Zooming w/ feet doesn't work in crowded areas

[frleal70]

My only lens currently is the 50mm 1.8 MKII, and it's a great lens. But, it's a bit tricky trying to catch and frame shots quickly when I'm zooming 'with my feet'. Don't get me wrong, it's a fantastic lens, but a bit easier to use on portrait or even still life. Not so great, IMO, for catching candid shots.

I have been researching lens', and have been through most of the reviews here and on a couple of other forums. For my purposes, I don't think I'm going to do much better than the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

What I like and dislike about the 50mm is illustrated in the shot I have uploaded here. With the low f-stop, the exposure is pretty good with ambient light, but I have some difficulty framing the shot quickly due to the lack of zoom. This is especially tricky when children are the subject.

The shot here was shot at:
1/250s @ f/2.2, ISO 400 FL:50mm

[Frog]

I don't know about the lens you mentioned but you're spot on about trying to zoom with your feet in activie situations. Of course you can always use the crop tool for zooming but that's not as good as not needing to.

[fx101]

That's why photojournalists loved 17-35's!

[drg]

Remember that any zoom will not perform the same at one end of it range than the other. A 24mm focal length will always distort if not properly aligned with the plane of the subject. At 70mm+ a lens begins to 'compress' or flatten the image. Both of these can be desirable under the proper conditions. On the other hand you can give someone a nose that requires a separate photo.

Zooming with the feet is a time honored tradition and journalists started having zooms only quite recently. Look at the great war photographers, they pretty much only used a 35mm or 50mm focal length. And they were getting shot at!!

Best wishes!

[frleal70]

drg
A 24mm focal length will always distort if not properly aligned with the plane of the subject. At 70mm+ a lens begins to 'compress' or flatten the image.

I did not know that. I have much to learn. How does the crop factor of my Xti affect the 24 end? I mean it really will be 36mm at that end correct? But at the 105 end, it will be like a 168mm, so will using at a longer focal length compress or flatten even more?

drg
Look at the great war photographers, they pretty much only used a 35mm or 50mm focal length. And they were getting shot at!!

Point taken. I do like the 50mm, but I think I'm ready for another lens to have available. Can you give me the name of some photographers you're referring to? Maybe I need to do a little more research. Thanks

And thank you all for your comments.

[Loupey]

Even with zooms, you'll still have to move your feet to achieve the spacial relationship between the subject and foreground/background that is most effective.

Remember, standing still and zooming has the same effect (except for DOF) as just cropping an image later. Zooming is simply "cropping an image" before it reaches the sensor or film.

A combination of different primes (or zoom) AND different subject-to-camera distances is what it takes to render a given scene differently.

[frleal70]

Thanks for your insightful comment loupey. I'm still a noob, but I'm learning everyday. I find it challenging enough to just focus on getting the frame right and making sure I'm in focus. You can see I did neither very well on the shot above. But, I'm here to get better at this art, so if you care to elaborate on the first sentence in your post, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time.

Btw, I have been to your website, and think your photographs are truly incredible. Thanks again for stopping by.

[Franglais]

I checked out the EXIF on your image and you are using a Rebel XTi. The sensor on this camera is smaller than a 24x36mm piece of film. This means that your 50mm lens is the equivalent of an 80mm - a moderate telephoto. In order to get your image you are obliged to stand some way away and people walk in front of you.

Best focal lengths for candid are "Normal" or "moderate wide-angle". As drg said this would be a 50mm or a 35mm - in film terms. On your XTi this means 50/1.6=31mm or 35/1.6=22mm. So with the 24-105 you're still rather on the long side.

You could always try the 18-55 kit lens. The latest version with IS is supposed to be pretty good.

[frleal70]

I was thinking about going a little wider, but to be honest, I think I can make 24mm work.

We'll see, I'm ordering on Monday.


BTW, how did you check the exif data on that pic?

Thanks

[Loupey]

Even with zooms, you'll still have to move your feet to achieve the spacial relationship between the subject and foreground/background that is most effective.

The easiest analogy to see this effect in action is in movies. I believe Alfred Hitchcock started using it in his movies - the main character stays the same size but the background retreats or comes forward at some climatic moment - you've probably seen this technique in more recent movies as well.

It is achieved when the movie camera is zooming while being rolled forward or backward so that the main character's size remains the same.

How you want incorporate the foreground and background into your shot depends on both the focal length and distance.

[drg]

You've gotten some great comments and feedback already I see.

Photographers that quickly come to mind noted for using a fixed focal length lens to great effect include:

Robert Capa- A war photographer
Henri Cartier-Bresson - perhaps the greatest street photographer
Gordon Parks - A great contributor to Life, a founder of Essence, a filmaker. Made the seminal photographs of Muhammed Ali at the height of his fame and boxing career.
Elliot Erwitt One of the Leica Gods, architectural, fashion, street, and dog photographer.
James Van Der Zee - Harlem Renaissance photographer

The list is almost endless.

