Reading mode: Light Dark

The lens Rule of Thirds, or What Gap???

Go to last post
Uncle Frank

Uncle Frank

Forum Pro
Messages
21,511
Solutions
1
Reaction score
252
Location
San Jose, US
Every time I read someone concerned about filling the "gap" between their 17-55 and their 70-200, I have to stifle the urge to scream "WHAT GAP?" A few months of shooting primes, and they'd understand.



I went to the Pumpkin Festival on Sunday, and since I was shooting for my own pleasure, I loaded my camera bag with primes... in this case the 20/2.8, 60/2.8, and 180/2.8. I've never used that grouping before, but I love symmetry, and the spacing was too perfect to resist :-). And fwiw, I didn't feel the need for any other lenses to fill those yawning gaps.

The 20mm lens is good for more than landscapes.





And the 60mm is good for more than macros.





The 180mm is particularly nice when I need some working distance ;-).





--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank
 
Uncle Frank said:
Every time I read someone concerned about filling the "gap" between
their 17-55 and their 70-200, I have to stifle the urge to scream
"WHAT GAP?" A few months of shooting primes, and they'd understand.
--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank
Click to expand...
Hi Frank...

I often laugh to myself when I read that someone has a 12-24 and then a 28 to something and how are they going to fill that gap, and it's the worry of their life....LOL...

BTW... love the photos, as there is always something about the IQ of a prime lens... Great stuff...
--

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
C.Ya.....
Wally..........
Adelaide,AUSTRALIA



-=camera gear in profile

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
 
Great shots UF.

My wife was at that festival this weekend with her parents, while I was stuck home in CT. I was hoping to catch a glimpse of her in the background...

I think for an event like that, I would have been tempted to just carry the 18-200. In decent daylight conditions I think the results would have been very similar, without having to change the lens, with the possible exception of the 180, the 18-200 gets pretty slow up there.

Cheers
 
sox OZ said:
BTW... love the photos, as there is always something about the IQ
of a prime lens... Great stuff...
Click to expand...
Thanks, Wally. Now we've got to persuade you to buy a few.

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank
 
nbourbaki said:
I think for an event like that, I would have been tempted to just
carry the 18-200. In decent daylight conditions I think the
results would have been very similar, without having to change the
lens, with the possible exception of the 180, the 18-200 gets
pretty slow up there.
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to compare the 18-200 to this set of primes. I'd wager it would have difficulty matching up.

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank
 
I'm sure the 18-200 would match up fine when you consider how many shots you just missed switching from 20 to 180 and back.

I love primes, but the IQ of a missed shot......
Uncle Frank said:
It would be interesting to compare the 18-200 to this set of
primes. I'd wager it would have difficulty matching up.

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank
Click to expand...
--
The Lonely Raven

Jack of all Trades,
Master of None

KC9KCZ
 
Georgeous shots. I'm not sure what you're doing UF, but it works very well. Ah, so many lenses, so little time...

I find all the photos very sharp (but not oversharp) indeed apart from the last two 180mm shots, and this lens is supposed to legendary for it's sharpness I thought?

I'm willing to bet the 18-200 would have been nowhere near in quality, would have detracted from the whole framing process, and whats more, it won't be working (or serviceable) in 20 years time like the primes will. But what do I know? You certainly can't beat the subject isolation a fast lens offers.

--
Geoff

'The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.' - George Bernard Shaw

WSSA member#68
PBase Supporter
Apprentice Strobist (www.strobist.com)

http://www.pbase.com/tuckeruk
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tuckeruk/
 
Uncle Frank said:
the "gap" between their 17-55 and their 70-200, I have
to stifle the urge to scream "WHAT GAP?"
Click to expand...
As usual, we agree. I carry two lenses -- 17-35 and 70-200.
Never do I feel as though I'm missing anything.
My rule of thumb for primes is that lenses should, more
or less, double or half each other. For film, that meant I was
carrying a 24, 105, 180 and 300. I also had a 16, 35, 55
(macro), 135 and 500 but those rarely got used.

Matt
 
Don't get me wrong, I am no superzoom zealot, but it seems to me a situation like this one is a perfect time for it. Lots of different types of photography, crowded, fast moving, street shooting where you are shooting for fun not for assignment in well lit daylight.

