/2.8 the 300/2.8 was a featherweight. A couple of converters and I'd have the flexibility to get what I needed.
With the long glass out the way I'd consider the wide option; in most cases a 24mm f/2.8 was a standard; wide enough when used as a purely wide landscape lens and fast enough to use in tight spaces available light. This lens could be swapped with a 20mm f/3.5 or a 16mm fisheye combined with a 28mm f/2 for the extra speed.
Next would be the crucial mid lengths; these are the ones that everyone replaced with the 70-200 type fast zooms, which are fine but lock you into carrying each and every time the same heavy ass lens. I found that with forethought and 'creativity' a limited selection of faster mid-tele glass could really lighten my daily load. So; the thoughtful selection of an 85mm f/2 or 1.4; or 105mm f/2.5; or 135mm f/2 or 2.8: or 180mm f/2.8 could allow for the flexibility for full day variety shooting with a significant weight savings.
Of course a 50mm f/1.8 or 1.4 would be used as a body cap, but with one long lens, one mid length tele and one wide (with a 50) I could shoot a full variety of shooting situations for the newspaper and not have it be too much weight
Prest_400
Multiformat
I don't shoot over 100mm equivalent nowadays, and got used to a 30-40mm range. Mainly due to extensively shooting with my iPhone as a visual diary (and my Fuji 6x9 being a 39mm equivalent. Add to it that my EPL2 has a Sigma 20mm (40mm equivalent) and I'm there all day. I do use an OM50mm adapted and it works as a tele.
SO my normal is around 40mm, 50mm seems slightly long to me but I can adapt nicely.
I don't feel the need to much focal length variety, strangely became used to it. Occasionally I do have a few ideas of frames with longer lengths. I have become used to move around.
The thing was a hog and felt like a cannon (it is infact a Canon though
)
It'd be nice for plane spotting. Curiously I had an interest on far away subjects and it redirected me to photography, but somewhere on the way I forgot the want of teles.
Then go tell me that a "normal" Medium format kit is heavy!
SO my normal is around 40mm, 50mm seems slightly long to me but I can adapt nicely.
I don't feel the need to much focal length variety, strangely became used to it. Occasionally I do have a few ideas of frames with longer lengths. I have become used to move around.
Jesus! A couple of weeks ago I met with a friend who got a 70-200 2.8
The thing was a hog and felt like a cannon (it is infact a Canon though
)It'd be nice for plane spotting. Curiously I had an interest on far away subjects and it redirected me to photography, but somewhere on the way I forgot the want of teles.
Then go tell me that a "normal" Medium format kit is heavy!
Vics
Veteran
As I continue my journey back to SLR, I've found my happiness in my old K1000 bodies from the '70s. I have an 85mm f2, which I like quite well, and a 200mm f4, which I never use because I can't hand-hold it. I've wanted something longer, though and yesterday I hit on the idea of 135mm, everybody's favorite "kit" tele in the '60s and '70s. In any brand, these are cheap and VERY plentiful! They were usually fairly petite as well. Lots of choices from 3rd- party brands as well.
The Pentax 120mm f/2.8 is worth considering too, Vics... It was made in both M42 screw mount and bayonet mount. This is the longest/fastest lens that shares the 49mm filter size with most shorter Pentax lenses. And it's a fine performer.