Remember that this website is no longer my main blog. I am now mostly using www.natureandphotography.com. I just posted a blog entry about live view on cameras today and why I think that capability is so important.
Zoom lenses are the most common lenses by far. You can’t even by a camera kit without one. Many photographers today do not have the experience of working with a single focal length lens — I suspect that many folks don’t even know they exist. I remember years ago traditional photographers using the old line, “Yeah, I have a way of making my lens show more or less of the subject. It’s called using my feet!”
There is something about “using your feet” that is not simply a joke. Focal length is more than simply a way to change your composition by zooming in on the subject or zooming out to show more of the environment. As you change your position, you change perspective, then the focal length allows you to see those effects. This is such an important part of lens usage that it used to be a critical part of any photographer’s learning years ago. But now with zoom lenses, this understanding of the relationship of distance, perspective and focal length is often ignored, which means really limiting your tools.
First, as you move close to a subject and zoom out (wider angle), you are strongly influencing perspective. Simply zooming from a fixed position does not affect perspective. Perspective can be an important factor in photographing a subject. Perspective is how distance appears in your photograph and is affected by space and relationships of objects from near to far. Perspective can be deep, shallow or anything in between.
As you get close with a wide-angle, perspective gets deeper. The subject gets larger in relation to the background, and the background gets smaller.
As you back up with a telephoto, perspective gets shallower. The subject gets smaller in relation to the background, the background gets larger. Stuff looks much closer together.
Right there, you have two important uses of focal length that go beyond simply zooming in or out for composition. With the wide-angle, you can make the subject look very dominant and the background small. That can also make the background highly recognizable no matter what you do with the subject. With a telephoto, you can significantly change the background by enlarging it. This allows you to take a relatively small part of the background (a shadow, for example) and make it large behind the subject. Since the background gets larger, sometimes you only see a small part of that background, a hint, so to speak, rather than everything.
These effects can be very strong. A great way to really understand this is to do an exercise with your zoom. Go out for a photo shoot in some interesting area. Alternate every shot from the widest part of your zoom to the most telephoto. In other words, take the first photo with the widest-angle setting, then zoom into the most telephoto and look for a new subject. Alternate back and forth between the extremes (no cheating by using middle focal lengths!) as you take at least 20-30 photos (more is better). That will teach you more about focal length than almost anything else because it forces you to see focal length and not use zooming to fix compositions. Watch what happens to backgrounds, to space, to the appearance of distance, to depth of field.
To ramp up your learning, add in this twist. Shoot the same subject for each pair of shots from focal length change and (and this is very important) move physically closer to the subject with the wide-angle and back up with the telephoto to keep the subject roughly the same size. Then you really have to look at what is happening to the whole photo. Working with focal length in this way is one of the most challenging parts of my Impact in Photography course at BetterPhoto.com because most people are used to just zooming. I also cover this topic in a number of my books, including The Magic of Digital Landscape Photography.
Another effect you will notice is a strong change in the appearance of depth of field (the technical purists can prove that arbitrary depth of field does not change, but since you are changing focal length, you change what is seen in the photo which changes the apparent depth of field — that’s what we care about anyway). Wide-angle lenses give more depth of field than telephoto lenses (or focal lengths on a zoom). That is true even for a wide-angle or telephoto only zoom — then the wider focal length gives more depth of field than the narrower angle focal length.
So ultimately, focal length has a strong effect on perspective (and appearance of space) and on depth of field. These are two important uses of focal length that cannot be accessed simply by zooming. So you can indeed do a lot more with a zoom than simply zoom in and out on the subject!
A couple of things have made me think about lightweight and professional quality gear. First, I was at the Nik Software Summit this past weekend — a great event. I went out with the field trips (lots of people at some terrific locations in the San Diego area). On the first day to the Cabrillo National Monument, I wanted to travel light so I could move around quickly and easily between groups so I just had my Canon PowerShot G11. I showed some of those images I did on a presentation about workflow for Lightroom and Photoshop (my Lightroom Workflow for Nature Photographers are available from my website, www.robsheppardphoto.com) and used those images. They looked great and one person even commented how they looked as good as anything shot with higher megapixel cameras (to be fair, the projectors weren’t showing everything that would be possible, but still, the comment is relavent). The Lighthouse photo above is from that field trip and the G11.
