Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

How do you choose which focal length to use?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:25 pm    Post subject: How do you choose which focal length to use? Reply with quote
I've realised I hardly ever use telephoto lenses. Maybe it's because I only had a 50 and a 28 for many years, which are fine for my work. To me, a tele is osed for taking shots of distant objects but maybe I should think of it the other way, as a tool that allows you to photograph from a distance or to get in close.

On my 400D a 135 seems such a restrictive angle of view, but in the Gallery I see some fantastic shots using 180 or even longer lenses for subjects I wouldn't automatically think of using longer then 50. How do you decide which length to use? Are there any "rules"?


PostPosted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thankfully, I think there are no rules, Peter. Everyone is free to use their lenses as they like it.

There are of course physical properties that one must be aware of: the longer the focal lenght, the narrower the inherent depth of field measured at the same aperture in comparison with shorter focal lenghts.

This means that when you want to isolate a subject from its background, a long focal lenght will help you.
On the opposite, when you want to have as much as possible objects within focus area, a short focal lenght will help you.

These are the phisical properties but in no way they are forcing you into a corner: I have seen great portraits taken with wide angle lenses and great landscapes taken with telephoto lenses.

Apart from the difference of physical properties, any other choice depends entirely on the taste and preference of the individuals.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It depends which subjects you need to shot and the environment.

Just an example: street photography.

I've read in many places that for street photography a moderate wide lens is the best. It's the best if you have crowded scenes or you want to put a lot of the surroundings/ambient in focus.
But I found out that if you want to catch a single human figure in full frame a tele is a lot better, first because you don't have to stay at 80 cm from your subject (with wild animals this is a MUST unless you're Attila, the tigers' best friend), second because the DOF is much shorter helping you to make pop your subject putting everything else out of focus.
So all in all it's a stylistic choice mixed with very practical reasons.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I prefer 100-150mm. Mostly because it makes it so much easier to isolate subjects. I also believe that composition is alot easier then with wideangle. I think its 500 times harder to compose a picture with 20mm then with 135.

That being said, I almost never take of the 55mm now Very Happy.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I mostly shoot between 24 and 85mm (real focal lenghts). First because my best lenses are in this range and second I guess I have the best "feeling" for these focal lenghts. I also love to shoot with extreme wide angles, but this is only possible for me with my (AF) Tokina 4/12-24.

Occasionally, I shoot with a 105 or a 135mm lens on my crop DSLR, but this is about it. Longer lenses I only use for very special reasons, I mean a 200mm lens on my DSLRS has the FoV of a 320mm lens on film. When do you need that? ... Right! Then I use it.

If I shoot with my rangefindes, almost exclusively street and city, I have never felt I needed more than I have (35 to 53mm). This is perfect for me and for the way I shoot with those cams.

With a film SLR I mostly shoot between 28 and 135mm - quite a coherent range to my DSLR usage.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
And again.... "Debug.... blah blah blah" -> double post


PostPosted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks, but I don't think I explained the question properly. If you have a subject you want to photograph and you have an open choice, do you prefer to walk closer and use a wide angle or do you prefer to stay at a distance and use a tele? What are the factors to consider? Why do portrait photographers use c. 100mm lenses for instance?

The depth of field is a good point, any more? (By "rules", I didn't mean laws and regulations, I meant like the rule of thirds).


PostPosted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Again, it depends...

With a tele you have a narrower view of background and a different perspective than with a wide.

Again, another practical example. My main studio work is shooting food. If I need to put the food in its contest over a laid table with other dishes, glasses, cutlery etc I use a wide because I can take a larger background view, if I want to isolate the food to put all the attention onto it I use a tele because I have a narrow background view and a shorter DOF. This with the relative dimension of the food being the same of course.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
Thanks, but I don't think I explained the question properly. If you have a subject you want to photograph and you have an open choice, do you prefer to walk closer and use a wide angle or do you prefer to stay at a distance and use a tele? What are the factors to consider? Why do portrait photographers use c. 100mm lenses for instance?

The depth of field is a good point, any more? (By "rules", I didn't mean laws and regulations, I meant like the rule of thirds).

