Wide Angle vs. Telephoto (religious question...)
David Bedno
I've seen posts where people swear by their wide and wider angle
lenses; so much so that it's their default lens. Almost certainly
there are people who need and use larger lenses for their photography.
I'm more in the second category than the first. I recently picked up
a 24mm lens, but don't find it to be nearly as useful as the higher
power lens, as I'm generally more interested in details than the
"big picture". Or I'm farther to the point where a wide-angle lens
would get me what I want.
So...those wide-angle fanatics...what kind of pictures are you taking
with those lenses? What kind of unusual things are you doing with it?
Are you taking close-up flower pictures by getting close-up with the
flower?
What makes a wide-angle lens more than just a "landscape" lens, I suppose
is what I need to know.
Conversely, what makes a telephoto more than just a distant close-up lens?
--
David Bedno dbedno@ "Been there. Still there."
mipos2.sc.
intel.com
Disclaimer: I don't speak for Intel. I don't even speak about Intel.
awmanen
For me, a wide or super wide angle lens is for people! If yhou are
getting close with a wide angle, you are getting "drawn in" to the
picture. Indeed telephoto shots are great for covering details, sports
etc etc. but for people, a wide angle shot really makes your picture
work. Of course it is harder to compose a nice background and macro
flower shots are not the way to use them. Besides having ot pay much
more attention to the background (which you have to be capable of) you
also need to have the balls to come close to your subject. If you would
use your 24 mm for a nice shot of a single person, there is no hiding.
So you in a way it is a honest kind of photography.
Last but not least, I think that wideangle shots need to be printed big,
13x18 cm is a real minimum, 20x25 cm or larger is prefered. Most
art-directors of magazines don't like it when I tell them so, but it is
true!
XM
Pompiliu Donescu
Hi:
i am not a wide angle fanatic, but found that for scenics
i tend to use the zoom i have towards the wide end.
the uses for wide angles come from their inherent properties:
1. greater coverage;
2. greater depth of field;
3. increased perspective effect.
from these the uses that i envision are:
- scenics (1, 2 & 3);
- enhanced objects in the foreground in a story-telling picture (2 & 3);
e.g. a really nice patch of flower in front of a mountain, or a building
for that matter; or a patch of flowers in which you want to change
the relationship between them, etc.
- in tight spaces (e.g. inside the dome in the Capitol, but you need
a really wide angle there :) (1);
- for some funny pictures; because of the increased perspective effect
the objects in the foreground will appear a lot bigger w/ respect to
the ones farther away and thus may create a funny effect...
but don't try this on people (unless they have a good sense of humor)
(1).
for instance, try this type of picture of your cat, dog, etc... just for fun.
But different people like different things, and some prefer wide angles,
while other prefer telephotos. Each does a different thing.
Best regards, Pompiliu
Canon50E
>I've seen posts where people swear by their wide and wider angle
>lenses; so much so that it's their default lens. Almost certainly
>there are people who need and use larger lenses for their photography.
>
>I'm more in the second category than the first. I recently picked up
>a 24mm lens, but don't find it to be nearly as useful as the higher
>power lens, as I'm generally more interested in details than the
>"big picture". Or I'm farther to the point where a wide-angle lens
>would get me what I want.
>
>So...those wide-angle fanatics...what kind of pictures are you taking
>with those lenses? What kind of unusual things are you doing with it?
>Are you taking close-up flower pictures by getting close-up with the
>flower?
>
>What makes a wide-angle lens more than just a "landscape" lens, I suppose
>is what I need to know.
>
>Conversely, what makes a telephoto more than just a distant close-up lens?
>
>--
>David Bedno
David, these are all personal preferences. A friend of mine loves his wider
angle lenses (17-35) because it gives another perspective of photographing
subjects. There is a lot of ways to zoom closer to the subject (like going
closer) but I understand that a lot of times like in wildlife you would need at
least 200mm to "sneak" up on animals.
I'd say go for the lens that suits you the most and don't worry what other
people have or think.
Wide angle does not necessarily let you do closeups, that's why haven't you
noticed that most 1:1 magnification macro lenses are 90mm, 100mm, 105mm,
180mm....
If you are not in favor of wide angle lenses, you don't need to flame other
people for using it.
Regards,
KY Mak
Check out my photography page:
http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Rapids/3867/index.html
ICQ #5978007
ske...@ix.netcom.com
For me, my 15 f/3.5 and 20f /3.5 (and even the 16 f/2.8 "square"
fisheye) mean **context!** Context makes great people pictures,
but it also is great for putting any object into a context in the
foreground, esp. off center.
My long lenses (300mm to 1000mm) are primarily used for sports
and wildlife, but occasionally I use them to create a context to, for
instance, a "foreground" object at long distance (so as to place
the object near "infinity" relative to the lens' focusing to create
some "depth of field) against an interesting background.