Second, I had a discussion with an aging photographer who is struggling with carrying the weight of a lot of gear and tripod and wanted some ideas on what to use to keep this to a minimum. Is it possible to have quality images with minimal and small equipment? Absolutely. Here’s what I recommend:
As to lightweight, get the G11. I have a G11, plus a Canon EOS 7D and a couple of Olympus E-series cameras. None can compare even remotely with the compact size of the G11. .The G11 does a wonderful job of photography and is extremely light and compact. The other cameras are more versatile, but they are far larger and heavier and you need many lenses. Whenever I have to go really light, it is the G11 and with no reservations. There is also a very fine wide-angle adapter lens for the G11 (which also requires an adapter for the camera) which will add little weight to your package.
The G11 is also definitely superior to the G9 and G10. Those two cameras use older technology in their sensors and have too many megapixels in those sensors for the technology available at the time. The G11 has a far superior sensor and gives better images. It is interesting that Canon has had a drop in sales with the G11 compared to the G10 and this is largely attributed to the mistaken idea that more megapixels are better. (The G10 has almost 50% more pixels — sounds great, right? Except that the sensor is not as good as the G10’s and there are too many pixels so that the camera has to do a lot of image processing to remove noise. This makes the images look mushy when enlarged because noise reduction affects fine detail as well as noise.)
Can the G11 do professional level photography? Absolutely. It will not do as well with high ISO settings (no small sensors do), but this is no point-and-shoot. The lens is of excellent quality and the camera can be set like any DSLR — you just can’t change lenses. The next two photos show the whole lighthouse image again, but with a small area outlined. That small area is then shown blown up and is roughly equivalent to printing a 16×20-inch print from this image file. This camera is capable of some very high quality images. I did use Nik Software Dfine (which I consider a necessity for digital photography) to reduce some noise in the sky (which would only be significant in a print of this size).
Plus, the tilting LCD is wonderful for the G11. This helps in so very many ways, from being able to easily take low angle shots to being able to handhold the camera more steadily (the trick is to hold it at about chest level so you can keep your elbows tight to your chest — you look down at the LCD).
If you can afford it, I would highly recommend one of the Gitzo Traveler tripods. They weigh less than 2 pounds total (including the head) — I have one and it is great for lightweight travel. The Traveler tripods are extremely lightweight but also strong and rigid. They are no cheap metal tripod that flops around in the wind or when you press onto your camera. The Traveler tripods are solid and extremely well made. They will have trouble with a big camera and a big lens, but for a G11, they are perfect.
Another lightweight camera support option is a beanbag. When I want to travel really light, it is with the G11 and a small beanbag. Years ago I did a whole series of photos in New York City at night done with an older G6 and a beanbag and they were great (they are in many of my books and I would guess that no one would think they were shot with a little camera and a beanbag). There is a handy beanbag imported by Bogen Imaging called T.H.E. Pod that has a tripod screw in it that really helps when using a beanbag in odd positions.
I just returned from the Photo Marketing Association show, PMA, in Anaheim, California. This is a big annual trade show for the photo industry where new products are shown and sometimes even introduced for the first time. Overall, PMA 2010 wasn’t a place of stunning blockbuster stuff. The international industry event, Photokina, is in September and I get the impression that camera manufacturers are waiting for it to announce big stuff. Canon wasn’t even there and Nikon only showed some compact digital cameras and point-and-shoots.
However, there were some interesting things. Sony is continuing their “sweep pan” technologies, now in a very small, pocket, waterproof camera, the DSC-TX5. With sweep panoramic, you set the camera to do that, then push the shutter release and sweep across the scene. It shoots images at 9 fps to build a panoramic, in camera. It also has an in-camera HDR feature. This could be a good addition to anyone’s gadget bag to allow easy panoramics and have underwater capabilities. Oh, and it shoots HD video, too!
Video, by the way, is in almost every new camera now, and mostly HD video. There were even a couple of audio companies exhibiting with microphones for this purpose.
