|
Post by kiev4a on Feb 21, 2008 17:58:36 GMT -5
There were varied opinions but it brings up a point that I'm sure has been discussed since the invention of the interchangeable lens. I'm wondering whether wide angle or teles are used more by forum members?
I suspect the answer is telephoto. But I have been shooting since the 1960s and although I always have had telephotos--both primes and zooms--they have spent most of their time in the camera bag or on a shelf back home. On the other hand, probably at least 85 percent of the photos I have take over the years have been with 50mm or wider lenses. Of those pictures (film and digital) I've probably shot more with 24mm than any other lens. DX has thrown me off stride a little but I find myself doing most of my shooting with the wide end of an 18-70mm zoom or with my 20mm f2.8 Nikkor which comes in at about 30mm on the D300.
Part of my love of WA lenses is the intimacy they can give to a photo and the depth of field. Telephotos and big zooms are just too much trouble to haul around.
Does anyone else have specific preferences for tele of wa?
|
|
|
Post by nikkortorokkor on Feb 21, 2008 19:13:21 GMT -5
Wide.
I always want big teles 'coz I have fantasies about wildlife photography, but in truth, it's the wides I use the most. When in China, I specifically bought a Phenix in MD rather than PK mount for the 24mm that Seagull made in MD and it's the only non-Rokkor lens I regularly use now. The widest I've gone is Tokina's chintzy little 17/3.5, which I had in AIS. I still miss that lens.
The big thing I missed when I went digital P&S was the wide angle (my Oly zooms from about 31 - 310). In fact, I got back into film because I missed the wides too much. I'd be a sucker for Ricoh's GR in film or digital and their Caprio GX 100 seems the perfect concept. CV's BessaL is also an interesting concept that I've always had a hankering to try.
Same reasons as Wayne, intimacy and DOF. I particularly like super WA (24 and wider) for the abstract feeling it imparts when shooting architecture.
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Feb 21, 2008 20:21:41 GMT -5
Michael:
You are right. Most of the digital p&s cameras only go to about 35mm on the wide end of their zooms. A few go to 28. Kodak had one that went to 24mm but they quit making it.
|
|
jmi
Senior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by jmi on Feb 21, 2008 21:31:45 GMT -5
For me it's definitely wide too, very close to 100% of my shots these days are with 50mm or wider (on 135), with the notable exception of tightly cropped portraits where I usually have the 180mm on the 6x7. The longest lens I have ever owned is my FD 100mm macro, and it doesn't get used very often! However last time I went on a photo-walk with the local flickr group, nearly everybody was shooting long lenses - I get the impression that a lot of the dSLR crowd use mostly the "tele" focal lengths. The notable exceptions were one guy with an M6 and a 40mm, and me with my 21mm on the M3 (I should note that we did a bit of shooting around the market, etc. and I got noticed/hassled far less standing right in people's faces with the 21 than the others did with the honkin' white Canon L glass standing half a mile away, although I'll admit the "up close and personal" approach requires considerably more nerve)
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Apr 14, 2008 4:13:52 GMT -5
IMHO the most versatile lens is the normal, i.e. plain 50mm for 35mm film cameras. And then it depends on the type of photographs one does take. Shooting people a short tele will be the second best focal length. Besides a telephoto will result in a certain concentration of the photographic theme, which I assume to be a good thing especially for the less experienced pg.
On the other hand most of us rather do landscapes or want to keep memories of their travels. And then a wide angle in indispensable. Often there are situations where a strong WA as a 24mm lens will deliver the best results. Going wider than 24mm is only useful in quite few situations while the lenses are rare (for the first reason) and therefore expensive. The mentioned Tokina 3.5/17 is a reasonably good ultra wide available at reasonable cost (at least for Minolta MD, don't know what the situation is like in Canon or Nikon land).
Quite a few pg's tend to use a mild (read: 35mm) WA as their personal normal lens. In the hand of an experience pg this usually works pretty well. One needs to be very careful however not to end up with images that convey an impression of emptiness. The motto is: fill the frame - and: go closer to Your subject. If that impertinence is not Your thing, then You should better stick with the 50mm and use a WA only where really necessary (I am one of these people myself...).
Best regards Peter
PS: hope this thread is not already dead right now...