I could't do without any of 'em....
GW
Don Atzberger
In article <6id50m$q...@scnews.sc.intel.com>, dbe...@ics14.sc.intel.com
(David Bedno) wrote:
> I've seen posts where people swear by their wide and wider angle
> lenses; so much so that it's their default lens. Almost certainly
> there are people who need and use larger lenses for their photography.
>
> I'm more in the second category than the first. I recently picked up
> a 24mm lens, but don't find it to be nearly as useful as the higher
> power lens, as I'm generally more interested in details than the
> "big picture". Or I'm farther to the point where a wide-angle lens
> would get me what I want.
>
> So...those wide-angle fanatics...what kind of pictures are you taking
> with those lenses? What kind of unusual things are you doing with it?
> Are you taking close-up flower pictures by getting close-up with the
> flower?
>
> What makes a wide-angle lens more than just a "landscape" lens, I suppose
> is what I need to know.
>
> Conversely, what makes a telephoto more than just a distant close-up lens?
>
> --
In a word, perspective. As the lenses get wider, the background appears
further and further from the subject. A 24mm is a crummy portrait lens
(unless you're purposely trying to get the "bubble-face effect") because
if you get a head & shoulder shot of someone with one, the subject's nose
looks huge and the back of her/his head looks tiny in comparison. It's
reminiscent of the effect from a fisheye lens.
Conversely, long teles compress the scene. Suppose you shoot a bridge
with cars coming across it (coming toward you) and a mountain on the far
side of it with a 50mm lens and a 400mm lens with the lenses focused on a
car at the near end of the bridge. Afterward, in the darkroom, you crop
and enlarge the 50mm shot so that the resulting print covers the same area
as the 400mm shot. In the shot with the normal lens, you'll notice that
the mountain looks like it's at about the same distance away from the
bridge that it appears to your eye. However, in the 400mm shot, the
mountain looks a lot closer. A long telephoto used as a portrait lens
will flatten features and make the subject's face look flatter. Some
fashion photogs like this effect because it takes the edge off that
"anorexic teenager" look. My portrait subjects are a little heavier and
my 400/4 makes them look pretty bad -- an 85mm does a much better job.
Wide angle lenses are handy for shots of real-estate lots and of building
interiors where you want to include a lot of the room. Shots of large
groups of people in a confined area can't be pulled off without them
unless you combine the shots in the darkroom. Short telephoto lenses in
the range of 85mm to about 135mm are the classic portrait lenses for
35mm. Longer teles can be used to reduce the feeling of distance in a
shot.
Hope this helps...
Peace,
Don
David Rosen
ske...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> For me, my 15 f/3.5 and 20f /3.5 (and even the 16 f/2.8 "square"
> fisheye) mean **context!** Context makes great people pictures,
> but it also is great for putting any object into a context in the
> foreground, esp. off center.
Even in social even photos, wide angle puts
the viewer of your pix right into the group
or situation, plus wide allows grab shots
and hailmarys [overhead]. The viewer of a
wide shot is surrounded by the activity.
> My long lenses (300mm to 1000mm) are primarily used for sports
> and wildlife, but occasionally I use them to create a context to, for
[.....]
Suddenly, I've realize the truth about the
great white-barrel/black-barrel long lens
bullshit. Finally I see it ! The classic
applications for really long lenses are our
civilized sublimations of warfare or hunting
[sports and wildlife photos]. That's why in
the Nikon/Canon war the color of long lens
barrels is so often tossed about by the most
ridiculously fervent of the brand loyalists.
Back to the point of the thread now, with a
wide lens you participate, with a long lens
you hunt from cover or snipe from distance.
I do agree sometimes the "zero perspective"
of a long lens allows juxtaposing subjects,
associating them in a way that shorter lenses
cannot. Here in Albany, as you look 1/2 mile
ahead down the road, you see signs for many
businesses ahead. Two that appear together
are "Jewish Book World" and "Gentiles Parking
in Rear". This aparent discrimination in
parking priveleges is clarified as you drive
from tele perspective to wide angle and see
that "Gentile's" is a seperate business a few
doors away from the Jewish Books place, and
that parking for said business is provided at
the rear of their own building.
Regards, - dr
David Rosen
ske...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> For me, my 15 f/3.5 and 20f /3.5 (and even the 16 f/2.8 "square"
> fisheye) mean **context!** Context makes great people pictures,
> but it also is great for putting any object into a context in the
> foreground, esp. off center.
Even in social event photos, wide angle puts
the viewer of your pix right into the group
or situation, plus wide allows grab shots
and hailmarys [overhead]. The viewer of a
wide shot is surrounded by the activity.
> My long lenses (300mm to 1000mm) are primarily used for sports
> and wildlife, but occasionally I use them to create a context to, for
[.....]