There is a very interesting trend among manufacturers to have colorful cameras, and evidently, they are quite popular with younger people. All manufacturers have things like red, blue, white cameras for compacts and point-and-shoots, but Pentax has white, blue and red models of their entry-level DSLR, the K-x, besides the usual black.
Olympus seems to be doing very well with their really compact Pen series of cameras. These have decent sized sensors (using the Four Thirds format) and interchangeable lenses, yet are not much bigger than a Canon G11. I got a first hand look at the new E-PL1 and all of its accessories. You could put a selection of lenses and a couple of bodies, plus some accessories, in a bag that otherwise would barely hold a full-35mm-size DSLR. Olympus also showed their compact audio recorders (using memory cards for recording). These have a lot of potential for video shooters. Audio from most digital cameras is not that great, so a lot of photographers are getting an audio recorder to capture better sound then use that sound in editing.
This category of small digital cameras with interchangeable lenses is starting to heat up. These are not DSLRs. As I noted, you could get a complete system in a bag that would barely hold a Nikon D3. Panasonic started it and their models were heavily promoted in their booth. Both Panasonic and Olympus use the Micro Four Thirds format which uses a standard size Four Thirds sensor. Sony announced their ideas for making this type of camera using the APS-C size sensor, but the cameras are only concept models so far. Samsung introduced their own unique compact digital cameras with interchangeable lenses. I like the Panasonic and Olympus models because they use a consistent lens standard. You can use lenses from either brand on their cameras, plus adapters are available to fit nearly any brand on them. This is doubtful for Sony or Samsung. It will be interesting to see how Canon and Nikon respond to this market.
Casio is continuing to build high-speed video into their cameras for slow motion playback. The EX-G1 is a waterproof camera that will shoot 120 fps video (1/4 speed slow motion) and has intervalvometer shooting (time-lapse) built-in.
Tokina showed some sweet lenses, including a constant aperture 16-50mm f/2.8 lens. A lot of photographers don’t understand the problem of a variable aperture zoom lens — it loses light as it is zoomed, meaning you are forced to use a slower shutter speed. This f/2.8 lens is also fast and would make a good standard lens for an APS-C format DSLR. I also saw their 80-400mm that is quite compact and includes a wheel to rotate a polarizing filter when the lens hood is attached. I might get one for my Canon (I need that focal length). This is for Canon and Nikon mounts.
LensBaby is celebrating their 6th birthday and showed some cool new products. I really like the fish-eye lens and the Control Freak lens for the optimum in adjustments. They were also showing a great slideshow of wonderful images shot with their lenses. Using a LensBaby lens takes some practice to really use it well.
LowePro has new backpacks in their Pro Trekker line — all weather packs in a variety of sizes. Also in bags, Think Tank has some really attractive shoulder bags that look to be very convenient for field use to make your lenses more accessible. In addition, they don’t scream “camera bag.” And Tamrac showed their new Evolution packs that can be quickly changed for its straps to support them as backpack, shoulder, or sling bags. These are very attractive bags, with access from both sides and the front. They have the camera partition part of the bag at the bottom and an open section of the bag at the top for a camera or a jacket and a lunch, for example. Tamrac also has a strange tripod based on tent-poles in the way it folds up or extends when you release them — I can’t see using it for a camera, but as a compact, lightweight support for a flash, I think it would be great.
ACDSee continues to be the fastest browser. I think I will start using it for my laptop. Lightroom does not give me the same benefits there, and being able to download images in the field then look at them very quickly is a good benefit.
That’s a quick summary of PMA and what stands out for me, anyway.
I have often mentioned that Adobe products only do an adequate job with noise. Lightroom 3 has some promising improvements, but from what I have seen so far, I still find Nik Software Dfine to be superior. There are other good noise reduction programs on the market, including Noise Ninja and Imagenomics Noiseware, but I find Dfine is easier to use and offers one thing that no one else does, the ability to control where and how much noise reduction is applied based on color and tone. Often noise is stronger in certain colors and tones, plus sometimes you don’t want to reduce noise in a color or tone because that can help hold sharpness better.
