Jump to content

Don't know what to get your favorite moderator for Christmas?


Amy

Recommended Posts

Amy, not all photographers will get a lot out of really wide-angle if they are not experienced with it or know what to do with it. W/A is not good for scenics, for example -- it includes a lot of stuff, but can reduce the impact of a scene because the center of interest is now smaller and sometimes overwhelmed by clutter.

A wide-angle is most interesting IMO if its distorted perspective is used either to get very close or to get some wild scenic inclusions: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm

Old Truck

Union 76, Baker CA

I think you have to want to use that artistic flair to get the most out of a W/A lens.

A word of warning: a zoom wide-angle often doesn't let you get close enough to make really dramatic wide-angles; you'd need a fixed-focus W/A to do that. Again, try these out to see what they can and can't do.

Telephoto: The opposite of W/A is "telephoto." I'm not sure you want to take far-off pics of birds and animals. What you might want is to use moderately long lenses as PORTRAIT lenses. People and faces often look more flattered if taken with 75 mm to 105 mm in full frame, or 45 to 70 mm in your camera. Here, you would want to stand back a bit and fill the frame with someone's upper body or face. 75-200 mm lens (http://photo.net/learn/portraits/):

mit-127.1.jpghttp://philip.greenspun.com/images/200602-julie/mit-026.tcl'>

Note that the background is subordinated by being out of focus and lost because it's oversized. Mostly, though, her face looks pleasant. With a W/A, you would have to get a LOT closer, and faces can look unpleasant because noses and mouths are exaggerated:

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcReeBmwUrE_YWLbQSuUr4Z

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>

A word of warning: a zoom wide-angle often doesn't let you get close enough to make really dramatic wide-angles; you'd need a fixed-focus W/A to do that. Again, try these out to see what they can and can't do.

<snip>

I think that's the best point to be made for using a prime (fixed focal length) wide angle lens over a zoom. I have a Nikon 20-35mm f/2.8 zoom that is practically always on my camera but after reading Larry's post, I compared it to my old manual 20mm f/2.8 prime lens. I'd forgotten about the dramatic difference in the close focus range of these two lenses - the closest focus for the zoom is around 1.7 ft while the closest focus for the prime is 0.85 ft. I took a couple of quick shots in my livingroom for comparison. These were shot in FX mode so they are at a true 20mm. Thanks for the reminder Larry - that little prime is going back in the bag.

Full frame Nikon 20-35mm f/2.8 AF zoom wide open at 20mm at closest focus:

Posted Image

Full frame Nikon 20mm f/2.8 manual prime wide open at closest focus:

Posted Image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd forgotten about the dramatic difference in the close focus range of these two lenses - the closest focus for the zoom is around 1.7 ft while the closest focus for the prime is 0.85 ft.

And just look at the dramatic diff IMO between the two lenses in clarity and color contrast (richness) of the horse! No comparison. The zoom must be one of Nikon's lesser lenses (not the only one), whereas the single focal length is terrific.

I don't think it was a focus problem, either, since the Monopoly board is about as sharp in the plane of the horse as anyplace else, front or rear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The AF 20-35mm f/2.8 D was actually a pretty well regarded pro lens in the '90s. It was replaced by the fine 17-35mm f2.8 AFS in 2000. I used program mode (autofocus, auto ISO, and autoexposure) for the shot above so, to be fair, I re-shot it (below) manually and it's a bit better. Wide open at 20mm it's at it's weakest extreme end. Now, I'm lusting after the 14-24mm f/2.8 zoom (closest focus at 11") but that's a huge lens. The new 24mm f/1.4 prime (closest focus at 8") makes me drool too.

Posted Image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just adding to the number of posts about the use of the various lenses. When I was using my 28mm with film camera (true 28mm) for wedding candids, the slightly exageratted perspective (non flattering of subjects) actually enhanced the expressions of the faces in the images. Not good for portraiture, but a neat effect when used for groups of subjects.

That was a great discussion regarding the close focusing, clarity, color saturation of prime lenses. Less lens elements and simpler design makes this possible although some of the newer zooms are getting very good given computer-aided design. The cost of coatings on the various lens elements can drive the price of zooms up very quickly, perhaps why better performance is gotten from prime lenses of the same focal length.

Prime lenses do come at some cost of weight and convenience if we're talking about carrying 1-2 lenses max on a trip of any distance.

Not yet discussed are the differences between 'digital' lenses and older style lenses. In my understanding there are two major changes made to lenses intended to be used with digital capture. Both involve the rear element of the lens. Due to the high reflectivity of the chip (as compared to film), the rear lens element has special/additional coatings to prevent image deterioration. Also the rear lens element is now shaped so that the light rays will more closely strike the chip in perpendicular fashion, eliminating blurring from the light striking each layer of the sensor at different points. For example, my 80-200 Nikkor ED-IF AS displays a blue color shift compared to my 85 1.4mm lens. I think this is also due to the rear element. The word here in using older style lenses with digital cameras is to do your homework ahead of time and not buy into something that might look like a 'deal' but give less than optimal results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Below is an image, greatly reduced in resolution from the original, that may provide a clue to the Micro Nikor 2.8's resolving abilities if you can overcome the compression. I shot this in 1985 and this poor representation is all that remains.

Three naturally occurring forms of carbon, as known at that time. Just this year graphene was discovered...but I'm not sure how I'd go about re-shooting this image today and attempting a photograph of a one atom thick graphene sheet.

Dave

Nope Graphene has talked even for back 1970's and 1980

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...