Suddenly, I've realize the truth about the
great white-barrel/black-barrel long lens
bullshit. Finally I see it ! The classic
applications for really long lenses are our
civilized sublimations of warfare or hunting
[sports and wildlife photos]. That's why in
the Nikon/Canon war the color of long lens
barrels is so often tossed about by the most
ridiculously fervent of the brand loyalists.
Back to the point of the thread now, with a
wide lens you participate, with a long lens
you hunt from cover or snipe from distance.
I do agree sometimes the "zero perspective"
of a long lens allows juxtaposing subjects,
associating them in a way that shorter lenses
cannot. Here in Albany, as you look 1/2 mile
ahead down the road, you see signs for many
businesses ahead. Two that *appear* together
are "Jewish Book World" and "Gentiles Parking
in Rear". This apparent discrimination in
parking priveleges is clarified as you drive
from tele perspective to wide angle, and see
Brandon Campbell
> What makes a wide-angle lens more than just a "landscape" lens, I suppose
> is what I need to know.
When you're shooting indoors, you are often backed up against a wall when
you can't move back even further, so sometimes in order to get everything
or everyone you want into the picture, you need something wider.
--
Brandon Wayne Campbell http://people.unt.edu/~brandonc/
bwc...@airmail.net (preferred for personal mail)
camp...@tc.umn.edu (school-related mail until summer 1998)
bran...@jove.acs.unt.edu (school-related mail after summer 1998)
Benson
The angle of view determines the front to back perspective of a image rendered on
film. The wider the angle of view the larger the foreground object in your image,
To use a wide angle lens properly, you need to move in close to a object near you
to exaggerate it's size relative to the background or consider how the exaggerated
view will look in the final image. A tele photo lens will produce the opposite
result. A " normal" lens will produce a front to back perspective similar to the
way your eye renders it.
Benson
David Bedno wrote:
> I've seen posts where people swear by their wide and wider angle
> lenses; so much so that it's their default lens. Almost certainly
> there are people who need and use larger lenses for their photography.
>
> I'm more in the second category than the first. I recently picked up
> a 24mm lens, but don't find it to be nearly as useful as the higher
> power lens, as I'm generally more interested in details than the
> "big picture". Or I'm farther to the point where a wide-angle lens
> would get me what I want.
>
> So...those wide-angle fanatics...what kind of pictures are you taking
> with those lenses? What kind of unusual things are you doing with it?
> Are you taking close-up flower pictures by getting close-up with the
> flower?
>
> What makes a wide-angle lens more than just a "landscape" lens, I suppose
> is what I need to know.
>
> Conversely, what makes a telephoto more than just a distant close-up lens?
>
> --
Andreas Nicklass
Don Atzberger <dg...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
> Conversely, long teles compress the scene. Suppose you shoot a bridge
> with cars coming across it (coming toward you) and a mountain on the far
> side of it with a 50mm lens and a 400mm lens with the lenses focused on a
> car at the near end of the bridge. Afterward, in the darkroom, you crop
> and enlarge the 50mm shot so that the resulting print covers the same area
> as the 400mm shot. In the shot with the normal lens, you'll notice that
> the mountain looks like it's at about the same distance away from the
> bridge that it appears to your eye. However, in the 400mm shot, the
> mountain looks a lot closer.
Nope! Perspective only depends on your position when taking
the picture. It doesn't depend on the focal length. If you
really did what you propose you would end up with two ident-
ical pictures though the 50mm print would exhibit more grain.
ciao,
Andreas
Jeffrey Karp
Patrick
Canon50E <cano...@aol.com> wrote:
> If you are not in favor of wide angle lenses, you don't need to flame other
> people for using it.
Ky,
I'm confused, how was he flaming other wide angle users? I only saw a
very simple question as to _why_ ppl prefer their wide angles to other
lenses, supported by the fact that he now has a 24mm lens that he does
not prefer.
Best,
Patrick
--
"Welcome To The World Of Disposable Heroes."
Canon50E
>Ky,
>
>I'm confused, how was he flaming other wide angle users? I only saw a
>very simple question as to _why_ ppl prefer their wide angles to other
>lenses, supported by the fact that he now has a 24mm lens that he does
>not prefer.
>
>Best,
>Patrick
>
>
Read his post again, on the "What are those people doing with wide angle
lens...."
Sounds like a flame there to me. Maybe I'm too sensitive....
Regards,
KY Mak
http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Rapids/3867/index.html
ICQ #5978007
Rudy Garcia
In article <1d8h71n.ee...@psc-5399a-17.bmi.net>,
Andreas....@usa.net (Andreas Nicklass) wrote:
I believe Andreas is totally correct in that point. Perspective is
determined by the position (distance) of the camera relative to the
subject.