Now I have said these things before and once got a comment from a photographer who felt that the program wasn’t that good and the only reason I said it so was because I must be paid by Nik. I am not paid by Nik, although I admit that I think so highly of their products that I would never feel bad about doing any work for them. From what I have seen of Dfine on my images, I have to think this critic either had not used Dfine or did not know how to use it. But to be fair, I should show you real results rather than just talking about it.
I took my G11 to a banquet yesterday and decided to shoot a cheese cake sitting in front of me at ISO 3200. That ISO is really not usable straight from the camera, I think, which is why I used it for this test. The resulting image is not all that great (it has had some basic adjustments). Small, it will look okay here, but look at the magnified portion of the image. This would be good if you like special effects!
Then I put this into Dfine. Look at the difference.
That is actually now a usable image.
I did feel that the leaves were a little overprocessed, so I reduced the amount of noise reduction on the leaves. I am not sure you will be able to see the difference here, but there is a distinct difference on screen that will translate in the print as a better leaf.
To me, this is significant. It means that higher ISOs on the new cameras become even more usable.
If you have followed my writings here and in print, you probably know that I like small cameras. I am tired of carrying big cameras with their associated big lenses. And with all of the flurry of new or possible TSA regulations, being able to travel compactly is likely to become increasingly important.
Last fall, I noted Canon’s announcement of the G11. I thought it sounded like it had a lot of potential. After thinking it over, and thinking about the TSA, I decided to buy one. I am very pleased that I did, although I have only just started playing with it. This is no “point-and-shoot” camera. I am not sure why some photographers call all small cameras point-and-shoots. A point-and-shoot is a camera that has very few controls and can literally only be used to point-and-shoot. The G11 is no more of a point-and-shoot than a Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III shot all on automatic. The G11 has a full set of controls from manual focus to all standard exposure modes, including manual, RAW, and more. I really like the way many controls are laid out (similar to the G9 and G10) in an “old-fashioned” way that uses dials instead of buttons and LCDs.
I was not real fond of the G9 or the G10 for several reasons. First, I was really disappointed when Canon removed the swivel LCD so that the camera only had a fixed LCD. The swivel LCD is back with the G11 — that is such a great feature for a camera like this. You can put the camera up, down, point it sideways, etc., and still see what the lens is seeing with that tilted LCD. Second, I think Canon bought into the megapixel race to the detriment of image quality. The G10 had this mushy look to its images due to overprocessing of the image files because of the high noise that came from too many megapixels in a small sensor (I have no doubt that we will see quality megapixels in small sensors in the future, but this was not the case for the G10).
I am quite impressed with the image quality of the G11. Canon actually went “backwards” in megapixels to 10 megapixels, but took a jump forward in image quality. At the ISO setting of 100, images are outstanding with little evidence of noise. Colors and tonalities look excellent, and the little lens on this camera continues the image quality that Canon is known for. This is a very capable little camera that is absolutely capable of professional work (and I will use it for that, too). I really like the IS (image stabilization) and f/2.8 lens on the camera which increases its usefulness for high portability.
Here are some sample images from RAW files. They have had minimal processing that does include standard sharpening that I normally do (a reminder — RAW files need sharpening because of the way digital imaging works; otherwise you will not get the sharpness that your lens captured):
Full size image, shot at a local farmer’s market. The subject of cauliflower in early sun is challenging for any sensor and the G11 did a great job with it.
Next is a detail from the center of that shot showing excellent sharpness and tonal rendition as well as little sign of noise. Shot at ISO 100:
Now one thing Canon has done is gotten onto the ISO bandwagon. Everybody’s got to have high ISO settings whether they are practical or not. So I took the G11 to dinner with my wife and daughter. First is an overall shot to give you an idea of what the size of the frame is. Then I will show you details. For a grab shot, the image looks pretty good and handles colors and tonality well in mixed lighting.
First is 400 — all of the photos below are cropped from the size you see above so that you can actually see detail. Noise shows up, but is reasonable. It won’t match a camera with a physically large sensor, but the results are very useable (there is a little camera movement causing some unsharpness).
