pechelman
resu deretsiger
one virtue I've never really seen discussed much, or at all, regarding wide to ultra-wide focal lengths is the following;
They allow you to get really close to your intended subject & scene, so that when trying to photograph items in public spaces or museums, especially ones that are also popular with other tourists or photographers, you are closer than ALL of them. This has the major benefit of also removing them from your photograph so the end result is a picture of the object you want with much fewer distractions in it.
To me, the sweet spot for this is 21mm, specifically ones that show excellent distortion correction. (Fuji XF14mm / Zeiss Biogon Contax-G 21mm)
Similarly, the same goes for doing group shots in public places. Less worry that you'll have someone walk through your frame since you are so much closer to your subjects.
They allow you to get really close to your intended subject & scene, so that when trying to photograph items in public spaces or museums, especially ones that are also popular with other tourists or photographers, you are closer than ALL of them. This has the major benefit of also removing them from your photograph so the end result is a picture of the object you want with much fewer distractions in it.
To me, the sweet spot for this is 21mm, specifically ones that show excellent distortion correction. (Fuji XF14mm / Zeiss Biogon Contax-G 21mm)
Similarly, the same goes for doing group shots in public places. Less worry that you'll have someone walk through your frame since you are so much closer to your subjects.
Obviously I was joking, but it's a small space... so the shower should be the same. Let's say canoe... or other small space then. I saw a picture of Araki in the bathtub making photos by the way...
BillBingham2
Registered User
Hsg
who dares wins
If you're bored with a certain focal length, your photos are also going to be boring, it does not matter if the the lens is wideangle, normal or telephoto.
So, forget the gear part and become conscious of your own thoughts and feelings.
If there is a creative spark inside you, it will guide you to the right gear, the gear on the other hand will never light that creative spark inside you, no matter how many camera or lenses you buy.
So, forget the gear part and become conscious of your own thoughts and feelings.
If there is a creative spark inside you, it will guide you to the right gear, the gear on the other hand will never light that creative spark inside you, no matter how many camera or lenses you buy.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
ferider
Veteran
I think there are two groups of people in this thread, Roger.
Group 1: puts a 90 on, and then is looking for something (mostly me)
Group 2: sees a shot that requires a 90, and then puts the lens on and uses it (jsrockit ?).
My point in my first post was that 2) only works for some situations (like landscapes), or if you have at least 2 cameras with you.
Roland.
kxl
Social Documentary
I envision the types of images that I want to take on a given day at a given location. WRT 35mm RF, for the past few years those images that I envision seem to warrant a 25mm, 35mm or 50mm. The 28mm FL is a special case, and my ongoing love/hate relationship with that FL is still raging.
Over the years, I've envisioned images that would have seemed to warrant lenses wider than a 25mm or longer than a 50mm, but the images that I produced with thos FL's just never seemed 'right' to me, so I no longer own those lenses (except for a CV 90/3.5 that's been sitting in the closet). That's probably an expensive way to find one's vision, but that's what happened to me.
Over the years, I've envisioned images that would have seemed to warrant lenses wider than a 25mm or longer than a 50mm, but the images that I produced with thos FL's just never seemed 'right' to me, so I no longer own those lenses (except for a CV 90/3.5 that's been sitting in the closet). That's probably an expensive way to find one's vision, but that's what happened to me.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
You're absolutely right, Roland. Actually my guess is that most of us use both methods at various times; perhaps one more than others... but we still make those choices, and usually for reasons of framing, DOF isolation or inclusion... there are a variety of reasons.
This is really an exercise in self-reflection about why we work the way we do.
What I'm trying to pull out of folks, either way, is how they go about making that selection... what their process is. We all have "process." For some of us it seems "instinctive" but the bottom line is that there is an articulatable reason that we use what we use... and once we articulate that, its easier to understand why we may make other choices as well. And it's more clear to other folks what their options may be too.
cz23
-
I got that. Of course, I was joking. too. I should have included an smiley.
