50mm prime or 50mm on an 18-55. Dilemma + Dilemma.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dubaiphil

I was quoting an over used phrase there - 'zooming with your feet'.

---

Oh yes, I appreciate that, but it is still wrong. :)

That's why I don't like seeing it repeated ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dubaiphil

So just as a single shot with a telephoto lens compresses the image

---

No, actually it doesn't - sure you can get that effect by shooting something far off with a telephoto lens, but if you also shoot it with a wider angle lens (and with enough pixels) to crop down to get the same angle of view (as the telephoto image), you will get the same compression effect. It is all to do with where you are and the relative distances to different parts of the composition and nothing to do with the focal length per se.

That said, a telephoto lens allows us to see that view and capture it more easily and with higher quality. It may encourage us to look for compositions further away, but they were there, when we were here, all along, we could shoot a distant bird in a tree with a 50mm instead of a 300mm and crop down to the same angle of view - granted the quality wouldn't be great, but the relative size of bird on the tree branch will not have changed - as long as we don't move.

I think we're just discussing two ways of describing what we see and capture, I don't think your pictures above prove I'm mistaken anymore than they prove you're right - they would need to be like-for-like image sizes, shot at different focal lengths, taken from the same spot, and cropped (or stitched) to the same angle of view, to compare - and they aren't.

This is one of those things that many photographers believe, even those that have websites and write books*, because in the practical world, it makes little difference, but it is factually incorrect.

* When I read such books, I always lose confidence in the author and usually never finish the book, because if they are wrong about this, what about all the other stuff they're telling (where I don't know better) ....

Have a look at the section in this CiC tutorial, scroll down to the Zoom Lenses Vs Prime Lenses bit and play with the two mouse-overs of the dog by the step, one zooms with the lens/crop, the other by changing position, both achieve a larger dog's head, but look at what else changes - that's the difference between zooming with a lens and zooming with your feet - and why I feel it is a falsehood to say (generally, not you personally) "use a prime and zoom with your feet" because what you get doing that is just not the same thing as using a longer (or wider) lens and it doesn't educate them properly.

As Sean says "Keep in mind that using a zoom lens does not necessarily mean that one no longer has to change their position; zooms just increase flexibility".

Maybe I'll get out and shoot some examples tomorrow, but I won't 'disgress' this thread anymore :D

Cheers,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dubaiphil

Personally I blame Manfred's thought process.

Post image of pendulous African breasts, light the touch paper, and retire

---

You're onto me.... Throw out a topless shot and then duck while the fur flies....

I think that all artists have a certain comfort level with their tools, and they chose them for a very specific reason and their fame is somehow very closely linked to the tool that they chose to use.

Erich Salomon and his Ermanox and Yousef Karsh and his white 8 x 10 Calumet were other famous photographers who were associated with a specific camera. Ernst Haas did a lot of his best known colour work with a Leica.

Everyone has a specific reason for making certain recommendations and comments, and what works for one of us, is not the advice another photographer would give.

From a learning standpoint, I continue to agree with Phil, but again, that comes from my personal experience that you have to understand what each variable does when it comes to photography, before you can start combining them. Start simple, learn the tool, and then move on to the next step in developing your knowledge.

I'm also agree with Colin on the primes being special purpose lenses, doing things that one cannot accomplish with a zoom. I shoot four different primes; an 8mm Samyang fisheye, a 35mm for my APS-C and a 50mm for my ful-frame when I want to do some unobtrusive street photography; the longer lenses are just too much in your face. My 105 DC (defocus control) is my favourite portrait lens; sharp, fast and I can throw the the background out of focus, even when I don't shoot wide open.

Normally, I would say I do most of my shooting with either my 24-70mm or 70-200mm on the full frame. They are my go-to lenses, for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

Perhaps another question would be "If CB was in his prime (pun intended!) in 2012, would he still stick to a single focal length"?

---

Agreed, but only if we could be reasonably confident from his conversations and writings about how he would answer that question. It has been too long since I have read his writings to know about that.

By the way, it's well documented that he didn't use just one focal length, though it is also clear that he is so well known for having a 50mm lens mounted on his Leica.

Be sure to remind your wife that she and Cartier-Bresson have something in common: they rarely let anyone photograph them.

Interesting discussion that I sense has run its course.

I have a 1000D (which has a 1.6 crop sensor) and I also have an EF-S 18-55mm II non IS Zoom and a EF 50mm 1.8 'plastic fantastic' or 'nifty fifty' which I bought recently with gifts for surviving yet another year. So I had a look at some of the shots I have taken and will post a couple here to show what the difference is. The earlier one was taken on 14th May and the later one on 22nd September. The weather was similar, sunny with broken cloud and the time was similar - 2:30 and 3:00 pm. None of the pictures have any PP, they are as Canon intended. I was a little further to the left on the later one, but the difference is probably only about 20 ft or so towards the scene.

