Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Most useful focal ranges

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
May 26, 2005 7:35:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

This may sound like a strange question, but:

What do you find to be the most useful FL ranges for your shooting?

Also, you may want to mention you FOV crop (if any). On my 1.6x FOVC 20D, I
have found that I dont use focal lengths in the range of roughly ~25mm to
~70mm. Does this seem strange? I find that on my camera, images taken with
FL of this range appear boring:

For "scenes" I need ~25mm or less - usually need high DOF
For "isolation" I need ~70mm or more - usually need low DOF

For this reason I cannot see myself buying the 24-70 lenses - they would
certainly make more sense on a 35mm frame.

Anyone else with this "pattern" of shooting?

Musty

More about : focal ranges

Anonymous
May 26, 2005 3:11:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Musty wrote:

> This may sound like a strange question, but:
>
> What do you find to be the most useful FL ranges for your shooting?

This may sound like a strange answer (since it should be patently
obvious), but: it depends on where your "useful" subjects are located
relative to you, how large they are, and how big you would like them to
appear in your images.
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 3:29:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Musty wrote:

> This may sound like a strange question, but:
>
> What do you find to be the most useful FL ranges for your shooting?

Look at the photojournalist holy trinity (full frame cameras):

17-35
28-70/80
70/80-200

All fast glass of course. In cropped sensors, adjust accordingly.

That range covers a big most of what most photographers shoot.

Of course, if you're into the mating habits of bears or shooting sports,
then you might want something a lot longer.

Somebody posted in the 35mm group, that an analysis of "winning" photos
in a broad basket of photo contests put the winners in the 50 - 100mm
range (1.0X). If that's of useful guidance to you.

> Also, you may want to mention you FOV crop (if any). On my 1.6x FOVC 20D, I
> have found that I dont use focal lengths in the range of roughly ~25mm to
> ~70mm. Does this seem strange? I find that on my camera, images taken with
> FL of this range appear boring:
>
> For "scenes" I need ~25mm or less - usually need high DOF
> For "isolation" I need ~70mm or more - usually need low DOF

That comes naturally. Shorter FL == deeper DOF.

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Related resources
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 5:50:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Musty <musty@nospam.net> wrote:

> What do you find to be the most useful FL ranges for your shooting?

Wide angle, 50mm x 1.5, and then into longer telephoto, with the latter
being least important.

> Also, you may want to mention you FOV crop (if any). On my 1.6x FOVC 20D, I
> have found that I dont use focal lengths in the range of roughly ~25mm to
> ~70mm. Does this seem strange?

I don't think so. I replaced my kit lens with a 17-35mm, and at this point
I don't even carry any zoom covering 35mm-70mm. If I need that range, the
50mm does just fine. I actually have two 50mm lenses, the "cheap" AF f/1.8
and a manual-focus f/1.2 for when I really need the speed. I also find that
a zoom in that length will be too slow (and thus have too much depth of
field) to be useful to me.

50mm is probably my favorite length, but when using it I have no need for
zoom and a real need for a wide aperture. So, while I use that focal
length a *lot*, I don't care if I have a "general-purpose" zoom that'll
do it.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 11:32:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:suble.410$j51.337@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> This may sound like a strange question, but:
>
> What do you find to be the most useful FL ranges for your shooting?
>
> Also, you may want to mention you FOV crop (if any). On my 1.6x FOVC 20D,
> I
> have found that I dont use focal lengths in the range of roughly ~25mm to
> ~70mm. Does this seem strange? I find that on my camera, images taken with
> FL of this range appear boring:
>
> For "scenes" I need ~25mm or less - usually need high DOF
> For "isolation" I need ~70mm or more - usually need low DOF
>
> For this reason I cannot see myself buying the 24-70 lenses - they would
> certainly make more sense on a 35mm frame.
>
> Anyone else with this "pattern" of shooting?
>
> Musty
>
>

I guess this is because 28mm is a standard field of view on a 1.6 crop
factor camera, just as 50mm was the overlooked focal length for 35mm.

