The intimacy of the 90/2 vs a zoom

[deednets]

When I looked through my images upgrading the processing engine to version 11 I noticed that even when looking at the thumbnails, some images were taken really quite close up. The minimum distance is I believe sub 70cm, but would have to check.

It allows you to go really quite close with all its drawbacks like a high risk of OOF and shallowestest DOF.

But still a certain charm in going "deep", easy on wooden puppets and perfectly ok (IMO!!) for portraits.

So whilst I was going through the upgrades a video played on youtube showing somebody using the 50-140/2.8 which made me think: how do people who use a zoom actually conceptualize a shot? One would hardly "think" in 90 separate milimetres individually, so how does this work? Look though the viewfinder, frame then shoot - though one could theoretically shoot the same frame using the 140 or the 50 where the shot would be looking seriously different.

Here are some shots to illustrate how I use this lens, not sure how I would approach any of the shots shown here with a zoom.













Deed

 

[Xe11ent]

beautiful pics!

 

[jrscls]

Very nice images! I agree that the 90 is a really special lens. I use it like I did when I shot with Canon and had the 135 L. I have thought about the zoom, but I prefer primes for the larger aperture, better bokeh and lighter weight.

 

[Rod McD]

Here are some shots to illustrate how I use this lens, .......not sure how I would approach any of the shots shown here with a zoom.

Deed

Hi Deed,

Nice shots, as always. And they certainly illustrate the strength of the 90mm.

FWIW, in relation to your comment above about the alternatve of using a zoom, I posted comparative images from my FD100/2, MD100/2.5 and Fuji 55-200 all wide open in a thread in the Adapted Lens Forum in the last few days. They're very different images, but perhaps they illustrate the difference between an f2 telephoto prime and the XF55-200 zoom. Obviously, one gives up flexibility to get it though.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60701406

Regards, Rod

 

[oscarvdvelde]

somebody using the 50-140/2.8 which made me think: how do people who use a zoom actually conceptualize a shot? One would hardly "think" in 90 separate milimetres individually, so how does this work? Look though the viewfinder, frame then shoot - though one could theoretically shoot the same frame using the 140 or the 50 where the shot would be looking seriously different.

Here are some shots to illustrate how I use this lens, not sure how I would approach any of the shots shown here with a zoom.

Apparently you like only head & shoulders portraits as main concept. With a zoom you probably would have tried a few different ways of framing, probably at wider settings where you can allow a bit more context.

 

[deednets]

Here are some shots to illustrate how I use this lens, .......not sure how I would approach any of the shots shown here with a zoom.

Deed

Hi Deed,

Nice shots, as always. And they certainly illustrate the strength of the 90mm.

FWIW, in relation to your comment above about the alternatve of using a zoom, I posted comparative images from my FD100/2, MD100/2.5 and Fuji 55-200 all wide open in a thread in the Adapted Lens Forum in the last few days. They're very different images, but perhaps they illustrate the difference between an f2 telephoto prime and the XF55-200 zoom. Obviously, one gives up flexibility to get it though.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60701406

Regards, Rod

Will check this out, Rod, but my question was how do you conceptualize a shot when you have 90 different focal lengths at hand - versus just one.

Deed

 

[deednets]

somebody using the 50-140/2.8 which made me think: how do people who use a zoom actually conceptualize a shot? One would hardly "think" in 90 separate milimetres individually, so how does this work? Look though the viewfinder, frame then shoot - though one could theoretically shoot the same frame using the 140 or the 50 where the shot would be looking seriously different.

Here are some shots to illustrate how I use this lens, not sure how I would approach any of the shots shown here with a zoom.

Apparently you like only head & shoulders portraits as main concept. With a zoom you probably would have tried a few different ways of framing, probably at wider settings where you can allow a bit more context.

 

[michaeladawson]

So whilst I was going through the upgrades a video played on youtube showing somebody using the 50-140/2.8 which made me think: how do people who use a zoom actually conceptualize a shot? One would hardly "think" in 90 separate milimetres individually, so how does this work? Look though the viewfinder, frame then shoot - though one could theoretically shoot the same frame using the 140 or the 50 where the shot would be looking seriously different.

I can't speak for the casual "snapshot" shooters. But I would never start out thinking of a shot by going first to focal length. I would be considering my framing, angle of view, what do I want my background to look like, how much DOF do I want, etc.

My choice of focal length would then fall out from that. Reach into the bag and pull out the 90mm or the 50, or whatever. Or if I have a zoom, dial in the desired focal length.

Who I'm calling the casual "snapshot" shooter will usually stand wherever they are, maybe move a bit left or right to get a nicer background and then zoom the lens to fill the frame as they want.

What I wouldn't get with a zoom is the f/2 aperture. But I never, ever shoot wide open unless I'm challenged with low light conditions, which includes daylight conditions where I need a high shutter speed.

 

[deednets]

So whilst I was going through the upgrades a video played on youtube showing somebody using the 50-140/2.8 which made me think: how do people who use a zoom actually conceptualize a shot? One would hardly "think" in 90 separate milimetres individually, so how does this work? Look though the viewfinder, frame then shoot - though one could theoretically shoot the same frame using the 140 or the 50 where the shot would be looking seriously different.

I can't speak for the casual "snapshot" shooters. But I would never start out thinking of a shot by going first to focal length. I would be considering my framing, angle of view, what do I want my background to look like, how much DOF do I want, etc.

My choice of focal length would then fall out from that. Reach into the bag and pull out the 90mm or the 50, or whatever. Or if I have a zoom, dial in the desired focal length.

Who I'm calling the casual "snapshot" shooter will usually stand wherever they are, maybe move a bit left or right to get a nicer background and then zoom the lens to fill the frame as they want.