You can’t see much here. The noise that is there would probably be helped with a little work with Nik Software Dfine (an aside — I really do use and like Dfine. I wrote an article that included it for PCPhoto/Digital Photo and got a comment on the Digital Photo website how I must have been paid a lot by Nik. It is sad when someone cannot genuinely like and use a product without this snarky commentary that one could only write good things about something if you were paid for it. That’s both annoying and rude.)
Here’s 800. The noise starts to look more obvious, but the tonalities and colors are holding pretty well.
At 1600, the noise really becomes strong although I am surprised at how well tonalities and colors are holding up. Even noise reduction software is going to have trouble with this. On the other hand, this does give a faster ISO for faster shutter speeds that may mean the difference between a sharp photo or not.
Next is the 3200. Now unless you were after special effects, I find this pretty unusable. Although, truthfully, it could be an interesting effect with the right image. The noise is extremely strong and colors and tonalities are adversely affected. Look at the black sweatshirt! It is now turning blue! And look under my poor daughter’s chin! I am not sure why Canon includes this ISO setting other than for marketing reasons — “Wow! With the G11, you can even shoot at ISO 3200.” Well, shoot you can, but don’t count on great results.
I look forward to being able to take this little camera with me everywhere and not feel limited by it. I typically take a camera everywhere I go when traveling, even if simply doing a quick workshop. I am really beginning to dislike air travel, and I never did in the past. If I can take a short trip with capable, but small, camera gear like this G11, maybe the air travel won’t be so bad.
I sometimes forget that digital photography is a relatively new technology. One place you see that is when you photograph with different camera models from the same manufacturer. Even if you set everything identically, you often get slightly different results due to differences in sensors.
I had recently purchased an Olympus E-620 as a back-up camera. It is lightweight, small, but it still has a tilting LCD which I love (actually, I am so used to using such an LCD now, that when I pick up a camera without one, I feel much restricted). I did something with that camera that I highly recommend to everyone buying a new camera. I went out and shot with it over a few days … only with that camera. It is very hard to learn what a new model camera can and cannot do if you simply integrate it into the rest of your camera gear. By shooting with just that camera, you get to experience directly what that camera can and cannot do. You learn its idiosyncrasies, its quirks, its strengths and weaknesses.
By doing this, I learned how the 620 felt in my hands, how it balanced, how its controls functioned. While cameras from a specific manufacturer will have similar controls and functions, these controls will change from model to model. When you force yourself to work with the new camera, you learn these things. You also learn surprising new controls, and sometimes, you discover, as I did, a control on the new camera that you did not know was on your other cameras.
I also definitely learned that the 620 sees colors a little differently than my E-3. Again, this is typical for most camera models. I did not do any “tests” — I’ll be honest, I find a lot of the tests boring and not all that useful. I am more interested in what a camera will do in real-world situations than how well it photographs a test target. However, if you just shoot with one camera, the new one, and shoot a lot of different subjects, you will start to see differences. I found, for example, that the white balance settings were different enough to affect how I would shoot with white balance. By this I mean that Cloudy on my E-3 was not exactly the same as Cloudy on the E-620. This is simply a reflection of two things: the relative newness of digital photography technology and the fact that white balance does not have an international, agreed upon standard.
That doesn’t bother me. It is simply information to be used the next time I use the E-620. I know I have to work with white balance differently on that camera, and that’s fine. Such changes are consistent, so once you figure it out, you can use new settings with confidence. The photo is of a salt marsh at sunset near Los Osos, California, and was shot with the E-620 and HDR exposure technique.
I recently had a superb question from a reader about using a telephoto lens for close ups. First, telephotos can be outstanding for close-up and macro work (there is a difference between the two, one is closer than the other, but for purposes of this blog, I am going to lump them together as the ideas for using telephotos are the same). Several things are really great with the telephoto up close:
There is a disadvantage to using a telephoto for close-ups and that is the limited depth of field (which is also an advantage when used right). You have to be very careful about your focus point.