Lester
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 11:48:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <d74q0j$9hm$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>Somebody posted in the 35mm group, that an analysis of "winning" photos
>in a broad basket of photo contests put the winners in the 50 - 100mm
>range (1.0X). If that's of useful guidance to you.

And the winning photos were mostly portrets?

For some reason I don't use my 50mm very often (on 35mm film). I tend to
go directly from 35 to 85. I guess I have to walk around for some time with
just the 50, to (re)appreciate its field of view.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 11:48:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Philip Homburg wrote:

> In article <d74q0j$9hm$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>Somebody posted in the 35mm group, that an analysis of "winning" photos
>>in a broad basket of photo contests put the winners in the 50 - 100mm
>>range (1.0X). If that's of useful guidance to you.
>
>
> And the winning photos were mostly portrets?

No, and they weren't portraits either!

>
> For some reason I don't use my 50mm very often (on 35mm film). I tend to
> go directly from 35 to 85. I guess I have to walk around for some time with
> just the 50, to (re)appreciate its field of view.

I recently shot some impromptu portraits of a friends son as a
perspective study with my 28-70 f/2.8 on a 1.5 cropped sensor. The EXIF
revealed that a lot of the shots were at around 50mm (real) or 75mm
effective. That's what my eye seemed to like. I've intended to do more
portraits with my 50 f/1.7...

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 12:33:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <suble.410$j51.337@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
Musty <musty@nospam.net> wrote:
>This may sound like a strange question, but:
>
>What do you find to be the most useful FL ranges for your shooting?

Well ... most of the time, I'm either using a 28-105mm f3.5-4.5
on a Nikon D70 (1.5 crop factor), or a 50mm f1.4 for lower light
situations or quick shots.

Sometimes I add a 180mm f2.8 fixed focal length -- usually
outdoors. This one had the CPU retrofitted, though no autofocus.

Very occasionally I will use either a 20mm f2.8 or a 16mm
fisheye -- with hand-held meter or chimping the histogram until I have
it right. (No CPU in those lenses.)

And I have a 200mm "Medical Nikkor", with built in ring flash
which I use for evenly illuminated serious close-ups. (Though the
28-105mm zoom has a macro mode which is pretty good in the 50-105mm
range, and I often use it when I don't have the Medical Nikkor along.

>Also, you may want to mention you FOV crop (if any). On my 1.6x FOVC 20D, I
>have found that I dont use focal lengths in the range of roughly ~25mm to
>~70mm. Does this seem strange? I find that on my camera, images taken with
>FL of this range appear boring:
>
>For "scenes" I need ~25mm or less - usually need high DOF
>For "isolation" I need ~70mm or more - usually need low DOF

That makes sense. Though I have not actually gone through to
see what focal length settings I have used on the zoom, I suspect that
it is more often in the 50mm to 105mm range. But occasionally, I have
to go wide just to get a subject fully framed, if I am not in a position
where backing up is practical. Sometimes the logistics dictates the
focal length.

I never did get the "kit" lens for the D70, though it might be
nice to have from time to time.

>For this reason I cannot see myself buying the 24-70 lenses - they would
>certainly make more sense on a 35mm frame.
>
>Anyone else with this "pattern" of shooting?

You have what I remember of mine.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 12:36:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <1117131062.759765.95250@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<"eawckyegcy@yahoo.com"> wrote:

> Musty wrote:
>
> > This may sound like a strange question, but:
> >
> > What do you find to be the most useful FL ranges for your shooting?
>
> This may sound like a strange answer (since it should be patently
> obvious), but: it depends on where your "useful" subjects are located
> relative to you, how large they are, and how big you would like them to
> appear in your images.
>

It is a pretty good answer.
I find I use all focal lengths, for art images.
The very widest lenses draw too much attention to their unusual
perspective rendition, and the longest tele lenses are too big and
can't be handheld.

--
Yours, Eolake

eolake@stobblehouse.com
http://stobblehouse.com
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 3:57:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <d757u3$1da$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>Philip Homburg wrote:
>> In article <d74q0j$9hm$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Somebody posted in the 35mm group, that an analysis of "winning" photos
>>>in a broad basket of photo contests put the winners in the 50 - 100mm
>>>range (1.0X). If that's of useful guidance to you.
>>
>>
>> And the winning photos were mostly portrets?
>
>No, and they weren't portraits either!

