Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Another Minor Epiphany
Page 1 of 5 next> last>>
Sep 17, 2018 19:34:15   #
Bob Locher Loc: Southwest Oregon
 
I live on an acreage 8 miles from a town of about 25,000 people and a few miles from a whole lot of wilderness. I love the physical beauty of the area and am primarily interested in landscape photography.

I am interested in lenses. I watch for new releases, I view YouTube reviews and read reviews on many sites. What I have noticed is that the bulk of the offerings there days tend in one direction - high speed wide angle lenses, be they fixed primes or zooms. These are of little interest to me. I have several slower wide primes, and thought they are excellent optically I rarely use them. On my APS-C Sony A6000, I mostly shoot with lenses 60 mm and longer, with also some work using a 30 mm Sigma.

So am I out of step with the rest of the world? The answer is obvious - of course I am. But then I have been most of my life on most things, so I am used to that.

Anyhow, I finally figured out where I am out of synch. And here is my epiphany: Most of the current photography world is geared towards city living and the urban experience. So. Photographers use wide angle lenses to achieve a feeling of room in a crowded environment. "Bokeh" - that term derived from the Japanese that means "$500 more" - is valuable because it tends to isolate a subject from the people around the subject. And to get decent bokeh from a wide angle lens in daylight you need large apertures. Again, shooting in low light levels is primarily an urban thing. If it is dark, there is some semblance of visual privacy from the hordes around the subject. Privacy, space, peace - these are the attributes so missing from the urban scene.

Longer lenses are rarely used; they compress too many people and too much background in an urban setting. Urban photographers are trying to find sanity in the urban rat-race, and of course that ever elusive element: "Cool".

My observation is that photographers who live away from the urban sprawl tend to use longer lenses, since the above imperatives do not rule. Their pictures reflect a slower and more peaceful life; scenics, sunsets, wildlife.

What I find personally unfortunate is that the lens makers are all scrambling to support the urban photographer with high speed wide angle ex pensive glass. I would love to see some really good longer lenses - f3.5 or higher, but super sharp and not weighing very much. And not costing more than a transoceanic business class ticket.

My hope is that if someone at a lens maker would become aware of this dichotomy, they might consider offering a line along the lines I wish for.

Obviously I have tried to reduce a complex subject in a simplistic argument, but I do believe I have hit on something that is real.

I hope any comments to this topic will remain civil and constructive.

Cheers

Bob Locher

Reply
Sep 17, 2018 20:09:09   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
Bob Locher wrote:
I live on an acreage 8 miles from a town of about 25,000 people and a few miles from a whole lot of wilderness. I love the physical beauty of the area and am primarily interested in landscape photography.

I am interested in lenses. I watch for new releases, I view YouTube reviews and read reviews on many sites. What I have noticed is that the bulk of the offerings there days tend in one direction - high speed wide angle lenses, be they fixed primes or zooms. These are of little interest to me. I have several slower wide primes, and thought they are excellent optically I rarely use them. On my APS-C Sony A6000, I mostly shoot with lenses 60 mm and longer, with also some work using a 30 mm Sigma.

So am I out of step with the rest of the world? The answer is obvious - of course I am. But then I have been most of my life on most things, so I am used to that.

Anyhow, I finally figured out where I am out of synch. And here is my epiphany: Most of the current photography world is geared towards city living and the urban experience. So. Photographers use wide angle lenses to achieve a feeling of room in a crowded environment. "Bokeh" - that term derived from the Japanese that means "$500 more" - is valuable because it tends to isolate a subject from the people around the subject. And to get decent bokeh from a wide angle lens in daylight you need large apertures. Again, shooting in low light levels is primarily an urban thing. If it is dark, there is some semblance of visual privacy from the hordes around the subject. Privacy, space, peace - these are the attributes so missing from the urban scene.

Longer lenses are rarely used; they compress too many people and too much background in an urban setting. Urban photographers are trying to find sanity in the urban rat-race, and of course that ever elusive element: "Cool".