(It is Tickhill Dam pond, Tickhill near Doncaster, S Yorks.)

I have found the 'kit' lens to do very well in good light. It is difficult to control in dull light. The 'nifty fifty' with get good sharp images in low light, without flash.

I think, if I was being careful with a small budget, then I would go for the 18-55 IS lens as that would give more scope.

http://i47.tinypic.com/nod74j.jpg

http://i49.tinypic.com/33kt6l0.jpg

I am not really a great fan of UWA lenses (although I have and will occasionally use a 12-24mm f/4 Tokina on my 1.6x cameras). I consider UWA lenses as "specialty" lenses and use mine primarily when I have an interesting and prominent foreground subject such as a rock or tree formation that I want to accentuate. I will also occasionally use my UWA lens when I am shooting in a very confined space and cannot do a pano. I spent two weeks in China with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, 70-200mm f/4L IS, and 12-24mm f/4 Tokina lenses. In that time, I did only one shot with the Tokina which was leaning out of a hotel window.

One of the reasons that I like the 12-24mm Tokina is that I "could possibly" use it as a mid-range zoom if my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens ever went down.

OTOH, I am not a great fan of the Canon 50mm f/1.8 ii (Nifty-Fifty) either, mainly because of its build. I have been a photographer for over 50-years, including a few years as a combat cameraman in the Vietnam Conflict and I have never destroyed a lens, UNTIL MY FIRST experience with the Nifty-Fifty. I knocked the lens slightly on a doorframe as I was passing through a door. I have subjected my other lenses to far harder use without any problems. However, the result with the 50mm f/1.8 ii was the front element spinning on the floor.

The 50mm f/1.8 Mki has become a cult lens since it is faster and produces better IQ than the original 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens. It is also inexpensive enough that many photographers do not suffer from "sticker shock" when considering the purchase of this lens.

I needed a lens faster than the 28-135mm f/3.5 IS which (at the time) was my mid-range zoom lens. Being short of cash, I purchased a 50mm f/1.8 Mark-i to replace the "Nifty-Fifty". The original Mki is built far more sturdy than the Mark-ii. At that time the price of a used Mark-i was only slightly higher than a new Mark-ii (it has since increased in cost faster than has the Mkii). I used the Mark-i for years, but now my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens has taken over many of the low light duties of the 50mm f/1.8...

Hi Richard, i'm almost afraid to ask but would you ever consider "auctioning" your 50mm f/1.8? You may be saving a soul...:rolleyes:


Keep them coming everyone else, i am surely learning more from your valuable insights. I recently installed a lens hood on my infamous 18-55 but around 18 it shows part of the hood in the image/vignetting. I am not too worried as i can remove it but i am not because starting from yesterday and for the next 5 days, i am experimenting with 35 and 50mm only on the 18-55. I kid myself on acquiring the 35mm lens though....not on impracticality...just cost issues.
;)

Since we are talking about prime lens. I got a sweet deal on this yesterday and so far I'm loving it on my D90:cool:
http://i50.tinypic.com/2d0doav.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melkus

. . . . . the great Henri Cartier-Bresson used a 50mm lens almost exclusively for over 50 years so that tells you something.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Cartier-Bresson

Cartier-Bresson likely used a rangefinder camera (not usually had interchangeable lenses), and by far the most common FL was in the 50 mm range. My first camera was a 1962 Olympus rangefinder with a fixed FL of about 48 mm.

I don't think that he had a choice - SRLs were not invented until the late forties.

Glenn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glenn NK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Cartier-Bresson

Cartier-Bresson likely used a rangefinder camera (not usually had interchangeable lenses), and by far the most common FL was in the 50 mm range. My first camera was a 1962 Olympus rangefinder with a fixed FL of about 48 mm.

I don't think that he had a choice - SRLs were not invented until the late forties.

Glenn

---

Not true; while HCB started off with a Leica I, so far as I can tell most of his work was done using a black Leica M3 interchangeable lens rangefinder camera using a collapsable 50mm Leitz Summicron. He also used a 50mm Zeiss Sonnar (another collapsable lens).

So far as I know, any of the various Leica models starting in 1930 used the 39mm screw mount and had interchangable lenses. Interchangeable lenses were available on rangefinder cameras well before the introduction of SLRs and the same can be said about focal plane shutters. The Leica bayonet was introduced with the M3 around 1954, and the M3 viewfinder was able to frame 35mm, 50mm, 90mm and 135mm lenses.

No, Cartier-Bresson shot with a 50mm lens because he chose to, not because he had to...

No, Cartier-Bresson shot with a 50mm lens because he chose to, not because he had to...

Well I guess I chose to shoot with a 50mm and now I got a 35mm:) btw I do like the 35mm better so far;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melkus

No, Cartier-Bresson shot with a 50mm lens because he chose to, not because he had to...