What I wouldn't get with a zoom is the f/2 aperture. But I never, ever shoot wide open unless I'm challenged with low light conditions, which includes daylight conditions where I need a high shutter speed.

 

[Pritzl]

Prime = fixed perspective for a given framing; which encourages you to explore alternate perspectives and may result in better images if you have the time. Alternatively, you may end up with no image at all if you don't.

Zoom = flexible framing for a wide set of perspectives; which may unfortunately encourage you to frame and snap without exploring other options. This allows you to always grab a shot but fewer will have the impact of a well worked shot with a prime.

If you have the discipline to not just stand there and zoom to frame, a zoom lens can deliver just as well as a prime.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pritzl/

 

[woffles]

I don' really think there is any difference in conceptualizing a shot using a zoom vs a prime. I think about how I want the shot to look and get to where I want to be distance wise and frame the shot. Only difference is with a prime I can zoom the lens to finalize my framing vs moving back and forth with a prime. I know how a zoom looks at different focal lengths just like I know how a prime looks.

 

[Pritzl]

"Zooming with your feet" is a misnomer. It changes perspective. The only direct analogy of zooming is cropping, albeit at the cost of resolution.

 

[woffles]

"Zooming with your feet" is a misnomer. It changes perspective. The only direct analogy of zooming is cropping, albeit at the cost of resolution.

 

[Pritzl]

Perspective depends solely on your position relative to the subject. Look it up if you don't believe me. Since that changes when you "zoom with your feet" (unlike a zoom lens or cropping) then you are changing both framing and perspective when you do that.

 

[Pritzl]

Here is an exercise for you:

Subject is 10m away and takes up half the frame. Background object is 100m away and takes up half the frame. You "zoom with your feet" 5m closer to fill the frame with your subject. 10m > 5m = double the apparent subject size. The distance to the background object meanwhile changes from 100m to 95m, and its apparent size barely changes. In contrast, if you were using a zoom lens, the size ratio between the subject and background remains the same as you zoom in and out.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pritzl/

 

[Pritzl]

Some links that hopefully offer a better visual explanation:

Loading…

patrickshannon.com

Loading…

www.bhphotovideo.com

Loading…

petapixel.com

 

[deednets]

I don' really think there is any difference in conceptualizing a shot using a zoom vs a prime. I think about how I want the shot to look and get to where I want to be distance wise and frame the shot. Only difference is with a prime I can zoom the lens to finalize my framing vs moving back and forth with a prime. I know how a zoom looks at different focal lengths just like I know how a prime looks.

Sorry to but in here but I have shot zooms since 1972 and I wouldn't know how a zoom, say the 80-200/2.8 Nikkor behaves at 110mm. I have some idea regarding the framing but the look at 110?? An approximation at best, but it's possible I simply don't have your experience with zooms!!!

From a reverse engineering point of view, since you know how a zoom looks at various focal lengths you could tell me whether a certain shot was taken at 90 or 110mm?

Also as a little sideline here: the 90 I was talking about is an F2 lens and not an F2.8. Likewise my 16mm is an F1.4 ;-)

Good to see a debate here can you explain how you decide on a certain given focal length? You decide on a certain look e.g. the 50-140/2.8 @100mm - and then zoom with your feet to get this look??

Or do you just stand there and frame what you think is good framing and ignore the "look" for now?

Deed

 

[oscarvdvelde]

somebody using the 50-140/2.8 which made me think: how do people who use a zoom actually conceptualize a shot? One would hardly "think" in 90 separate milimetres individually, so how does this work? Look though the viewfinder, frame then shoot - though one could theoretically shoot the same frame using the 140 or the 50 where the shot would be looking seriously different.

Here are some shots to illustrate how I use this lens, not sure how I would approach any of the shots shown here with a zoom.

Apparently you like only head & shoulders portraits as main concept. With a zoom you probably would have tried a few different ways of framing, probably at wider settings where you can allow a bit more context.

No I don’t just like head and shoulder portraits. I have used zooms in the past and I am with you regarding the framing. When I used 70-200/2.8 lenses, have used both Canon and Nikon, I worked in approximations for a certain look, quite coarse in execution as I think I never had a clear idea about, say, the Nikkor at 110mm or 160mm. With primes and their limitations regarding that one focal length, it is much easier for me to visualise as to how the end result would look like.

And then you give away how a zoom works: you “try a few different ways of framing” ...

That difference exactly was my point. Do you “know” how your lens works at any given focal length or do you try things out by way of framing?

I think it certainly helps to have worked with primes before. Once you know them, you can previsualize the shots you want. In that case, operating a zoom lens would become much more effective rather than a quasi random trial and error.

It can also happen that the shot you previsualized is not quite matched with the prime. Or you see two great shots but at different focal lengths. You can change the lens but then lose the moment.

 

[Pritzl]

Sorry to but in here...

Apologies for hijacking your thread. Not my intention.

Back to the topic at hand. When I'm shooting with a telephoto zoom, I don't think in specific values along the zoom range. Instead, I have a general sense of the widest and tightest framing options it offers. I will then restrict my perspective exploration to points where the subject is safely within those framing limits. Once I have found a pleasing perspective, I then try a few different framing options with the zoom. If I am not satisfied, I will move to another spot and try again, and repeat until I have what I consider the best possible shot my talents could muster.

If I don't have time of course, which seems more frequent nowadays, it's always nice to just raise the camera play with the framing a bit, shoot and move on. Results are rarely great this way though.

 

[woffles]

Some links that hopefully offer a better visual explanation:

https://patrickshannon.com/blog/why-you-cant-zoom-with-your-feet/

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/content/id-rather-zoom-my-feet-huh-even-possible

https://petapixel.com/2017/04/20/zooming-feet-not-zooming-lens/