Nah, I'm more of the type that works within 28mm-85mm and if I miss a shot that would have been better with a different focal length, oh well... there are more photos elsewhere.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
That's a most interesting reply, Helen. Please tell us about your "safety zone" and why you feel that way.
cz23
-
That's how I feel. Let it go. And it's not like there's more photographic potential at the distance and FOV of one focal length vs another. The world swirls around us equally at every distance and in every direction. Within reason, it's just a question of where we choose to direct our attention.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
That's an interesting perspective. I see it more as where do I choose to direct my viewer's attention. What do I highlight that is interesting? How do I frame it for what I want my viewer to see? What is the best field of view and perspective? Do I want shallow or deep DOF? All of those choices help me determine what my lens choice will be... or if I'm limited to what I have on my camera, how best to use it to show what I want.
I can't think this way (and I'm not saying it is wrong). I don't know who my viewer might be... so I can only go out and do what I think is the best way to do my photography and hope for viewers.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
I don't think any of us really know who our viewers will be... and so we can't shoot for anyone in particular (unless of course it's a commercial paid gig...)
but we know what we want to show the viewer (whoever that may be...) and that's what we shoot. Whether or not anyone likes it is a whole 'nother issue... but that's what "vision" and subsequently "style" are about. Showing the viewers what WE want them to see the way WE want them to see it. And our lens choices heavily influence how we show what we want to show.
rbsinto
Well-known
When I'm shooting with rangefinders, I always carry three as well as one SLR with a 180 2.8 for reach.
For the rangefinders depending on my mood they'll be equipped with one of the following lenses:
17 or 19 mm SLR lens via Amedeo F-S adapter, 21 or 24: environmental portraits, large group scenes or stealthy shooting from the hip or chest without looking through the viewfinder
35 1.8 environmental portraits that require less depth of field
85 f2 or 105 2.5 portraits or scenes from short distance, and/or that require
shallow depth of field.
135 portraits or scenes at longer distance
180 2.8 on SLR for portraits or scenes at a distance and/or requiring shallow depth of field.
For me this isn't Science of the Rocket, but rather just common sense based on experience, and what has worked best for me in the past.
For the rangefinders depending on my mood they'll be equipped with one of the following lenses:
17 or 19 mm SLR lens via Amedeo F-S adapter, 21 or 24: environmental portraits, large group scenes or stealthy shooting from the hip or chest without looking through the viewfinder
35 1.8 environmental portraits that require less depth of field
85 f2 or 105 2.5 portraits or scenes from short distance, and/or that require
shallow depth of field.
135 portraits or scenes at longer distance
180 2.8 on SLR for portraits or scenes at a distance and/or requiring shallow depth of field.
For me this isn't Science of the Rocket, but rather just common sense based on experience, and what has worked best for me in the past.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Have you never thought "that would look great with the ....mm lens" and then realised you've left it at home?
Regards, David
hepcat
Former PH, USN
I'd say the more relevant question would be to count how many times you actually had the ...mm lens with you! :bang:
Hsg
who dares wins
Let me answer you by first by describing the challenges that faces a typical street photographer - my field of photography.
If you use a prime lens in street photography, you have to go back and forth and zoom with your legs, this alerts people to your presence and also makes you seem awkward. If you use a zoom lens, you have to stand still and zoom back and forth, and while you do that everyone notices the guy with his eye on the view finder fiddling suspiciously.
If you use a P&S and do hip shots, people think you're one of those creepy up-the-skirt perverts. If you use a long lens you look like a voyeur.
So what to do? Do you go to some poor country and become a slum tourist with smiling locals in your photos? That is easy street photography, but after a hundred photos of people sitting on the street cooking food and smiling at the camera, there is not much 'art' in there.
What I'm saying is that there is no short cut to making art. If its too easy, its crap. So, if you're lucky you're going to find the right focal length for your subject, if you're not, like most photographers, you're in the mercy of GAS and ebay.
Free your mind of everything that you know about photography and wait for the spark to return, once you have the creative spark, the gear part will fall into place by default. otherwise photography becomes a hell of GAS and constant frustration.