How do you get a telephoto or telephoto zoom to focus closer? While many zooms have close focus settings, and a few standard telephotos do, most do not focus close enough. Extension tubes, achromatic close-up lenses and tele-extenders all work to help you get better close ups. Extension tubes are probably the most useful. They are relatively inexpensive and are simply an empty tube (with connections to the lens electronics) that fit between the lens and camera body, allowing the lens to focus much closer. How much closer depends on the focal length and the length of the tube. You will find, for example, that the same extension tube will make your zoom focus at different distances when set to different focal lengths. Extension tubes add no optics, so image quality is generally very high, but this is going to depend on the original lens. Some lenses do great up close, some do not (and this is not necessarily about the price of the lens — some high-end pro lenses are so geared toward focusing at moderate to longer distances that they do not do well up close). The only way to know this is to try the lens. One advantage of extension tubes is that they will work with every telephoto lens or zoom you have. They will reduce light some to the sensor.
Achromatic close-up lenses such as those from Canon (250D and 500D, which work on all lenses — you just need the right filter size), Hoya, Century Optics and some others, screw into the front of your lens and work great. They don’t always let you get as close as extension tubes (especially if you buy a set of three tubes for a lot of extension), but they do work well. Again, results will vary depending on the lens. And they only fit one lens filter size, so you may have to use filter ring adapters.
The tele-extender fits between camera and lens and magnifies the focal length. It doesn’t actually let you focus closer, but magnifies the subject from the old close-focusing distance of the lens, so you do get more of a close up. They do cut light significantly and often look best when the lens is stopped down from the maximum aperture. Some lenses work great with extenders, some do terribly.
With my Olympus gear, I have used the 50-200mm extensively for close-up work, including with the Olympus extension tube and also with the 1.4x extender. I think it is fantastic for that purpose. It does a wonderful job. The biggest problem for sharpness with it is not the lens itself as I think it is wonderfully sharp, but camera movement.
Camera movement during exposure is a problem for using all telephoto lenses up close. When you are using a telephoto up close, you are focusing on a small area with magnification so camera movement is intensified. How can you know that camera movement can be the problem? When you see two photos, the same basic composition and settings, one is sharp, one is less sharp, you have a big clue. Then when you look closely, look at the specular highlights (bright spots from the sun or other bright light). If you see specular highlights that are tiny lines (from the movement) rather than spots, that is camera movement.
Many photographers skimp on tripods and I think that is a mistake. I see this when traveling all the time, and sometimes in my classes. You see an expensive camera and lens on a low-priced tripod. Many photographers think nothing of spending hundreds of dollars for a lens, but complain about spending the same for a tripod. Yet a good tripod can make or break the sharpness of any lens. In my Olympus gear, I have lenses that cost anywhere from $500 to $2000. To me, the cost of my tripod and head, about $1000, was a very important investment and worth every dollar. You can get good tripods for less, but the really low priced tripods are not worth the price. A cheap tripod that does not do its job well is too expensive.
I recommend a carbon fiber tripod for its light weight and a lightweight magnesium alloy head. In addition, carbon fiber is not as hard on the fingers when it is cold — metal tripods will sap the warmth and energy from your fingers. A quick release head helps make using a tripod easier.
Manfrotto and Gitzo are always good brands, both imported by Bogen. Manfrotto tripods are solid units that are a good value for their money. Gitzo tripods are expensive, but their fine construction is a pleasure to work with. Both manufacturers also make good tripod heads.
I use a Gitzo Mountaineer GT1540 tripod plus a BH-40 Really Right Stuff head. What is more important than the specific models are the reasons that I use this combination. I think you should look carefully at your needs for a tripod as this will affect which ones you use. I got this tripod for its compact size and light weight for travel — it easily collapses to suitcase size. Plus, the Really Right Stuff head is quite light, too. So in the field, I am not carrying more than a very few pounds of tripod and head. I also like the Really Right Stuff tripod mounting plates which allow for secure, quick-release of camera/lens. That said, there are some new heads from Manfrotto and Gitzo that have come out in the past couple of years that I quite like and would easily consider them a challenge to the Really Right Stuff head. The Gitzo heads are very finely manufactured and a true pleasure to work with, while the Manfrotto heads offer a solid, great value for the budget-limited photographer.