With a tele DOF is more shallow and the perspective is more flat, whereas with wide angle there's more dof and the subject is "rounder". 135mm on full-frame is the focal length of choice for headshots, appropriate dof and perspective to fill the frame with a head. Also, teles are useful to isolate details from the surroundings. In a crowded place you probably can't just move anywhere you like (or move before the photo is gone), so a tele can be helpful to keep everything but your subject properly focused and filling a good part of the picture.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Putting aside physical limits such as getting close to shy animals or being restricted by the space available, the choice of FL very much depends on the image you want or put another way what you are trying to convey.
If we take photographing people as an example different FL can give very different impressions. A long FL will isolate the subject and even though the FOV may only be their head and shoulders the photo often conveys that impression of distance.
A wide angle lens brings you close to your subject and a well taken shot will also give the viewer the idea they are close.
You may have heard the favoured lenses of the Press Photographer are wide angle.
Moving closer requires more practice and care to handle the perspective but is nearly always worth it. It is however a technique many don’t like as they are frightened of encroaching on another’s ‘Personal space’, something you have to get over if you wish to do photography (Or stick to Landscapes).
I have only mentioned photographing people as most subjects require different treatments, that’s the fun of photography. But as a rule longer focal lengths will isolate and still retain a visual impression of distance. Short wide FL will (Or can) add impact and bring the viewer right into the image you have made.
Try to use lenses for what they contribute to your image rather than a means of getting different FOV.
PS the DOF of any FL is the same for the same relative subject size. A 100mm lens or a 30mm lens, with a head filling the frame have the same DOF. It is the distance between subject and camera that change.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
True ... and the way a lens "draws" a subject is important to. Since portaits need to be realistic, it is no good idea to use an extreme wide angle. Any lens between 35 and 135mm offers a natural perspective and thus a face looks like it does in reality.
With the short teles 85, 105 or 135mm you can get both, narrow DoF and a correct perspective.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, I went swimming yesterday and took along the 400D with 85 and 135 lenses to get used to them on the crop camera. After the film cameras this viewfinder looks smaller than ever! I won't show any pictures I took, this is going to need some practice. Smile


PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think it depends how you see things without a camera. I regularly shoot 90-210mm (35mm equiv.) but I have a friend who rarely goes beyond 50mm. He sees big shapes in the world, I see tiny details.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Puplet wrote:
I think it depends how you see things without a camera. I regularly shoot 90-210mm (35mm equiv.) but I have a friend who rarely goes beyond 50mm. He sees big shapes in the world, I see tiny details.

That's very interesting, I think I'm probably more like your friend.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
To shoot everything with 50mm that is normal human eye view. In photography one of the greatest thing to show other perspective than human eye can discover easily. 50mm or less lenses more less tourists fotos for me I rare use them. I know a few exception like Simon's art (Speedkenedy3000). I highly recommend Peter to discover tiny details.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It would be very clever to see things in many different perspectives and make your images in the best way you think suits your subject or conveys the impression you are trying to make. Or at least try.
I agree 100% that to stand at eye level or any other 'Usual' possition with a 50mm or near ‘Normal’ lens for ALL your shots isn’t right. In fact it shows a complete lack of understanding of good photography and no artistic inclination. It is IMO no matter how good the quality of the image or the equipment that produced it just a snap shot. Good for record shots of places you visited or events you have seen but of no photographic interest or skill.
I wonder how many have had to suffer looking through loads of images taking from the same viewpoint, with the same lens of almost the same subject. It’s better than sleeping tablets!


PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rob Leslie wrote:
I agree 100% that to stand at eye level or any other 'Usual' possition with a 50mm or near ‘Normal’ lens for ALL your shots isn’t right. In fact it shows a complete lack of understanding of good photography and no artistic inclination.

Thank God, nobody is proclaiming that here!
It seems that all of us know a great deal about photography and show some "artistic inclination".

Last edited by LucisPictor on Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:23 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
Rob Leslie wrote:
I agree 100% that to stand at eye level or any other 'Usual' possition with a 50mm or near ‘Normal’ lens for ALL your shots isn’t right. In fact it shows a complete lack of understanding of good photography and no artistic inclination.

Thank God, nobody is proclaiming that here!
It seems that all of us know a great deal about photography and show some "artistic inclination".


I must (Quickly) agree with that.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rob Leslie wrote:
I agree 100% that to stand at eye level or any other 'Usual' possition with a 50mm or near ‘Normal’ lens for ALL your shots isn’t right. In fact it shows a complete lack of understanding of good photography and no artistic inclination. It is IMO no matter how good the quality of the image or the equipment that produced it just a snap shot. Good for record shots of places you visited or events you have seen but of no photographic interest or skill.


Well, I think maybe sometimes I do take too many pictures using a 50mm lens (or 35 on the 400D), and probably a lot of my photographs are indeed snapshots, although they're not all from eye level.

But I wouldn't say I have "a lack of understanding of good photography and no artistic inclination". From when I started 35mm photography in 1967 right up till 1993, I had only a 50mm and later a 28mm lens. In those days money was very tight for us and there were far more important things than lenses. In 1993 I was able to afford a cheap s/h 28-80 zoom to fit my ME Super, but even then I didn't use it very much as the exposures were often faulty. So I got into the habit of using foot zoom whenever possible.

In fact I never used anything longer than 80mm until late 2006 when I discovered how cheap lenses were on Ebay, and I bought my first 135 and then a 200 lens. And even now I'm finding I hardly ever use them. I find it difficult to know when to fish them out, and when I do it feels like I'm using a telescope. Hence the reason I started this thread and why I need some constructive help. Thanks.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hmmm... I don't think there's a focal length that is artistic and another one that is snapshotting. I remember plenty of great shots from the best names of photography taken with normal lenses.
It depends a lot on what's your vision, alas what result you want to achieve.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
I'm finding I hardly ever use them. I find it difficult to know when to fish them out, and when I do it feels like I'm using a telescope. Hence the reason I started this thread and why I need some constructive help. Thanks.