One of the greatest uses of perspective control (that's what we Loupey, Franlais, myself are talking about) and almost certainly the first effective use, was Orson Wells "Citizen Kane". Wells' "The Magnificent Amberson's" is a very close second with a tracking shot that is certainly one of the greatest ever commited to any medium film or digital.

A 'modern' film that used fixed focal length 'vintage' lens to acheive some very powerful images is "The Good German". Dark and difficult to watch in places, but excellent examples of what can be accomplised.

Perspective control is but one compositional tool.

I think we've all gone a bit off track. The point really being that what we think of as zooming is more about moving feet than changing the focal length of the lens. The latter is easier and simpler for certain environments. Learning what works and doesn't by physically moving is a vital skill.

Zooms were generally thought of a convenience when they first started to appear so that a photographer didn't have to carry as many lenses or had a 'range'. Not so much to zoom in or out. The zooming in and out thought followed shortly thereafter.

I believe most of your focal length questions were answered other than to say the distortion or perspective issues are not changed by any sensor size cropping factor. Photographs will just show a smaller portion of the image than a 'non-cropped' one.

Hope this helps and doesn't add further confusion.

[frleal70]

Very informative posts, guys. Thanks for taking the time.

drg
Hope this helps and doesn't add further confusion.

No confusion at all, but rather elightened by concepts that I hadn't even considered. I think the next objective is to try to gain a little experience applying the technique of perspective control. So many things to consider before taking the shot.

Thanks again for all your help.

[Franglais]

I was thinking about going a little wider, but to be honest, I think I can make 24mm work.

We'll see, I'm ordering on Monday.


BTW, how did you check the exif data on that pic?

Thanks

To look at the EXIF data I downloaded your image onto my PC then looked at it with ACDSee in the Properties window. All was revealed. (You might want to check the date in your camera, it seems like the year is set to 2012).

In Vista you just click on the file and do Properties - Details. I seem to remember that XP had a patch to read EXIF data as well.

People seem to be pretty happy with the 24-105. I think that Liz has/had one. One thing you're going to notice is that it's much bigger than the 50mm - and the more impressive the materiel, the less easy it is to do candids. People even start asking you for money. My personal favourite for this sort of work is my 28mm f2.8 (Nikon). It gives me the view I like and with the D70 I feel like I fit in the crowd.

[frleal70]

Charles
You might want to check the date in your camera, it seems like the year is set to 2012)

LOL. Will do, captain! BTW, isn't that when the worlds supposed to end? Just kidding.
Is it wise to have the exif data on the net? I read in another forum where it was advised for this data not to be shared. I can't really at this point see the problem with sharing it. What do you all think?

Well, barring any quality control issues, I'm pretty sure I'm going to be happy with the lens. The only concern is what has been brought up already, and that is the softness at the 24mm end. You're right about the size difference. In researching the lens, I came across this review. I think compared to my current lens, it's going to feel massive.

[Grandpaw]

Before you order anything I would suggest reading the sticky on recommended sites and sites to avoid in our "Camera Dealer Feedback Forum", Jeff

[Franglais]

LOL. Will do, captain! BTW, isn't that when the worlds supposed to end? Just kidding.
Is it wise to have the exif data on the net? I read in another forum where it was advised for this data not to be shared. I can't really at this point see the problem with sharing it. What do you all think?

Well, barring any quality control issues, I'm pretty sure I'm going to be happy with the lens. The only concern is what has been brought up already, and that is the softness at the 24mm end. You're right about the size difference. In researching the lens, I came across this review. I think compared to my current lens, it's going to feel massive.

I can't think of any reason to keep EXIF data private, except possibly that it gives more information about where your subject was at a given point in time. The husband who tells his wife he worked late and then you publish his picture in the company of another woman with the date and time and you find yourself getting sued for damages, invasion of privacy, etc.

BTW I never do pictures of children out in the street, except if they are part of an event.

[frleal70]

Thanks for the info Jeff. I actually bookmarked that thread during my last adventure with Sonic Camera dot com. I have had excellent service with B & H, so I think I'll just stick with them. I was considering bidding on a couple of lenses on Ebay, but, like I said, I think I'll stick with B & H.

[Loupey]

I think you'll be thoroughly impressed by the 24-105mm f/4L IS - I know I was. I did an informal write up on it you can view here.

I'm pretty critical with my lenses and this one passed with flying colors


Enjoy!

[frleal70]

Thanks Loupey, and thanks for taking the time to do that write-up. I'm very familiar with that write up actually. It was what peaked my interest about the lens in the first place, especially having read the write-up shortly after visiting your website and being in awe at the quality of your pics. I know there's much more to it than just a nice lens, but it can't hurt to have good equipment.

BTW, your butterfly pics are very inspiring. I know some of them are shot at a conservatory, but was curious as to the environment that you were shooting in. We visit an indoor 'rain forest' that has quite a variety of butterflies, but I wasn't sure about taking my camera into that kind of environment. The relative humidity is kept pretty high ( about 100%), and the temp is mid-upper 80s. That may be a subject for a whole other thread however.

Again, thanks for all your time and comments.