Well I guess I chose to shoot with a 50mm and now I got a 35mm:) btw I do like the 35mm better so far;)

---

Cartier-Bresson was shooting full frame, not crop frame... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rpcrowe

No inanimate device "MAKES" you pay attention to framing and composition. It is the computer between your ears that is connected to your eyes that allows you to pay attention to these matters.

---

Sometimes the process is called thinking.:rolleyes:

Glenn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

Cartier-Bresson was shooting full frame, not crop frame... :)

---

35x1.5=52mm Yep right where I need to be;)

RP Crowe said "autofocus is a pretty necessary attribute to DSLR camera lenses because I don't think that DSLR cameras are optimized for manual focusing"

Could you expand on this comment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken MT

RP Crowe said "autofocus is a pretty necessary attribute to DSLR camera lenses because I don't think that DSLR cameras are optimized for manual focusing"

Could you expand on this comment

---

I don't want to put words in Richards mouth, but I feel the same way that he does:

Those of us that shot with film SLRs tend to feel that way because those cameras, with their manual focus lenses had focus screens that were designed to clearly let the photographer know when the image was in focus. When the image was in focus, the area in the fine focus part of the scene left absoultely no doubt when you hit focus. These features, have sadly been left out on the DSLR focusing screen. If I want to manually focus accurately today, I have to jump into live view, zoom in on the scene and use that technique to figure out whether or not I've hit the sharp focus. This is not ideal, because frankly I compose and shoot using the viewfinder, not the LCD screen on the camera.

In addition manu of the lenses have terrible manual focus rings, especially on the consumer level lenses; the manual focus adjustment is fairly crude and not nearly as smooth as on the old manual focus lenses. The lenses had a hard stop for infinity, so there was never any question that the lens was set to infitnity; but in order to save some money during lens assembly, this is no longer done and the photographer has to let the camera autofocus mechanism figure out where infinity is.

Lens manufacturers have also taken the DoF markings off the lens for each full f-stop, so using hyperfocal distance was always a breeze. Focus the lens and then back off a bit, based on the lens markings and you had a sharp picture.

When I used my manual focus lens on a D90 I had issues with the standard focus screen. I swapped this out with a split prism screen which helped considerably. Moving onto a Full Frame camera body with a much brighter and larger viewfinder I did not feel the need to swap focus screens - I just use the focus confirmation 'dot' which is visible in the viewfinder.

As Manfred has stated above, there are lots of reasons why manual focus with modern equipment is not easy - focus ring 'play', no hard stop on infinity, focus screen, lack of DoF markings.

There are several advantages with manual focusing with modern equipment though - Live View for critical focusing and of course the fact that you're shooting in digital and can review your results instantly, refining your result or deleting the error straight away rather than waiting for the dark room or developers to show your results. Obviously this is only regarding subjects which are static and give you a second bite at the cherry.

But then again, critical focusing is probably required more now due to pixel peeping technology and a desired 'need' for ultimate sharpness

But to help with focusing on a DSLR when in manual mode now a days we see "Focus Peaking" on some cameras, mostly the Sony ones. I try this out in store and it dose seem to work well:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melkus

But to help with focusing on a DSLR when in manual mode now a days we see "Focus Peaking" on some cameras, mostly the Sony ones. I try this out in store and it dose seem to work well:cool:

---

Focus peaking has been offered on prosumer video cameras for some time and it is a great feature because it lets the photographer / videographer see what parts of the image are in focus, but it is a feature that can only be done on an electronic (mirrorless) display.

Phil is right; while my D90 has no focus assist, the D800 does have a small dot and two small arrows in the viewfinder to help with manual focus. The problem with it is a bit like autofocus; I'm not always certain that what it is telling me is in focus is what I am focusing on; a bird in a tree, for instance. Is the bird in focus or has it decided I'm focusing on the branches again...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

Those of us that shot with film SLRs tend to feel that way because those cameras, with their manual focus lenses had focus screens that were designed to clearly let the photographer know when the image was in focus. When the image was in focus, the area in the fine focus part of the scene left absolutely no doubt when you hit focus. These features, have sadly been left out on the DSLR focusing screen. If I want to manually focus accurately today, I have to jump into live view, zoom in on the scene and use that technique to figure out whether or not I've hit the sharp focus. This is not ideal, because frankly I compose and shoot using the viewfinder, not the LCD screen on the camera.

---

I really miss this feature. The ground glass screen (I think that's what they were called) worked very well, particularly on landscapes with a tripod.

AF with landscapes is pretty much useless and a waste of time.

Glenn

I think mentioning Henri Cartier-Bresson is a bit of a moot point here, since most advances in zoom-lens technology that made them fit for day to day use happened late in his career and after his retirement.