Oops.

So, what they people photograph with that range of focal lengths?

>> For some reason I don't use my 50mm very often (on 35mm film). I tend to
>> go directly from 35 to 85. I guess I have to walk around for some time with
>> just the 50, to (re)appreciate its field of view.
>
>I recently shot some impromptu portraits of a friends son as a
>perspective study with my 28-70 f/2.8 on a 1.5 cropped sensor. The EXIF
>revealed that a lot of the shots were at around 50mm (real) or 75mm
>effective. That's what my eye seemed to like. I've intended to do more
>portraits with my 50 f/1.7...

If you want head and shoulders, then that is typically what you need.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 3:57:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Philip Homburg wrote:

> In article <d757u3$1da$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>Philip Homburg wrote:
>>
>>>In article <d74q0j$9hm$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
>>>Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Somebody posted in the 35mm group, that an analysis of "winning" photos
>>>>in a broad basket of photo contests put the winners in the 50 - 100mm
>>>>range (1.0X). If that's of useful guidance to you.
>>>
>>>
>>>And the winning photos were mostly portrets?
>>
>>No, and they weren't portraits either!
>
>
> Oops.
>
> So, what they people photograph with that range of focal lengths?

Countless items I suppose. I've tried searching for the post for
naught. I'll try again tomorrow.

> If you want head and shoulders, then that is typically what you need.

I like 100 for that, but with digital my living room studio is getting a
bit small!

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
May 27, 2005 4:00:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Philip Homburg" <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote in message
news:re9bbft52ep9e8r4l6imc5fda7@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
> In article <d757u3$1da$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >Philip Homburg wrote:
> >> In article <d74q0j$9hm$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> >> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Somebody posted in the 35mm group, that an analysis of "winning" photos
> >>>in a broad basket of photo contests put the winners in the 50 - 100mm
> >>>range (1.0X). If that's of useful guidance to you.
> >>
> >>
> >> And the winning photos were mostly portrets?
> >
> >No, and they weren't portraits either!
>
> Oops.
>
> So, what they people photograph with that range of focal lengths?
>

The telephoto lenses do a lot more than portraits. I recently did some
landscape shots @ 200mm and they look awesome (of a river). Tele lenses are
good at focusing in on a particular portion - to draw attention to
something.
May 27, 2005 4:01:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Eolake Stobblehouse" <eolake@maccreator.spamremove.net> wrote in message
news:260520052036414419%eolake@maccreator.spamremove.net...
> In article <1117131062.759765.95250@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <"eawckyegcy@yahoo.com"> wrote:
>
> > Musty wrote:
> >
> > > This may sound like a strange question, but:
> > >
> > > What do you find to be the most useful FL ranges for your shooting?
> >
> > This may sound like a strange answer (since it should be patently
> > obvious), but: it depends on where your "useful" subjects are located
> > relative to you, how large they are, and how big you would like them to
> > appear in your images.
> >
>
> It is a pretty good answer.
> I find I use all focal lengths, for art images.
> The very widest lenses draw too much attention to their unusual
> perspective rendition, and the longest tele lenses are too big and
> can't be handheld.
>

With IS, you can hand-hold.
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 10:28:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Musty wrote:
> "Eolake Stobblehouse" <eolake@maccreator.spamremove.net> wrote in message
> news:260520052036414419%eolake@maccreator.spamremove.net...

> > The very widest lenses draw too much attention to their unusual
> > perspective rendition, and the longest tele lenses are too big and
> > can't be handheld.
> >
>
> With IS, you can hand-hold.

Right, but the previous poster's statement still holds. There are
weight and torque limitations, too. I've been told that Canon's 400mm
f2.8 L IS is a lens as near perfect as you can get, but, IS or no IS,
at least I still would be incapable of shooting more than a very
occasional handheld shot with it, for the simple reason that the brute
weighs close to fourteen pounds - a full stone!

And at least for people who like shooting birds, this is a lens
territory where one'd like to be - supposing budget isn't an issue, of
course.

Jan Böhme
!