The Official Photography Thread - Vol. 3

[djyoung08]

So in the case of the picture I posted, the 35mm would be "better" than the 50mm I used?


Why would a 70 be ok for portraits and wildlife but not for street

Reps all around when I get a chance.

50 looks great. A lot of what lens to use depends very heavily on the look you're trying to achieve.

If you frame that image exactly the same but using 35mm the dude would have looked slightly distorted / larger than the background.

If you would have framed the same image with something like 135mm the dude would have appeared more separated from background compression

See the info graphic mjbetch posted.

There are three main reasons why the 70-200 wouldn't be a great choice for street photography.

1 - Framing your subject will be a bit difficult especially on a crop sensor because you'd have to be pretty far away

2 - You'd look like a creep with that huge lens zooming in on something 20 feet away

3 - Its really heavy and cumbersome (over time... out on the field) to carry around and God forbid its one of multiple lenses you're switching between.

 

[picasso swerve]

Gotcha gotcha, great info guys I really appreciate it all. So 35mm is next and my friend already ahs that 70-200mm from Rikonon or whatever and its super dope.


So 35mm next and maybe that small pancake lens too.

 

[Fong$tarr]

So in the case of the picture I posted, the 35mm would be "better" than the 50mm I used?


Why would a 70 be ok for portraits and wildlife but not for street

Reps all around when I get a chance.

70 is just too narrow. Street photography is a balance of the subject and it's surroundings. You essentially want some background in the photo as well as having your subject in frame like below.

70mm or longer just sort of narrows your background where you get little of it. It doesn't mean you can't shoot street photography with it but it just has a different look. I think once you play with lenses, you'll sort of get what we're all talking about.

Also rent some lenses if that is something that fits your budget. Borrowlenses is pretty good. They have locations in NY but can also mail lenses to you for a price.

https://www.borrowlenses.com/content/pickuplocations

Rent this lens if you can. Could be a good walk around lens in your focal range and at 1.8.

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/standard-lenses/18-35mm-f18-dc-hsm-a

 

[djyoung08]

Ive heard lots of good things about that sigma 18-35 f/1.8

High recommend that lens for crop sensor users.

And remember, you don't HAVE to shoot it at 1.8

 

[ddh1122]

Think I'm gonna bite the bullet on my first prime today - a Nikon 35mm.

 

[shaze804]

 

[bjamez20]

Wow. Awesome shots. Can barely see any grain on Otis! What developer did you use?

Thanks man! I used HC 110 formula B. Shot on 120 so I think that helps with the grain. Going to try pushing a roll to 1600 next.

 

[harmito]

The 50mm is like a 80mm on a crop DSLR. Check out the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 for $300 via Slickdeals, has a fast aperture, image stabilization, and gives you a variety of focal lengths like the 35mm you wanted.

Exactly why I went full frame.

Never looking back either.

 

[harmito]

Ahh so you King_KG on IG

 

[harmito]

Old pic from when I had my T3i

 

[tokes99]

So in the case of the picture I posted, the 35mm would be "better" than the 50mm I used?


Why would a 70 be ok for portraits and wildlife but not for street

Reps all around when I get a chance.

70mm would definitely be a little tight but people use similar & longer lenses for street style stuff...at issue is really 2 things, 1 your effective focal length (since you are on a crop sensor cam), which would be at something like a 105+mm lens on full frame- again maybe not ideal for street but certainly doable, just would maybe require a different mindset (there is a pretty cool technique called the brenizer method that is pretty dope that works well with longer focal lengths!). then there is the size & weight of a 2.8 70-200, which isn't exactly inconspicuous or the easiest to lug around if you are trying to catch candid moments roaming out on these skreets...ultimately your preferences, style, and what compromise(s) you are willing to make to get the type of images you want...

 

[danyosahn]

 

[mjbetch]

50 looks great. A lot of what lens to use depends very heavily on the look you're trying to achieve.

If you frame that image exactly the same but using 35mm the dude would have looked slightly distorted / larger than the background.

If you would have framed the same image with something like 135mm the dude would have appeared more separated from background compression

See the info graphic mjbetch posted.

There are three main reasons why the 70-200 wouldn't be a great choice for street photography.

1 - Framing your subject will be a bit difficult especially on a crop sensor because you'd have to be pretty far away

2 - You'd look like a creep with that huge lens zooming in on something 20 feet away

3 - Its really heavy and cumbersome (over time... out on the field) to carry around and God forbid its one of multiple lenses you're switching between.

I second #2 x 100000. Might even get the cops called on you if you're in the wrong area

Gotcha gotcha, great info guys I really appreciate it all. So 35mm is next and my friend already ahs that 70-200mm from Rikonon or whatever and its super dope.


So 35mm next and maybe that small pancake lens too.

Consider a 24 or 28 as well

 

[grizzlyboy]

I shoot sony and when I do shoot street I use my 50mm. Looking into an old Minolta 35mm for manual night shooting now.