My observation is that photographers who live away from the urban sprawl tend to use longer lenses, since the above imperatives do not rule. Their pictures reflect a slower and more peaceful life; scenics, sunsets, wildlife.

What I find personally unfortunate is that the lens makers are all scrambling to support the urban photographer with high speed wide angle ex pensive glass. I would love to see some really good longer lenses - f3.5 or higher, but super sharp and not weighing very much. And not costing more than a transoceanic business class ticket.

My hope is that if someone at a lens maker would become aware of this dichotomy, they might consider offering a line along the lines I wish for.

Obviously I have tried to reduce a complex subject in a simplistic argument, but I do believe I have hit on something that is real.

I hope any comments to this topic will remain civil and constructive.

Cheers

Bob Locher
I live on an acreage 8 miles from a town of about ... (show quote)


What compression? What's urban about fast wide angle lenses?

Taken with a 150-600, full frame @150mm, hand held, F8, 10 frame double row panorama.

I live 3 miles from Manhattan, and 1 mile from the Bronx. I rarely use a focal length shorter than 45mm for lanscapes.


(Download)

Reply
Sep 17, 2018 20:47:40   #
AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire
 
Interesting thoughts, Bob.

I've never thought about it this way. But my first thought is that available light shooting is neither urban nor rural. The quest for higher speed is not limited to wide angles, but 300 and longer zooms may be more expensive and difficult to produce that "normal" or WA models. It seems, at first glance, that there are some high quality, high speed long lenses coming onto the market, but mostly at the higher, and full frame. Is this related to production costs or demand?

Andy

Reply
 
 
Sep 17, 2018 21:20:35   #
rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA
 
Bob Locher wrote:
I live on an acreage 8 miles from a town of about 25,000 people and a few miles from a whole lot of wilderness. I love the physical beauty of the area and am primarily interested in landscape photography.

I am interested in lenses. I watch for new releases, I view YouTube reviews and read reviews on many sites. What I have noticed is that the bulk of the offerings there days tend in one direction - high speed wide angle lenses, be they fixed primes or zooms. These are of little interest to me. I have several slower wide primes, and thought they are excellent optically I rarely use them. On my APS-C Sony A6000, I mostly shoot with lenses 60 mm and longer, with also some work using a 30 mm Sigma.

So am I out of step with the rest of the world? The answer is obvious - of course I am. But then I have been most of my life on most things, so I am used to that.

Anyhow, I finally figured out where I am out of synch. And here is my epiphany: Most of the current photography world is geared towards city living and the urban experience. So. Photographers use wide angle lenses to achieve a feeling of room in a crowded environment. "Bokeh" - that term derived from the Japanese that means "$500 more" - is valuable because it tends to isolate a subject from the people around the subject. And to get decent bokeh from a wide angle lens in daylight you need large apertures. Again, shooting in low light levels is primarily an urban thing. If it is dark, there is some semblance of visual privacy from the hordes around the subject. Privacy, space, peace - these are the attributes so missing from the urban scene.

Longer lenses are rarely used; they compress too many people and too much background in an urban setting. Urban photographers are trying to find sanity in the urban rat-race, and of course that ever elusive element: "Cool".

My observation is that photographers who live away from the urban sprawl tend to use longer lenses, since the above imperatives do not rule. Their pictures reflect a slower and more peaceful life; scenics, sunsets, wildlife.

What I find personally unfortunate is that the lens makers are all scrambling to support the urban photographer with high speed wide angle ex pensive glass. I would love to see some really good longer lenses - f3.5 or higher, but super sharp and not weighing very much. And not costing more than a transoceanic business class ticket.

My hope is that if someone at a lens maker would become aware of this dichotomy, they might consider offering a line along the lines I wish for.

Obviously I have tried to reduce a complex subject in a simplistic argument, but I do believe I have hit on something that is real.

I hope any comments to this topic will remain civil and constructive.


