Nikkor 50 1.4 or Nikkor 50mm 1.8 and why?

Joe,

Derrel had an outstanding reply...I'd just like to echo what he said and recommend that you go with the best lens for your situation, rather than settling for a cookie cutter lens recommendation that may get you a good lens, but not a great portrait lens.

I've used the 50mm primes but I personally find them lacking for portraits...they do OK, but the out of focus areas are nothing special and the color rendition doesn't do much for me either. I much prefer the 60mm Micro Nikkor for head and shoulder type portraits, the 45mm 2.8P for environmental portraits, and the 105mm f2DC for tighter shots or even the 180mm Nikkor if I have a lot of distance outside to play with, and I'm looking for a good defocused background.

Again, these aren't hard and fast formulas and a good lens can be used for a head shot at one moment and a full body environmental shot the next, depending on the distance you have to work with.

I've enclosed examples of portraits I've taken with these lenses to give you an idea of what you can get, but obviously you may take very different types of portraits, so take this for what it's worth.

Thanks and good luck,

Robert

Taken with the 45mm 2.8P



Taken with the 60mm Micro Nikkor



Taken with the 180mm Nikkor

Joe Lacy said:

I need a standard tack sharp portrait lens. What does the group
suggest and why?

Thanks,
Joe

Click to expand...

Robert M said:

Derrel had an outstanding reply...I'd just like to echo what he
said and recommend that you go with the best lens for your
situation, rather than settling for a cookie cutter lens
recommendation that may get you a good lens, but not a great
portrait lens.

I've used the 50mm primes but I personally find them lacking for
portraits...they do OK, but the out of focus areas are nothing
special and the color rendition doesn't do much for me either. I
much prefer the 60mm Micro Nikkor for head and shoulder type
portraits, the 45mm 2.8P for environmental portraits, and the 105mm
f2DC for tighter shots or even the 180mm Nikkor if I have a lot of
distance outside to play with, and I'm looking for a good defocused
background.

Again, these aren't hard and fast formulas and a good lens can be
used for a head shot at one moment and a full body environmental
shot the next, depending on the distance you have to work with.

I've enclosed examples of portraits I've taken with these lenses to
give you an idea of what you can get, but obviously you may take
very different types of portraits, so take this for what it's worth.

Thanks and good luck,

Robert

Taken with the 45mm 2.8P



Taken with the 60mm Micro Nikkor



Taken with the 180mm Nikkor

Joe Lacy said:

I need a standard tack sharp portrait lens. What does the group
suggest and why?

Thanks,
Joe

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thanks to all that responded. I'm picky about my noses. (sorry for the pun). I used to shoot a 165 on 6x7, 85 in 35mm and 135 in 645. I'm getting lazy now. . The 35-70D worked fine last week and gave me some flexablity. I'm not shy and niether are my models so subject distance is not an issue. Cost is of little factor on a $2400.00 body. I'm used to medium format lens costs. Why buy an expensive body and scrimp on glass? I'll shoot the 35-70 again this weekend. I rented the 60 last week and used it only once. I'm not sure I could tell any difference in quality But mobility I sure could.

Joe.

Arthur Dent said:

A 50 is too short to be flattering for portraits. Forget all this
nonsense that you read on these forumw about a 50 becoming an 80,
etc etc. A 50 mm lens on the S2 will crop to the same angle of view
as a 75mm lens on 35mm film, but thats it. Its angle of view, no
more. Part of the reason for using a telephoto lens is to gain the
compression you get from a longer lens, and the resulting pleasant
perspective.

Click to expand...

Actually, perspective WILL be the same as with a 75mm lens. Only depth of field will vary (be less with the 50 on the Fuji than with a 75 on a full-frame at the same aperture). The perspective will be identical. Really. Try it for yourself if you don't believe me, or check the math. The angles are what emphasize or de-emphasize the different distances of the face from the camera (e.g. nose enlargement), so the angles are the same.

Consider an extreme example. A 210mm lens is "normal" on my 4x5 camera, and will give a fairly similar perspective in a portrait to a 50mm on my F5. However, I can put a frame of 35mm film in the back of my 4x5 camera and take a picture with this lens, and it becomes a telephoto shot (just the same as using a 210mm lens on a 35mm camera). All I did was "crop" the image, but I really, truly, moved from a normal image (on 4x5) to a telephoto on the 35mm film. So, really, I am doing the same thing with the Fuji, except on a less dramatic scale. So, 75mm film = 50mm Fuji for the look of the picture EXCEPT for depth of field. You will lose the attractive depth-of-field reduction that the longer lens gives, so you will probably need to shoot at larger apertures than you would require with a 35mm film camera and longer lens.