Obviously a prime has better IQ than just about any zoom in pixel peeping, but under these conditions (unless I am wrong about them which i certainly might be) shooting around f/6 to 11 (i am guessing, i didnt see any info) I am inclined to think they would perform fairlly similiar.

I am not trying to start any war between the primes and superzooms. i bought the 18-200 for now, with the intention of slowly replacing it with primes and fast zooms until it is obsolete as I decide how I most like to shoot, investing in top glass appropriately.

However... I am worried that I will end up keeping it even then, just for situations like this one. I will post some examples of what I mean when I get a chance.

Cheers,
 
TuckerUK said:
Georgeous shots. I'm not sure what you're doing UF, but it works
very well. Ah, so many lenses, so little time...

I find all the photos very sharp (but not oversharp) indeed apart
from the last two 180mm shots, and this lens is supposed to
legendary for it's sharpness I thought?
Click to expand...
The 180/2.8 is very sharp, Geoff, but it can't perform at its best without some help from the photographer. In this case, I was using aperture priority and auto-iso, with the minimum shutter speed set to 1/250, and since it was a gray day, all of my 180mm shots were taken at 1/250. To compound the problem, both of my subjects were moving, so these were quick, handheld snaps. The subject in the following pic actually stopped and posed for the camera, so it's a better sample of the 180/2.8, even though it, too, was taken handheld at 1/250.



--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank
 
nbourbaki said:
Don't get me wrong, I am no superzoom zealot, but it seems to me a
situation like this one is a perfect time for it. Lots of
different types of photography, crowded, fast moving, street
shooting where you are shooting for fun not for assignment in well
lit daylight...
Click to expand...
I guess it's a mindset. When I'm working with primes, I don't feel under any pressure to make fast lens changes. I concentrate on the shots I'm set up for, and don't worry about the ones that might get away. I used the 60/2.8 and a foot zoom for the greatest part of the day. I only popped on the 20/2.8 when I wandered into crowed areas of the event, and put on the 180/2.8 when I encountered something like the music venue, where I needed the reach.
nbourbaki said:
... under these conditions (unless I am wrong about them
which i certainly might be) shooting around f/6 to 11 (i am
guessing, i didnt see any info) I am inclined to think they would
perform fairlly similiar.
Click to expand...
Almost all of the shots were taken at f/5.6, so they were within the range of the 18-200 superzoom. I'm sure it would have done a fine job, and there would have been no lens changes or focal length gaps to fret about. I just prefer the leisurely practice of shooting with primes. It's the photographic equivalent of fly fishing... not too efficient, but very enjoyable.

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank
 
What exactly do you mean by "gap" I don't understand ;-)
Uncle Frank said:
Every time I read someone concerned about filling the "gap" between
their 17-55 and their 70-200, I have to stifle the urge to scream
"WHAT GAP?" A few months of shooting primes, and they'd understand.
Click to expand...
--
Edward

Lenses listed in profile

 
I don't own the 17-55; I'm still using the 18-70DX because I've never quite been able to justify the $$$$ (just a pesonal thing with my money allocation- no reflection on the lens) but I've thought about it a lot and just looking at scenes through the viewfinder I am always struck by the tiny insignificant difference between the 50-55 FL and 70. My perception is that it is a step or two backwards, verses some perspective difference that cannot easily be accomodated.

I think you are very right that it is a non-issue.

--
Regards,
Neil
 
i think primes can never be replaced by zoom, some day maybe(i will not exist)

i love all your pictures,
best regards
--

ENGLISH is not my native language, so...
 
Lonely Raven said:
I'm sure the 18-200 would match up fine when you consider how many
shots you just missed switching from 20 to 180 and back.
Click to expand...
Actually, I didn't have than many switches... maybe 4 during a 4 hour period. The 60mm and my feet covered almost everything, and I switched to the wide or tele on a situational basis, like when I wanted to shoot a house...



... or cover a band and dancers from a distance.





The only time when I regretter having the wrong lens on the camera is when I took this pet shot at 60mm. Seeing the look that critter was giving me, I wished I had been using the 180mm.



--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank
 
Frank, I can relate to the comparison of fly fishing and shooting with primes...... not too efficient but very enjoyable.

Well I have to say that sometime fly fishing is incredibly effective where no other approach can match it.... and so it is with primes... according to enthusiasts. --

So what I say is that some of us are very enamoured by the process that we use.... as much with that as with the end product of our efforts.

Marabou Muddler
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top