Cheers

Bob Locher
I live on an acreage 8 miles from a town of about ... (show quote)


I understand your point, but I think you are missing the mark, particularly with street / urban photography. I spent time in Paris this spring and, due to the narrow streets and 6 story buildings, needed a 16 - 55 (on a Fuji X-T20) to get the entire facade of a structure. Often, I had to shoot diagonally across an intersection to get the entire building rather than just portions.

My photography is geared towards nature and landscapes, where frankly, wide angle is really overused. You get "everything," but the forest is lost among the trees. Onb a recent Yellowstone trip, most of my shots were at 50 - 75 mm on a 28-300 zoom. The only place I used 28 mm was at Mt Rushmore and Crazy Horse, where the vista was so sweeping that I'd miss the vista. I have consciously tried to limit my wide angle landscapes for the above reason, and if the scene is too wide, a 5 shot panorama at 50 mm is ideal.

Your epiphany is fine for you, but it doesn't work for everybody. What is important is now that's you've had your Road to Damascus moment, it to get out of your box and try urban/street shooting as an alternative and see what works best.

Reply
Sep 17, 2018 21:22:11   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
Bob Locher wrote:
I live on an acreage 8 miles from a town of about 25,000 people and a few miles from a whole lot of wilderness. I love the physical beauty of the area and am primarily interested in landscape photography.

I am interested in lenses. I watch for new releases, I view YouTube reviews and read reviews on many sites. What I have noticed is that the bulk of the offerings there days tend in one direction - high speed wide angle lenses, be they fixed primes or zooms. These are of little interest to me. I have several slower wide primes, and thought they are excellent optically I rarely use them. On my APS-C Sony A6000, I mostly shoot with lenses 60 mm and longer, with also some work using a 30 mm Sigma.

So am I out of step with the rest of the world? The answer is obvious - of course I am. But then I have been most of my life on most things, so I am used to that.

Anyhow, I finally figured out where I am out of synch. And here is my epiphany: Most of the current photography world is geared towards city living and the urban experience. So. Photographers use wide angle lenses to achieve a feeling of room in a crowded environment. "Bokeh" - that term derived from the Japanese that means "$500 more" - is valuable because it tends to isolate a subject from the people around the subject. And to get decent bokeh from a wide angle lens in daylight you need large apertures. Again, shooting in low light levels is primarily an urban thing. If it is dark, there is some semblance of visual privacy from the hordes around the subject. Privacy, space, peace - these are the attributes so missing from the urban scene.

Longer lenses are rarely used; they compress too many people and too much background in an urban setting. Urban photographers are trying to find sanity in the urban rat-race, and of course that ever elusive element: "Cool".

My observation is that photographers who live away from the urban sprawl tend to use longer lenses, since the above imperatives do not rule. Their pictures reflect a slower and more peaceful life; scenics, sunsets, wildlife.

What I find personally unfortunate is that the lens makers are all scrambling to support the urban photographer with high speed wide angle ex pensive glass. I would love to see some really good longer lenses - f3.5 or higher, but super sharp and not weighing very much. And not costing more than a transoceanic business class ticket.

My hope is that if someone at a lens maker would become aware of this dichotomy, they might consider offering a line along the lines I wish for.

Obviously I have tried to reduce a complex subject in a simplistic argument, but I do believe I have hit on something that is real.

I hope any comments to this topic will remain civil and constructive.

Cheers

Bob Locher
I live on an acreage 8 miles from a town of about ... (show quote)


Bob, I can't really agree with you on a lot of this. I posted an example of a landscape shot that kinda breaks all the "rules" you mentioned. I did this playing devil's advocate in a way.

No, you are not out of step.

I don't think the world is geared towards an urban experience, nor do I think that photographers use wide lenses for a sense expanse. At least not the good ones. Bokeh is not about isolating subject from foreground and background - that is what shallow depth of field is, and using a medium (or longer) focal length, and putting a lot of distance between the subject and the background to really blur the background. Bokeh is not equivalent to expensive, either, nor is it specific to a focal length or range of focal lengths. A lens with good bokeh is one where the background is soft and unobtrusive.