If I did less travel, I would probably opt for a three-section leg tripod (mine is four), as they are just slightly sturdier and faster to set up (though my four-section legs are very sturdy) and a slightly heavier head. One thing that is quite nice for carbon-fiber tripods now is that you can tighten and loosen the knurled locking rings all at once and open and close legs, which is not possible with older styles (and some tripods on the market now — this is not a quality issue, but a convenience feature).
Bottom line for my tripod and head is that it is lightweight, compact and easily taken anywhere. You can have the sturdiest, most wonderful tripod in the world, but if you hate taking it with you, it is worthless. I have no problem making sure my tripod is always with me.
The photo seen here was taken in the Ancient Bristlecone National Forest near Big Pine, California, nearly 20 minutes after sunset, which meant a long exposure of many seconds. A tripod was a necessity. However, this tree requires a hike of about half a mile uphill from the parking lot. No big deal, except that this is at 11,000 feet and I live at about 100 feet above sea level. I exercise daily, but still, I felt the altitude and I was very happy to not feel burdened by my tripod.
There are so many great lenses on the market today. Most people’s budgets are finite, so we can’t buy every lens that looks interesting. Even if we could, we would run into a problem with storage and transport. Yet the ads and the photo magazine lens write ups make lenses look so inviting. Then a friend or acquaintance shows off a new lens that makes us want it. Lens choice is not a simple option. There are lots of reasons for buying a lens.
However, focal length considerations are important and not only affect what you can capture with your camera, but they also affect the way you photograph. You know the saying that goes something like, if you have a hammer, the whole world looks like it is filled with nails. If you have a wide-angle lens, you may find the whole world is filled with wide-angle landscapes.
On the other hand, you may have a number of lenses and discover that you are naturally drawn to certain focal lengths. I don’t think that is a bad thing at all. In fact, recognizing how you see the world through photography, your vision, your style can be a very good thing.
Some photographers love to have all sorts of focal lengths, some prefer to limit their choices to a few focal lengths. Jay Maisel used to answer the question of what focal lengths he had with, “All of them.” On the other hand, another pro, Burk Uzzle used to shoot everything, including major assignments with two lenses, a 35mm wide-angle and a 105mm telephoto (or something close to those). Both photographers are superb pros (I am not sure if Uzzle is still alive) and did wonderful work.
So it truly comes down to how you photograph, your subjects and what is important to you. That is really a key to choosing the right focal length, either buying a new lens or keeping your packing of a camera bag simpler. There is little sense in packing a lens that you will never use. But what do you need? And how do you know what you need?
I like to tell photographers to look at how they shoot and to think about when they feel limited. If they feel they constantly want to get more of a scene in their images, then a wide-angle is important. If they feel they constantly need to get “closer” to a distant subject, then a telephoto is important. If they constantly use one end of a zoom, whether that is wide or tele, that can give an indication that maybe the zoom range is not appropriate and they should look into a different zoom that has a range featuring the focal lengths they do use. If they feel that they need close up images they can’t capture, then they need close up gear.
If you want to travel light, a small, lightweight wide-angle zoom plus a small, lightweight telephoto zoom can be perfect. Shorter zoom ranges are easier to manufacture than big range zooms, often have higher image quality and are usually smaller, even if the latter means just one lens. That can mean less weight and better balance for the camera around your neck. In addition, big range zooms tend to be very slow (small maximum f-stops) at the telephoto end of the zoom.
If you want to do wildlife photography, you need a long telephoto, at least 300mm and often more. If you want to do available light photography indoors, you need a fast lens (a lens with a wide max aperture. If you want to do people photography, a moderate telephoto works well. If you like doing landscapes, a wide-angle zoom or wide to moderate telephoto can be important.
Bottom line for choosing focal length is that it all depends on your needs. I know at this point, that probably seems self-evident, but from looking at a lot of student’s backpacks and how they are shooting, I often see that they carry more gear than they really use. Sometimes they really have the wrong lens for the way they like to shoot. I strongly believe that you must like your gear, including your lens choices, if you are really going to enjoy photographing with it.
