Prime Lens Usage Suggestions Needed
Nov 13, 2014 16:47:24 #
travelwp wrote:
Yes, but if your object is to take a photo of an old Grist Mill, and you wanted to insure certain things are in the frame, wouldn't the perspective change if you shot at 14mm as apposed to 50mm, changing your position to get the same shot?
Technically, what changed in the case you describe is framing, not perspective.
If I use a 50mm lens to take a photo of two subjects of the same size, one of which was twice as far away as the other, say at 100 and 200 feet distance, respectively. (The ratio of the two objects' distances and apparent sizes in the photo would be 200:100, or 2:1.)
Now I want to take another image with a 100mm lens and I want the more distant object to appear the same size as it does on the first image. I have to double my distance from the farther object, by moving back 200'. Now I'm 400' from the more distant object and 300' from the nearer. (That ratio of distances and therefore sizes is now 400:300, or 4:3.) The farther object looks three-quarters the size of the nearer one in this image where it had looked half the size in the other.
You can change the framing of an image by zooming or cropping, but changing perspective requires changing the geometric relationship between the elements of the image and the lens. You have to move something.
Nov 13, 2014 17:04:34 #
lamiaceae wrote:
For me if I had your equipment I'd glue the EF35mm f/1.4 L on the 6D.
1, For landscape or general photography I just grab a prime 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, or 50mm.
2, For me I find that I mostly use my zooms at there extremes anyway, so there is not point in carrying a heavy lens other than not having to swap between to others.
1, For landscape or general photography I just grab a prime 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, or 50mm.
2, For me I find that I mostly use my zooms at there extremes anyway, so there is not point in carrying a heavy lens other than not having to swap between to others.
L, you just described the 24-70 to a T!
If you always use your zooms at the extreme end, I think you are just always using the WRONG zoom range lens!
A fast prime is usually heavier than most zooms. And FAST is usually WHY I use a prime.
BUT how you play with your trombone...., I'm not EVEN gonna touch THAT one! :lol: :lol: :lol:
SS
Nov 13, 2014 17:07:16 #
sirlensalot
Loc: Arizona
SharpShooter wrote:
Sir, rather than spending a lot of money on shoes, wouldn't it be better to spend that on photo gear instead, at least from a photographers perspective.
There is NO reason that you can't use a zoom only on 85mm if your goal is to wear out shoes!
And unless you absolutely need the speed you are likely using a flash anyway.
There are a few advantages to primes(I do use them), but discipline is not one of them. :lol:
SS
There is NO reason that you can't use a zoom only on 85mm if your goal is to wear out shoes!
And unless you absolutely need the speed you are likely using a flash anyway.
There are a few advantages to primes(I do use them), but discipline is not one of them. :lol:
SS
Very good points raised. The 85 is destined to be used next month shooting indoor sports under some very poor lighting conditions. With older bodies, (mine and cameras) using 3200 ISO in expanded mode, was not able to get what I considered acceptable shots with 2.8 and 4 lenses, so I am hoping between the 50 and 85, I can get back to 1600 ISO and come away with better images. No flash allowed because the video crew can get real nasty. Besides, it would be pretty difficult to carry that bag of gear without shoes, although, it would be unique. I suppose I could buy more gear and double up on the socks!
Nov 13, 2014 17:15:54 #
rocketride wrote:
You can change the framing of an image by zooming or cropping, but changing perspective requires changing the geometric relationship between the elements of the image and the lens. You have to move something.
If I fill the frame of a persons face with a 14mm lens, then fill the frame using a 100mm lens, doesn't this change the perspective ?
Nov 13, 2014 17:19:45 #
sirlensalot wrote:
Very good points raised. The 85 is destined to be ... (show quote)
Sir, I use primes the same way you do, and I use them a lot. A 2.8 is a SLOW lens! It's just fast for a zoom!
The problem is, that many talk about the two with a BIAS, the same way people talk about Manual and Priority shooting.
BUT an experienced photographer never argues for one or the other, just which to use, and when!! ;-)
SS
Nov 13, 2014 19:08:34 #
travelwp wrote:
Yes but only because you used your feet to change your position.If I fill the frame of a persons face with a 14mm lens, then fill the frame using a 100mm lens, doesn't this change the perspective ?
Nov 13, 2014 19:31:31 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
You have four lenses that give you 35mm focal length.
Three of them are f4 zooms. One is an f1.4 prime. With the quality of zooms today, the key difference between the zooms and the prime is that the latter has two stops larger aperture.
Due to that, the first responses always are, "You can shoot in lower light with the f1.4 lens." That's true (within the limits of adequate depth of field), but personally I don't think it's the most important advantage of the fast prime lens.
To me, an f1.4 lens' big advantage is it's ability to blur down a background and help make a subject pop, giving sort of a three dimensional feel to a two dimensional image. Especially with a wide angle lens, that's a difficult effect to achieve. You'd be hard pressed to accomplish it with any of the f4 zooms. But the f1.4 prime can do it very well.
Personally, I prefer shooting with primes, but end up shooting a lot with zooms anyway. For my work, zooms are often necessary, so I'm glad that modern ones are as good as they are.
But I feel kind of lazy shooting with a zoom. I am less inclined to move around and find other angles. Now, that may be necessary when shooting some subjects. But others, when time allows, I feel I do better when I work the subject, move around it looking for other angles, trying to find the best way to render it with that particular focal length. Using a zoom is almost too easy, by comparison.
