River Dog
Always looking
Out with my dinky Rollei 35 the other day, I come across a tourist with a pro DSLR and a great big 300mm lens, taking shots of a busker in the narrow streets.
"I was going to get one of those but I decided to save a lot of money and just move in closer", I quipped.
"I want the narrow depth of field." he says.
"Well, you going to get his nose hair with that thing", I reply.
We get into a nerdy discusson about cameras, when he asks "So, is there anywhere around here where I can get a lot further away?"
"I was going to get one of those but I decided to save a lot of money and just move in closer", I quipped.
"I want the narrow depth of field." he says.
"Well, you going to get his nose hair with that thing", I reply.
We get into a nerdy discusson about cameras, when he asks "So, is there anywhere around here where I can get a lot further away?"
Jubb Jubb
Well-known
I don't really think you get involved with the scene/street when you are shooting from that distance. In some sense, it is very creepy shooting from that distance, like a peeping tom. You won't get as good and candid shots if shooting street than you would from being right near your subjects or location...
River Dog
Always looking
I dunno, the busker is a shy and rare animal in a World Heritage site
btgc
Veteran
One must be really good protographer to make good photos with such a long lens. I normally take crap shots with 300mm. Wides are more forgiving - at least sometimes happens in frame when I look at scans.
Sparrow
Veteran
I came across a chap with a huge zoom lens on an outing a while back, it looked too aggressive to me ...
Texsport
Well-known
I think that its an interesting concept but may have limited application, certainly being more difficult to accomplish spontaneously.
The possibilities for subject isolation and more candid captures are attractive, however.
Texsport
The possibilities for subject isolation and more candid captures are attractive, however.
Texsport
oftheherd
Veteran
Back in the mid-70s, telephoto was an often touted use for street. It just wasn,t called street. Reading the magazines of the day and seeing the shots with telephotos had me lusting for one (especially in Korea where the locals often objected to having their photos taken). Then I found out I "saw" more in wide than telephoto.
uinku
Established
So are any of his photos online?
elude
Some photographer
You can take good "street" pictures with such a lens but, I find it really really difficult.
However I'm kind of tired of people moking these amateur photographers.
Having a good conversation with another human being, no matter how ignorant, or careless, or candid he might be, is way more interesting that pointing out that he's stupid for using his camera this way and not the way he should.
However I'm kind of tired of people moking these amateur photographers.
Having a good conversation with another human being, no matter how ignorant, or careless, or candid he might be, is way more interesting that pointing out that he's stupid for using his camera this way and not the way he should.
bhop73
Well-known
Sometimes I use my 70-200 zoom on the street. I rarely take pics of people with it though.. I like taking photos of cars, architecture, nice textures, just stuff that looks interesting to me.
ryan26
Established
Different strokes for different folks...
I'd say that the majority of travel 'street' photography is long lens.
I'd say that the majority of travel 'street' photography is long lens.
Araakii
Well-known
That's great! I wish everyone else would use a 300mm so I can have all the room I want up close by myself.
Luis
Member
Reading this post I remembered a book from the early 60s of London street photographs taken with a long lens. I've checked and it was London, city of any dreams. The photographer was Erwin Fieger with text by Colin MacInness. I seem to remember that the lens was a 200mm, and also that the photos, in color, had a strong graphic effect. But that was just my impression at the time, a long time ago, and I do not have the book.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
The term in Britain was "candid photography" and in the 'sixties and 'seventies there was a general tendency to lenses in the 90 - 135mm range, at least according to the photographic magazines of the day.
btgc
Veteran
Your stories made me remembering Ricoh book covering their SLR system - long lenses like 200 and 70-200 were mentioned as a must for travel. Right, candid photography. They allow to "grab subject out of it's environment" - so they were described. Yet they allow to "isolate subject from background". Back then tourists weren't used to stick WA into face of locals, now this has changed.
What I know is guys carrying heavy zooms all day around are physically stronger than those with wide angle primes Well, I'm not talking about cheaters with small sensor superzoom owners.
What I know is guys carrying heavy zooms all day around are physically stronger than those with wide angle primes
Well, I'm not talking about cheaters with small sensor superzoom owners.
There is no one right way to make photographs.
Araakii
Well-known
dmc
Bessa Driver
user237428934
User deletion pending
What I know is guys carrying heavy zooms all day around are physically stronger than those with wide angle primes
Canon EF 1.4/24mm = 650g, EF 4-5.6/75-300 = 480g, both full frame lenses.
Just compare the right lenses
Nokton48
Veteran
I've been challenging myself with 300mm and 400mm lenses recently. Yes they are difficult to use. I'm enjoying it.