--
Use address below for Email replies. Address on Header is bogus to defeat AutoSPAM.
ru...@jps.net
________________________________
Rudy Garcia
The answers I have found have just served to raise a whole new set
of questions. In some ways I am as confused as ever, but I believe
I am confused on a much higher level and about more important things.
Author unknown
Patrick
Canon50E <cano...@aol.com> wrote:
> Read his post again, on the "What are those people doing with wide angle
> lens...."
>
> Sounds like a flame there to me. Maybe I'm too sensitive....
>
Ky, the original post follows:
-----
I've seen posts where people swear by their wide and wider angle lenses;
so much so that it's their default lens. Almost certainly there are
people who need and use larger lenses for their photography.
I'm more in the second category than the first. I recently picked up a
24mm lens, but don't find it to be nearly as useful as the higher power
lens, as I'm generally more interested in details than the "big
picture". Or I'm farther to the point where a wide-angle lens would get
me what I want.
So...those wide-angle fanatics...what kind of pictures are you taking
with those lenses? What kind of unusual things are you doing with it?
Are you taking close-up flower pictures by getting close-up with the
flower?
What makes a wide-angle lens more than just a "landscape" lens, I
suppose is what I need to know.
Conversely, what makes a telephoto more than just a distant close-up
lens?
-----
I still fail to see how that is a flame in any way, and the cloest thing
to your sentence is: "Those wide-angle fanatics...what kind of pictures
are you taking with those lenses?". Nothing about "what are those
people doing with a wide angle lens".
Given, this is all subject to interpretation, but it wasn't a flame in
the slightest.. All I see are honest questions and curiosity.
For the record, to the original post:
I shoot wide angle to give a better 'sense of place' for the area.
Allowing parts of the background and surrounding in gives a better feel
IMHO.
-patrick
Jeffrey Karp
Patrick wrote:
You can have so much fun using a wide angle lens mounted on the camera
in reverse(using a reverse ring). A 28mm lens mounted in reverse will give
you about 2.3:1, or an image on the film that is 2.3X life size. When used
on flowers or insects, it will give you results that are very exciting.Combine
this with extension tubes for awesome magnification. Oh yes,
a wide angle lens also occasionally comes in handy for a scenic photo.
Thomas Edward Witte
It's my favorite lens, because it distorts reality. I generally
like to skooch in close and fill half the frame with my subject and let
the rest of the frame be taken up by the environment.
Tom
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
THE SITE IS UP! Check it out at: http://www.viscom.ohiou.edu/witte/home.html
* * Check out our web pages at www.viscom.ohiou.edu/ * *
DON'T FORGET TO VISIT THE PICTURES OF THE YEAR AT: www.poy.org
And for the last time, it's the Ohio University BOBCATS!
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Bozhidar Dimitrov
Patrick (c...@interlog.com) wrote:
: So...those wide-angle fanatics...what kind of pictures are you taking
: with those lenses? What kind of unusual things are you doing with it?
: Are you taking close-up flower pictures by getting close-up with the
: flower?
: What makes a wide-angle lens more than just a "landscape" lens, I
: suppose is what I need to know.
I have a 24, 35, 50, and 135. I usually have the 35 on my camera.
Basically I like to shoot building exteriors (churches cathedrals, etc.)
Also shooting in the street, showing the atmosphere rather than a single
person sitting at a caffee I show 4-5 tables, with the cafee store-front,
etc. In the US streets are wider, so one can use a 35 mm lens to capture a
building. In Europe things are much tighter, so a 24 does a good job.
It's also useful for building interiors. But it's basically an
"atmospehre" lens, you capture the mood of a place, its ambiance.
Another use is it's incredible depth of field, so yes, you can get close to
a flower, but instead of a blurred background, you end up with a large
flower in the foreground and a _view_ in the background. Imagine a flower
on a river bank, you can get the flower as well as some boats in the river.
I guess the latter is the true purpose of a wide-angle, it exagerates
proportions, so closer things apear much larger than things further away.
Environmental portraits are also somethig suited well to wide angles.
Imagine shooting a portrait of someone. You usually want to blur the
background very much, so attention is drawn to the subject's face (eyes).
But what if you are shooting a portrait and you do want to show aomething
of where this person is. For example someone in their office, a person on
the job, etc. You get in _somewhat_ closer so the figure (maybe sitting at
his desk) fills 1/3 of the frame with his upper body. The rest is the
atmosphere of the office. In fact, here is an example (from David
Ruether's page). Go to http://www.fcinet.com/ruether/commercial.html and
then select "environmental portraits." If you drag the mouse between the
hyphens you'll see what eqipment he used for making the photo.
Well, I hope this has sparked some ideas. I really do enjoy my wide
lenses, and I really don't feel that I lack much by having 135 mm as my
longest lens.
Boz Dimitrov