It's the difference between shooting handheld and shooting with a tripod, too. Sure, putting a camera and lens on a tripod helps assure a sharp shot, with no camera shake blur. But the process of using a tripod also makes a photographer slow down and think about what they are doing. It's "making a photograph" as opposed to "taking a snapshot", so to speak. I guess the same thing happens with primes vs zooms.
Best way to use your prime lens would be to leave the zooms at home and go out shooting for a few days with only the prime. I'd have a hard time doing that... but I have and sometimes do take a bag with just 3 or 4 primes... no zooms. Henri Cartier-Bresson and many of the "old masters" of photography only used one or a few lenses. One lens would be hard to do... you'd have to walk away from some shots entirely. But with today's cameras and digital technology, where you can literally make thousands of images a day, it might become just as important the shots you don't take, as the ones you do.
Three of them are f4 zooms. One is an f1.4 prime. With the quality of zooms today, the key difference between the zooms and the prime is that the latter has two stops larger aperture.
Due to that, the first responses always are, "You can shoot in lower light with the f1.4 lens." That's true (within the limits of adequate depth of field), but personally I don't think it's the most important advantage of the fast prime lens.
To me, an f1.4 lens' big advantage is it's ability to blur down a background and help make a subject pop, giving sort of a three dimensional feel to a two dimensional image. Especially with a wide angle lens, that's a difficult effect to achieve. You'd be hard pressed to accomplish it with any of the f4 zooms. But the f1.4 prime can do it very well.
Personally, I prefer shooting with primes, but end up shooting a lot with zooms anyway. For my work, zooms are often necessary, so I'm glad that modern ones are as good as they are.
But I feel kind of lazy shooting with a zoom. I am less inclined to move around and find other angles. Now, that may be necessary when shooting some subjects. But others, when time allows, I feel I do better when I work the subject, move around it looking for other angles, trying to find the best way to render it with that particular focal length. Using a zoom is almost too easy, by comparison.
It's the difference between shooting handheld and shooting with a tripod, too. Sure, putting a camera and lens on a tripod helps assure a sharp shot, with no camera shake blur. But the process of using a tripod also makes a photographer slow down and think about what they are doing. It's "making a photograph" as opposed to "taking a snapshot", so to speak. I guess the same thing happens with primes vs zooms.
Best way to use your prime lens would be to leave the zooms at home and go out shooting for a few days with only the prime. I'd have a hard time doing that... but I have and sometimes do take a bag with just 3 or 4 primes... no zooms. Henri Cartier-Bresson and many of the "old masters" of photography only used one or a few lenses. One lens would be hard to do... you'd have to walk away from some shots entirely. But with today's cameras and digital technology, where you can literally make thousands of images a day, it might become just as important the shots you don't take, as the ones you do.
Nov 13, 2014 20:06:51 #
sirlensalot
Loc: Arizona
SharpShooter wrote:
Sir, I use primes the same way you do, and I use them a lot. A 2.8 is a SLOW lens! It's just fast for a zoom!
The problem is, that many talk about the two with a BIAS, the same way people talk about Manual and Priority shooting.
BUT an experienced photographer never argues for one or the other, just which to use, and when!! ;-)
SS
The problem is, that many talk about the two with a BIAS, the same way people talk about Manual and Priority shooting.
BUT an experienced photographer never argues for one or the other, just which to use, and when!! ;-)
SS
My bias rears its head every so often, but in this case, just chose what I thought was the best option within budget.
Agree with the manual/priority, but sometimes I argue with myself on which to use. My theory is when in doubt, go manual. IMO, best way to learn.
Nov 14, 2014 00:40:31 #
Peekayoh wrote:
Technically, what changed in the case you describe is framing, not perspective.
That was your original answer to this, my original question:
If your object is to take a photo of an old Grist Mill, and you wanted to insure certain things are in the frame, wouldn't the perspective change if you shot at 14mm as apposed to 50mm, changing your position to get the same shot?
If I read your recent answer, you agree, it is a perspective change.
Nov 14, 2014 06:13:32 #
Once again, thanks to all of you for your suggestions and opinions. I'm not in a position where I have to sell the lens. Rather, I just felt guilty about spending a fair amount to buy it and then it ends up sitting on the shelf most of the time. You have given me some good ideas about how to better utilize it, and in the process broaden my photographic experience.
Nov 14, 2014 07:18:15 #
Someone wrote:
Technically, what changed in the case you describe is framing, not perspective.
travelwp wrote:
That was someone else's comment, not mine.That was your original answer to this, my original question:
If your object is to take a photo of an old Grist Mill, and you wanted to insure certain things are in the frame, wouldn't the perspective change if you shot at 14mm as apposed to 50mm, changing your position to get the same shot?
If I read your recent answer, you agree, it is a perspective change.
If your object is to take a photo of an old Grist Mill, and you wanted to insure certain things are in the frame, wouldn't the perspective change if you shot at 14mm as apposed to 50mm, changing your position to get the same shot?
If I read your recent answer, you agree, it is a perspective change.
Nov 14, 2014 09:56:51 #
travelwp wrote:
If I fill the frame of a persons face with a 14mm lens, then fill the frame using a 100mm lens, doesn't this change the perspective ?
Yes, but it's precisely and only because you will be at different working distances using the two lenses to fill the frame with the face. You will be roughly 7x farther away when using the 100mm lens as you are when using the 14mm one.
You will also notice with the shorter lens that the face looks distorted. This is because the depth of the face is bigger relative to the working distance. With that 14mm lens, on a FF body, you're probably within a foot of that face to fill the frame. (About half again as far if you're using a crop body.) So that few inches that the ears are behind the nose will make a big difference in how big they look relative to the nose. . .
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.