 

[romcadoo]

What's the best way to get the sharpest image handheld shooting wide open?

 

[kdawg]

What's the best way to get the sharpest image handheld shooting wide open?

That's really tough - even a great lens will not be as sharp wide open. If you close it a stop or so it's much easier and make sure you're shooting fast enough (something like 1/60 or faster - increase the ISO if there's not enough light for that) if it's handheld to avoid shake. Then it's down to accurate focussing to make it as good as it can be.

 

[romcadoo]

That's really tough - even a great lens will not be as sharp wide open. If you close it a stop or so it's much easier and make sure you're shooting fast enough (something like 1/60 or faster - increase the ISO if there's not enough light for that) if it's handheld to avoid shake. Then it's down to accurate focussing to make it as good as it can be.

I've been practicing with things at home shooting at 1.8 and zoomed out it looks fine but zooming in you can tell its not super sharp.

Leads to my next question, if I have a 1.4 vs 1.8.

If I'm shooting 1.8 on a 1.4 lens will it be sharper or let more light in at 1.8 vs a lens that only goes to 1.8

 

[Nawzlew]

That's really tough - even a great lens will not be as sharp wide open. If you close it a stop or so it's much easier and make sure you're shooting fast enough (something like 1/60 or faster - increase the ISO if there's not enough light for that) if it's handheld to avoid shake. Then it's down to accurate focussing to make it as good as it can be.

I've been practicing with things at home shooting at 1.8 and zoomed out it looks fine but zooming in you can tell its not super sharp.

Leads to my next question, if I have a 1.4 vs 1.8.

If I'm shooting 1.8 on a 1.4 lens will it be sharper or let more light in at 1.8 vs a lens that only goes to 1.8

It will let in more light since it goes down to 1.4. Will it be sharper wide open? Meh .. To me going down to 1.4 doesn't really justify the price difference. It does have that focus window though which is really nice ...

 

[kdawg]

Yeah, I would go with the 1.8. You'll not be able to use the 1.4 much because you'll always be disappointed.

The focus window is good if you're using it for landscapes but not much use otherwise. Probably not with the price difference.

 

[1takeace]

anybody try out that Photopills app? looks like a great concept. it suppose to help you plan out your photos.

 

[mjbetch]

I've been practicing with things at home shooting at 1.8 and zoomed out it looks fine but zooming in you can tell its not super sharp.

Leads to my next question, if I have a 1.4 vs 1.8.

If I'm shooting 1.8 on a 1.4 lens will it be sharper or let more light in at 1.8 vs a lens that only goes to 1.8

The 1.4 lens will be sharper at 1.8 than the 1.8 will be at 1.8.

Depending on the lens, nothing is usually very sharp wide open. Even stop it down 1/3 of a stop, it'll be much sharper wide open without sacrificing much light.

 

[romcadoo]

Nawzlew right on for the vid I watched it earlier but I was half sleep so I'll check it out later.

Yeah, I would go with the 1.8. You'll not be able to use the 1.4 much because you'll always be disappointed.

The focus window is good if you're using it for landscapes but not much use otherwise. Probably not with the price difference.

I primarily take portraits, mainly models

The 1.4 lens will be sharper at 1.8 than the 1.8 will be at 1.8.

Depending on the lens, nothing is usually very sharp wide open. Even stop it down 1/3 of a stop, it'll be much sharper wide open without sacrificing much light.

I'll put that into consideration. I have a 50mm 1.8 and was thinking about getting an 1.4 but it almost seems pointless in a sense.
I don't see why make a lense at 1.4-1.2 and it's nearly impossible to get very sharp shooting wide open

 

[mjbetch]

Nawzlew right on for the vid I watched it earlier but I was half sleep so I'll check it out later.
I primarily take portraits, mainly models
I'll put that into consideration. I have a 50mm 1.8 and was thinking about getting an 1.4 but it almost seems pointless in a sense.
I don't see why make a lense at 1.4-1.2 and it's nearly impossible to get very sharp shooting wide open

More light when you absolutely need it and not need things perfectly sharp. A 1.2 lens will be sharper at 1.4 than a 1.4 at 1.4. That's what you're paying for. You're also paying for differences in color rendition, bokeh, chromatic aberration, etc.

 

[romcadoo]

More light when you absolutely need it and not need things perfectly sharp. A 1.2 lens will be sharper at 1.4 than a 1.4 at 1.4. That's what you're paying for. You're also paying for differences in color rendition, bokeh, chromatic aberration, etc.

That makes sense. I just love the bokeh at 1.8 I wish I could shoot wide open and keep the same sharpness
My buddy has a 85mm 1.4 from Canon that thing is amazing

 

[mjbetch]

That makes sense. I just love the bokeh at 1.8 I wish I could shoot wide open and keep the same sharpness
My buddy has a 85mm 1.4 from Canon that thing is amazing

I feels you! If only man. Money talks :x