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Apr 14, 2008 8:50:38 GMT -5
I am sorry that I missed this thread when first posted and hope it isn't dead yet either. I find I take the most photos when I travel and tend to use a 35mm or wider most of the time. I am not saying using it well, just using it because it shows where we have been. Sort of a sketch of the environment through which we traveled. I find the 50mm and longer difficult to use because of this bias and only use them to pick out details or for framing when I can't get closer physically. The exceptions for me would be for portraits, wildlife and to my surprise in mountainous areas like the Rockies where wides just seem to take in too much. Maybe I am just saying it very much depends on where you are going and what the subject matter is likely to be. If I go to Europe my kit would consist of a 21,35 and 85/90 combo if talking primes or a similar range in a couple of fast zooms. If I were traveling here in North America where wildlife would be likely I would add to the tele end to get to 300 or longer. I guess in short it is the difference between city and country.
Bob
|
|
SidW
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1,107
|
Post by SidW on Apr 14, 2008 8:55:33 GMT -5
I suspect the qestion is a facade hiding what type of subjects anyone likes to take. Wide angles are useful indoors where distances are closer, or in city streets to embrace more buildings, or some ladscape. I've always preferred a short tele (around 90mm on 35mm), good for people and especially for wildflowers and macro in order to keep a comfortable working distance. With a 35mm and a 90mm, there was little use for 50mm so that's what got left behind on the shelf. I've always had a 200 or 300mm, that only got taken out whenever I went birdwatching, and today it's 400mm for the same purpose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2008 13:24:02 GMT -5
In my case, wide angle without doubt. I would say 85 percent of the picture I take (film or digital) are shot at less than "normel" focal length. I feel like the narrow view of a telephoto restricts my creativeness (such as it is). When I went to Europe (digital) I had the equiv of a 30mm at the wide end at 160mm at the long end. I would be that of 1200 images maybe 10 were shot at 160mm and most of the others were nearer 30mm than 50mm.
|
|
|
Post by renaldo on Apr 14, 2008 14:12:40 GMT -5
For most of the shooting I do, I generally am in the focal length of 35-135.
Occasionally I go longer, but seldom any wider. For me, I do not like WA...it always seems to put the landscape subject too far away. Have given it a try, but always reject anything wider than 35.
But...that is just my preference.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Apr 14, 2008 15:15:53 GMT -5
When I was using my 35mm Canon T90 most of my shooting was done with the Vivitar Series I 24<70mm f3.8 to f4.8 Macro Zoom. I am very fond of that lens. Prior to that I used the Canon FD 50mm f1.4 lens and the Vivitar Series I 70<210mm f3.5. I switched to the Sigma 70<210mm f1.4 to f5.6 when my gadget bag caused me to list to starboard.
Now with my Pentax K100D I find I tend to favour the Tamron Adaptall 80<210mm f3.8 to f4 CF Tele Macro over the Pentax 18<55mm kit lens which is really a neither here nor there lens. I really missed the wide angle capabilities and telephoto was simply too short.
I have just purchased the SMC Pentax 12<24mm f1.4 DA ED AL [IF] lens. Don't know what all those letters stand for. Perhaps its pedigree. I have had almost no chance to use it so I don't know how it will rank in my usage scale.
I hope to be able to carry only two lenses, the Tamron and the Pentax W/A. If I find the gap between 24mm and 80mm to great to bridge I shall have to include the kit lens which is not very heavy.
Mickey
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2008 15:24:40 GMT -5
Mickey:
That SMC Pentax 12-24 f 1.4 must be a pretty good chunk of glass.
Wayne
|
|
casualcollector
Lifetime Member
In Search of "R" Serial Soligors
Posts: 619
|
Post by casualcollector on Apr 14, 2008 17:28:11 GMT -5
A 35/2 SSC Canon or 28/2 Kiron are usually on my SLR. A 35/2.8 Canon is on my RF most of the time. At the annual Sun N Fun airshow this past weekend I carried just two lenses. The 28/2 for ramp shots and a 300/5.5 for aerials. I've been dragging my heels on a DSLR because of the wide factor. I can use lenses I currently own on either Pentax, Nikon or Canon but lose the angle of view with all the affordable ones!
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Apr 14, 2008 19:45:52 GMT -5
Small world, I just found out a friend of mine was at the Sun and Fun airshow. Sounded like it was very interesting. Post a few photos from that event if you can.
Bob
|
|
casualcollector
Lifetime Member
In Search of "R" Serial Soligors
Posts: 619
|
Post by casualcollector on Apr 14, 2008 19:58:47 GMT -5
Planning to, perhaps as soon as tomorrow.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Apr 15, 2008 5:22:01 GMT -5
Wayne,
"That SMC Pentax 12-24 f 1.4 must be a pretty good chunk of glass.
Wayne"
It sure is. It could have been a porthole on the QE2.
Mickey
|
|