This is my experience with af zooms (assuming a situation where you can use both teles and normal lenses): when I mount my 100-300 zoom I have usually taken shorter fl photos already and I decide to give up any photos i can't take with the tele for a while, so I can concentrate on taking photos with the tele. With fixed focals I guess it's much more practical to have a couple of camera bodies as well to avoid wasting much time switching lenses (or to stop having to think when to choose).


PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think all lenses can be used to take 'artistic' photographs and I also believe all lenses can be used to take 'snapshots'. It all comes down to the individual photographer.

Like Peter, if you only have 1 lens, you learn how to use it in different situations. Some lenses may seem to be more usable in certain situations. Many consider 85mm to be an ideal portrait lens. Excellent portraits have been taken with 35mm lenses. What changes is the 'intimacy' you have with your subject, the 85mm allows a greater distance from the subject and therefore you may get a more natural pose (not worried about the camera right up in your face).

If you are going for general photos of a certain type (landscape, portrait, wildlife) take a lens that is suited for that situation. If you are walking around just looking for something interesting, experiment with different focal lengths. You may discover a hidden artistic talent.

I guess with all that rambling, all I am trying to say is shoot what you are comfortable with, but don't be afraid to step outside the box and try something different.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
Rob Leslie wrote:
I agree 100% that to stand at eye level or any other 'Usual' possition with a 50mm or near ‘Normal’ lens for ALL your shots isn’t right. In fact it shows a complete lack of understanding of good photography and no artistic inclination. It is IMO no matter how good the quality of the image or the equipment that produced it just a snap shot. Good for record shots of places you visited or events you have seen but of no photographic interest or skill.


Well, I think maybe sometimes I do take too many pictures using a 50mm lens (or 35 on the 400D), and probably a lot of my photographs are indeed snapshots, although they're not all from eye level.

But I wouldn't say I have "a lack of understanding of good photography and no artistic inclination". From when I started 35mm photography in 1967 right up till 1993, I had only a 50mm and later a 28mm lens. In those days money was very tight for us and there were far more important things than lenses. In 1993 I was able to afford a cheap s/h 28-80 zoom to fit my ME Super, but even then I didn't use it very much as the exposures were often faulty. So I got into the habit of using foot zoom whenever possible.

In fact I never used anything longer than 80mm until late 2006 when I discovered how cheap lenses were on Ebay, and I bought my first 135 and then a 200 lens. And even now I'm finding I hardly ever use them. I find it difficult to know when to fish them out, and when I do it feels like I'm using a telescope. Hence the reason I started this thread and why I need some constructive help. Thanks.


Same story here. I used 28mm and 50mm on 35mm film for many years (28 is 17/18mm on crop) I bought a 105mm in 1976 but and a 70-210 zoom but I never liked telephoto shots and I'm still not keen on them for general run of the mill things. I started 35mm SLR about 1964 my first camera was a Practica FX3 with the f2.8 50mm Tessar. my first 'Real' camera was a Penatx SL about 1966 that had the f1.8 55m lens which I still use.
It was 1979 before I got a 24mm (Nikon) and I loved that but would still go for the 28mm most times. I would do most subjects (inc sport) with 28mm. The only reason I ever bought a telephoto lens was when I took an interest in wildlife. I had plenty of access to good telephoto lenses put never used them if I could help it.
Today I find I am going wider again. I love the Zenitar 16mm on crop DSLR and now after testing four copies I have finally got a good Sigma 10-20mm, which I expect to use a lot. 10-15mm is hard work but worth it.
I have never used a zoom to save moving.

PS. I thought ALL written in capitals clearly qualified my statement


PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
... and probably a lot of my photographs are indeed snapshots...

Peter, about 99% of my shots are snapshots. So what? Wink
"Snapshot" does not mean "bad", does it? In my understanding it just means that a photo was not planned, arranged and set, it rather was a spontaneous reaction to what you have seen. That is what I almost always do. Embarassed
Also my camera-and-coffee shots (which are the most "arranged" shots I do) are some kind of snapshots. I normally put the camera next to a cup in a way I like it and shoot, takes about 10 sec. Very Happy


PostPosted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I was like you Peter in that when I learned photography in the 80's and got my camera all I could afford was a teleconverter to add to the 50mm F2.0 the XGM came with. It didn't detract from the photography. At the end of the nineties and I replaced my destroyed XGM with an SRT200 I got a 45mm lens and later Lana bought me a 135mm store brand prime.

Last fall before I came here I discovered eBay and lenses.

I find the most common lenses I use are my 2 Tamron zooms - I guess I like the flexibility they afford me as well as the ability to zero in on the shot - cropping in the field.

The best way to figure out your rules is to practice and explore.

Jim
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Techniques
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2