Reply
Sep 17, 2018 21:38:12   #
Stardust Loc: Central Illinois
 
Interesting observation although if placing a bet I wouldn't give it better than 50-50 odds you are correct. However, I will toss another factor in that may be interesting to watch over time. A whole new generation is growing up taking lots of selfies, photos taken basically one-two feet away. It will be interesting to see the influence on lens selection going forward.

Reply
Sep 17, 2018 22:11:23   #
Bob Locher Loc: Southwest Oregon
 
Thanks for the comments so far - interesting and worthwhile.

I do want to point out that my thesis, such as it is, does not really work on UHH - there are a lot of people here that are into the same things I am. My impression comes not from UHH but instead from watching a lot of You-tube video reviews of various cameras and especially lenses.
Sadly, we on UHH are NOT the majority.

Cheers

Bob

Reply
 
 
Sep 17, 2018 22:56:00   #
blackest Loc: Ireland
 
Bob Locher wrote:
I live on an acreage 8 miles from a town of about 25,000 people and a few miles from a whole lot of wilderness. I love the physical beauty of the area and am primarily interested in landscape photography.

I am interested in lenses. I watch for new releases, I view YouTube reviews and read reviews on many sites. What I have noticed is that the bulk of the offerings there days tend in one direction - high speed wide angle lenses, be they fixed primes or zooms. These are of little interest to me. I have several slower wide primes, and thought they are excellent optically I rarely use them. On my APS-C Sony A6000, I mostly shoot with lenses 60 mm and longer, with also some work using a 30 mm Sigma.

So am I out of step with the rest of the world? The answer is obvious - of course I am. But then I have been most of my life on most things, so I am used to that.

Anyhow, I finally figured out where I am out of synch. And here is my epiphany: Most of the current photography world is geared towards city living and the urban experience. So. Photographers use wide angle lenses to achieve a feeling of room in a crowded environment. "Bokeh" - that term derived from the Japanese that means "$500 more" - is valuable because it tends to isolate a subject from the people around the subject. And to get decent bokeh from a wide angle lens in daylight you need large apertures. Again, shooting in low light levels is primarily an urban thing. If it is dark, there is some semblance of visual privacy from the hordes around the subject. Privacy, space, peace - these are the attributes so missing from the urban scene.

Longer lenses are rarely used; they compress too many people and too much background in an urban setting. Urban photographers are trying to find sanity in the urban rat-race, and of course that ever elusive element: "Cool".

My observation is that photographers who live away from the urban sprawl tend to use longer lenses, since the above imperatives do not rule. Their pictures reflect a slower and more peaceful life; scenics, sunsets, wildlife.

What I find personally unfortunate is that the lens makers are all scrambling to support the urban photographer with high speed wide angle ex pensive glass. I would love to see some really good longer lenses - f3.5 or higher, but super sharp and not weighing very much. And not costing more than a transoceanic business class ticket.

My hope is that if someone at a lens maker would become aware of this dichotomy, they might consider offering a line along the lines I wish for.

Obviously I have tried to reduce a complex subject in a simplistic argument, but I do believe I have hit on something that is real.

I hope any comments to this topic will remain civil and constructive.

Cheers

Bob Locher
I live on an acreage 8 miles from a town of about ... (show quote)


physics really isn't with you for fast long and light.

N= f/d (f number = focal length over lens entrance pupil diameter). f3.5 = 350mm /d
or 350mm / 3.5 = 100mm thats a front element of around 4 inches it's not going to be light.

Reply
Sep 18, 2018 07:09:18   #
BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD
 
Gene51 wrote:
What compression? What's urban about fast wide angle lenses?

Taken with a 150-600, full frame @150mm, hand held, F8, 10 frame double row panorama.

I live 3 miles from Manhattan, and 1 mile from the Bronx. I rarely use a focal length shorter than 45mm for lanscapes.


Your Panorama is marvelous!

Reply
Sep 18, 2018 07:11:02   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
BboH wrote:
Your Panorama is marvelous!


Thanks!

