Tip on lighting and lens selection

[Stephen Lutz]

One of my interests over the last two years has been cemetery photography. Usually, I use a zoom with a wide range for flexibility. Since it is rather slow, I usually wait for sunny days to do my shooting.

However, yesterday it was nice and gray outside, so the light was gorgeous. It was somewhat dim, though, so on a whim I pulled out my 135 f/2.0 (which I usually use for portraits and indoor sports) and headed out to see what sort of results I could get with it.

Wow, what a lens... Everytime I use it I think, "Uh, why don't I use this all the time?"

Here is a comparative example of two shots of the same subject, one with the 24-200 Tokina at 24mm in bright sun and the other with a 135 f/2.0 under even, gray light.

As you can see, there is no comparison. Of course, I had to get 100 feet away and shoot through some trees to get the shot with the 135, but still..... what a difference. There is a reason they still make primes, BTW, and this is and example of it.

[Asylum Steve]

Nice image, Steve. While I disagree that the tele will always give you a better shot, you've definitely shown us an example (and a situation) where it does. And the point about the overcast lighting is a good one...

[Erik Stiegler]

It seems to me that you could get exactly the same shot (and many more) from the zoom and a tripod.

[Stephen Lutz]

You are quite correct Erik. I could have gotten the same shot with the Tokina at 135mm, with a tripod (or by increasing ISO to, say, 800 or 1600). In fact, that thought crossed my mind at the time, and I wished I had the lens with me because I would have done a comparison shot. Fortunately, my subject isn't going anywhere (let's hope!) and according to the weatherman, it's supposed to be cold and gray here in Louisville the rest of the week, so I will go out and shoot a similar shot with the Tokina.

What I like about this shot at 135 is the delicate background blur combined with the sharp focus on the subject. This was shot at f/4, so a nice DOF was still possible even about 100+ feet from the subject. The real difference, though, is that the lighting is so much more even, and due to the use of the telephoto lens the image is extremely well corrected proportionally. Little or no distortion of parallel lines, for example.

[another view]

The real difference, though, is that the lighting is so much more even, and due to the use of the telephoto lens the image is extremely well corrected proportionally. Little or no distortion of parallel lines, for example.

I agree about the lighting making this a much better shot. Primes can make a better shot from a technical standpoint but this probably wouldn't really be noticable until you're making a large print. Some zooms rival primes here though. Distortion is common with all wide angle lenses whether Tokina, Canon or Zeiss - to some extent anyway. However, primes "force" you to use their only focal length. Had I been using a 24-200 zoom, my first instinct might not have been to set it at 135mm and walk 100' away, but I think you have a much better shot for doing it.

Personally, I think I'd probably shoot in lower (and even) light conditions at ISO100 with a tripod. Like you say, the subject isn't going to move. Another advantage of using a tripod is being able to use a bubble level - you can be sure that the camera isn't tilted a degree or two this way. Soft, even lighting would add to the mood IMO.

[Stephen Lutz]

On my lunch hour I went out and shot a couple of comparison shots with the Tokina. These are hand-held, as it was starting to rain. First one is at ISO 400, f/5.6 (wide open) at 135mm (according the to the EXIF data). The second is ISO 800, f/6.3 at 125mm (according to the EXIF data). Not much difference between these two shots and the one shot with the prime, I grant you, at least at 640 pixels wide for web use. In Photoshop I can see at 100% magnification that there is a noticable difference between the zoom and the prime, though. Details are smudged, and the overall photo crispness is reduced in the zoom shots. Plus, to my eye (on the web versions and the full size ones) the photo doesn't "pop" as much in the zoom pictures.

[Loupey]

Stephen, thanks for sharing the results of your comparison shots. Even at these resolutions, the difference between the zoom and prime shot is evident. However, in defense of your zoom, it would be helpful if the conditions were identical (same day, same lighting, same f-stop, same post processing, tripod mounted,...).

I have been avoiding the camera store like the dentist's office (sorry, no offense, Leon) as I keep wanting to buy a couple of handful of primes myself (35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm/1.8, 135mm f/2, and 180mm macro to name a few). But lately, I've been experiementing at being a minimalist by forcing myself to shoot with only 3 zooms. Believe me, this has been tough as I have had a bunch of primes in the past and could be classified as a photo equipment junkie. But with good technique and better working knowledge of photoshop, I find that these zooms are producing much better images than I had anticipated.

But I must say that your Tokina has the distinct ability over the Canon at being able to put a flower in the statues hand

[yogestee]

Hi all,,as much as I love my zooms I'm toying with the idea of using only primes for really serious work,,although I'd still keep my Canon 70-200 f2.8L with me on shoots ..As Stephen demonstrated in his experiment there is nothing sharper than a good prime..Primes are usually faster,lighter and easier to handle than zooms..And zooms do make you lazy..

My primes----
Canon 50mm f1.8
Canon 50mm f2.5 Compact Macro
Tamron 14mm f2.8
Tamron AF SP90mm f2.8 Di

Jurgen
Australia

[Erik Stiegler]

I'm sure the 135 is sharper than the zoom, after all, it's what, a $900 prime vs. a $300 super zoom?

However, considering the zoom shot was ISO 800, handheld at a low shutter speed, it's not bad at all.

The one lesson that's gone unsaid is move around and try shooting from different perspectives.

[another view]

Stephen, I think the only way to truly compare the two would be to try them both under the same lighting conditions (using one right after the other). Also, try ISO100, same exposure and focal length, and a tripod. This way you're removing as many of the variables as practical.

[Stephen Lutz]

I suppose I should have titled my original post "Tip on focal length and lighting" since the lesson to be learned her is that it's the angle of view that is the critical difference between the 24mm wide angle shot and the 135mm shot. The 135 is much more natural and better corrected in terms of perspective. It was not my intent, really, to compare the Tokina and 135mm f/2.0L prime lens. Obviously, the prime's picture will be sharper. It better be, given the money it cost me.

The Tokina is a very servicable and helpful lens to have, though it really needs to be stopped down for sharp results. My most frequent use for it is with flash, indoors. I will set the camera to manual, 1/50 of a second, f/8 and shoot away, usually with -2/3 flash compensation. The results are quite nice.

However, when you want more than "nice" results, the prime is the way to go.