Thoughtful focal length selection

Grainbelt · February 8, 2012

Been struggling with thoughtful focal length selection lately, to the point that I'm considering more lens acquisition to experiment.

I use a 35mm prime as a walkaround on a crop camera quite frequently. I like the close to 'normal' field of view for a lot of things, but I'm finding the images lacking a certain visual impact.

For example:

I can't help feeling that both would be better served by GETTING CLOSER, and shooting with a wider angle lens. I do have the kit 18-55, but the distortion at the wide end keeps me from going much wider than 21-24 depending on the subject.

I'm curious what others have done. My 35 could easily be swapped for a 15 or 21mm prime. Just in a bit of a rut and finding even my more interesting compositions a bit lacking. I do like primes, for whatever reason I make more careful compositions in the moment. I'm simply unsure whether I'm making a decision or defaulting to what I'm comfortable with.

On the other end, I am selling my 50mm 1.4 to buy a 70mm 2.8 macro, to accomplish the opposite - getting closer, with more subject isolation.

Appreciate any general or specific thoughts from the talented, knowledgeable folks here.

pathfinder · February 9, 2012

Years ago, some suggested using lenses in multiples of 2. That is 24,50, 100, 200, etc.

Several modern zooms are very good, and any distortion at the wide end can now usually be easily corrected with processing in Lightroom, Adobe Camera Raw, or DXO. Canon's 17-55 IS is quite nice, and Nikon makes a similar version.

For walk around I like a 24-105, or even a 28-300 Tamron, at times if I am thinking wildlife. The best lens you have is the one you have with you on your camera.

I find looking for great light can be more important than a great subject ( or lens ) sometimes.

denisegoldberg · February 9, 2012

I find that my most-used lens (on a crop-sensor body) for landscape photos is my 10-22mm, although on recent wanders I've been flipping between the 10-22mm and a 24-105mm lens. I have a hard time giving up the wide end.

--- Denise

Grainbelt · February 9, 2012

I had a Sigma 10-20 for a brief time (Pentax body) and enjoyed it for wide, sweeping vistas but never got close enough to a subject to really elicit a great image from it. I was always stepping back to 'get it all in' which, in hindsight, was probably the opposite of what I should have done.

When out on a walkabout - for me, a motorcycle ride - when you hazard upon something, how do you make that focal length determination? With a zoom, I catch myself standing in one place playing with the zoom ring, and with a prime I do a better job of working with the light, but often wonder what I'm missing. I guess I see potential images in roughly 'normal' focal lengths, but I end up with very 'normal' looking photos.

I should probably stop rambling and go shoot some more, eh?

zoomer · February 9, 2012

it isn't the lens

you can take photos with no visual impact with every lens ever created

look for interesting light and interesting compositions, subjects

Moving Pictures · February 9, 2012

I've really enjoyed working with a new-to-me Sigma f.28 28-70. Now, you know I play in the way-long focals frequently, but I didn't realize how much I was limiting myself by not having good glass in that range. You have good glass in that range. Different good glass, to me, doesn't seem to be the solution. (Maybe I'm off-base. I haven't used a prime since I moved to Canon EOS systems for work somewhere in the mid 90s.)

Trust your instincts. Get closer. I've seen your work, and you know what you're doing, how to frame, how to expose. Maybe all you need is to shift your perspectives a bit, by shooting from a lower/higher angle, increasing DOF/pushing for more bokeh ...

I just don't think glass is your issue.

(PS: in your first image, I think the "feeling" you were after might have been gained by moving past that walkway thing on the left, then moving lower to the ground, and thus the arrangement of rock/concrete would have had more of the eye-appealling vanish-from-foreground-to-background effect.)

MarkR · February 10, 2012

I've been shooting with mostly 3 lenses: 15mm f/4, 35mm f/2.8 macro, and 100mm f/2.8 macro on a crop body. (To be honest, sometimes the 100mm macro is a bit too long; I think a 70mm or 77mm would be more reasonable.) But I'm much happier than when I had an all-in-one 18-250 superzoom, and I don't feel like I have any "gaps". It's hard to explain, but I feel more creative working with what I have on my lens and working the scene, rather than planting my feet and zooming around. Having said that, I try to use a little intelligence when I make my initial lens selection-- and I'll reluctantly change lenses if I really have to.

pathfinder · February 10, 2012

I think Mark is re-iterating my suggestion to think in ratios of 2.......

MarkR · February 10, 2012

pathfinder wrote: »

I think Mark is re-iterating my suggestion to think in ratios of 2.......

Guess I am. Go figger.

Part of that, of course, is that I have a very nice 16mp sensor-- so I can crop by half and still have a good 4 mp image-- nice enough for a decent sized print.

Grainbelt · February 10, 2012

I'm very close to selling off all my film stuff and my 50/1.4, buying the 15/4, keeping the 35 Ltd, and buying the Sigma 70/2.8 macro.

That leaves me with nothing faster than F/2.8, but the autofocus on my K200D is unreliable enough that narrower DOF is usually wasted on out of focus shots.

MarkR · February 10, 2012

Grainbelt wrote: »

I'm very close to selling off all my film stuff and my 50/1.4, buying the 15/4, keeping the 35 Ltd, and buying the Sigma 70/2.8 macro.

That leaves me with nothing faster than F/2.8, but the autofocus on my K200D is unreliable enough that narrower DOF is usually wasted on out of focus shots.

You'll love and hate that 15. It's wide enough that focus doesn't need to be very accurate-- heck, just find the hyperfocal lengths for a few apertures and forget about it, but it does involve rearranging your brain a little bit composition-wise, or at least I think so. But then, you've probably already seen that thread over at PF, haven't you?

Colors are amazing.

I never cared for the FA 50 1.4, and eventually sold mine. It was fast, and accurate, and reasonably sharp stopped down, but it always felt a like it was missing something. It was the lens that proved to me that there was something to lenses besides MFT measurements and edge sharpness.

Thoughtful focal length selection

Comments