Reply
Sep 18, 2018 07:13:40   #
BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD
 
I did shoot urban, suburban and rural. The lens(es) I chose for the day depended upon what I (thought) I wanted to accomplish - not the environment in which I was shooting.

Reply
 
 
Sep 18, 2018 07:16:36   #
billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
 
Bob Locher wrote:
I live on an acreage 8 miles from a town of about 25,000 people and a few miles from a whole lot of wilderness. I love the physical beauty of the area and am primarily interested in landscape photography.

I am interested in lenses. I watch for new releases, I view YouTube reviews and read reviews on many sites. What I have noticed is that the bulk of the offerings there days tend in one direction - high speed wide angle lenses, be they fixed primes or zooms. These are of little interest to me. I have several slower wide primes, and thought they are excellent optically I rarely use them. On my APS-C Sony A6000, I mostly shoot with lenses 60 mm and longer, with also some work using a 30 mm Sigma.

So am I out of step with the rest of the world? The answer is obvious - of course I am. But then I have been most of my life on most things, so I am used to that.

Anyhow, I finally figured out where I am out of synch. And here is my epiphany: Most of the current photography world is geared towards city living and the urban experience. So. Photographers use wide angle lenses to achieve a feeling of room in a crowded environment. "Bokeh" - that term derived from the Japanese that means "$500 more" - is valuable because it tends to isolate a subject from the people around the subject. And to get decent bokeh from a wide angle lens in daylight you need large apertures. Again, shooting in low light levels is primarily an urban thing. If it is dark, there is some semblance of visual privacy from the hordes around the subject. Privacy, space, peace - these are the attributes so missing from the urban scene.

Longer lenses are rarely used; they compress too many people and too much background in an urban setting. Urban photographers are trying to find sanity in the urban rat-race, and of course that ever elusive element: "Cool".

My observation is that photographers who live away from the urban sprawl tend to use longer lenses, since the above imperatives do not rule. Their pictures reflect a slower and more peaceful life; scenics, sunsets, wildlife.

What I find personally unfortunate is that the lens makers are all scrambling to support the urban photographer with high speed wide angle ex pensive glass. I would love to see some really good longer lenses - f3.5 or higher, but super sharp and not weighing very much. And not costing more than a transoceanic business class ticket.

My hope is that if someone at a lens maker would become aware of this dichotomy, they might consider offering a line along the lines I wish for.

Obviously I have tried to reduce a complex subject in a simplistic argument, but I do believe I have hit on something that is real.

I hope any comments to this topic will remain civil and constructive.

Cheers

Bob Locher
I live on an acreage 8 miles from a town of about ... (show quote)


https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1175034-REG/nikon_af_s_nikkor_200_500mm_f_5_6e.html?sts=pi and https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1431717-REG/nikon_20082_af_s_nikkor_500mm_f_5_6e.html?sts=pi Your welcome.

Reply
Sep 18, 2018 07:51:24   #
ELNikkor
 
Most of the high speed wide angle lenses I see promoted are touted as great for shooting rural, (as in far from the city lights) shots of the Milky Way with deserts, mountains, lakes, aurora etc. at night. There are plenty of high speed teles out there, and, although not lightweight, my 300mm 2.8 Nikkor does a fine job for landscapes if I mount it on a tripod. Non-AF versions can be had for $600. If you want lighter weight versions of high-speed teles, go to the MFT format...

Reply
Sep 18, 2018 08:06:26   #
DaveC1 Loc: South East US
 
What would your ideal lens for the type of shooting you do be Bob, do you think? You gave us an aperture of 3.5 or higher but what focal length(s) are you wishing to see? Would a 100mm-400mm f3.5-5.6 zoom be just the ticket?

Also what camera(s) are you shooting with?

Reply
Sep 18, 2018 08:23:23   #
RayE Loc: New Jersey
 
I read your thesis to be: Thank goodness I’m a rural type who doesn’t live in the rat race of compressed city spaces, but rather living free on my wide open spaces.

Reply
Page 1 of 5 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.