Best,

GPP

Hi Robert,

Very nice portraits - I particularly liked the composition and tonalities of the 45mm shot. Good illustrations of your points.

I have my own set of preferred lenses for different situations (as you do), and agree that they do provide different feels. Many of my favorite portraits are made with the 80-200 2.8 (mine is not the AFS) - it has many of the qualities I think you value in the 180.

One of my favorites is the old 50-300 f4.5 non-ed lens (from about 1980 or so). It is just a bit soft, like what a black Pro-Mist filter tries to be, and also has the best out-of-focus (bokeh) areas of any lens I have ever used. It was never meant as a portrait lens, but it is wonderful for certain types of subjects.

I agree on the 60mm Macro on the S2 - a really nice portrait lens for traditional "formal" settings.

Best,

GPP

Greg,

Thanks for the reply and feedback. I do remember one or two threads where you extolled the virtues of the 50-300 f4.5, and I was fascinated by the idea of getting a hold of this zoom. I'm a big sucker for good bokeh, as you may have figured out....I see there are a couple floating around out on the used market...does it work well with the S2 as an older lens? And what types of subjects do you find it works best for?

Thanks again for the positive comments...

Robert

Greg Poulsen said:

Hi Robert,

Very nice portraits - I particularly liked the composition and
tonalities of the 45mm shot. Good illustrations of your points.

I have my own set of preferred lenses for different situations (as
you do), and agree that they do provide different feels. Many of
my favorite portraits are made with the 80-200 2.8 (mine is not the
AFS) - it has many of the qualities I think you value in the 180.

One of my favorites is the old 50-300 f4.5 non-ed lens (from about
1980 or so). It is just a bit soft, like what a black Pro-Mist
filter tries to be, and also has the best out-of-focus (bokeh)
areas of any lens I have ever used. It was never meant as a
portrait lens, but it is wonderful for certain types of subjects.

I agree on the 60mm Macro on the S2 - a really nice portrait lens
for traditional "formal" settings.

Best,

GPP

Click to expand...

Hi Greg,

Thank you for this valuable information on lens perspective in conjunction with the 1.5x image "magnification/crop" of the S2. I see this issue argued back and forth endlessly on all the SLR forums.....namely, whether perspective (and hence noses for example!) will change or not when a lens of given "35mm flim" length (say 50mm) is "magnified" (or the FOV cropped) by the 1.5x factor. As you know, many argue that the perspective does NOT change.....but I find your argument persuasive and convincing that a 50mm lens on the S2 renders perspective equivalent to a 75mm lens with film. This is good news, I think.

Again thank you.

Best wishes,

David

Greg Poulsen said:

Greg Poulsen wrote:

Actually, perspective WILL be the same as with a 75mm lens. Only
depth of field will vary (be less with the 50 on the Fuji than with
a 75 on a full-frame at the same aperture). The perspective will
be identical. Really. Try it for yourself if you don't believe
me, or check the math. The angles are what emphasize or
de-emphasize the different distances of the face from the camera
(e.g. nose enlargement), so the angles are the same.

Consider an extreme example. A 210mm lens is "normal" on my 4x5
camera, and will give a fairly similar perspective in a portrait to
a 50mm on my F5. However, I can put a frame of 35mm film in the
back of my 4x5 camera and take a picture with this lens, and it
becomes a telephoto shot (just the same as using a 210mm lens on a
35mm camera). All I did was "crop" the image, but I really, truly,
moved from a normal image (on 4x5) to a telephoto on the 35mm film.
So, really, I am doing the same thing with the Fuji, except on a
less dramatic scale. So, 75mm film = 50mm Fuji for the look of the
picture EXCEPT for depth of field. You will lose the attractive
depth-of-field reduction that the longer lens gives, so you will
probably need to shoot at larger apertures than you would require
with a 35mm film camera and longer lens.

Best,

GPP

Click to expand...

--
http://www.mongoosephoto.com

Robert M said:

Greg,

Thanks for the reply and feedback. I do remember one or two
threads where you extolled the virtues of the 50-300 f4.5, and I
was fascinated by the idea of getting a hold of this zoom. I'm a
big sucker for good bokeh, as you may have figured out....I see
there are a couple floating around out on the used market...does it
work well with the S2 as an older lens? And what types of subjects
do you find it works best for?

Click to expand...

Hi Robert,

I believe that there are actually 3 versions (at least) of the 50-300 f4.5 available. The original was not AI, and would not work on the S2 (unless it was modified). It did not have an ED element. The second version was exactly the same optically, but was AI compatible, and will work with the S2 in manual, without metering. There is a newer version that is AIS and has an ED element. This newer lens is smaller and sharper than the older version. I believe that this version is actually still being manufactured - at least it was until recently. I used this new version for sports up until about 1990.

However, for portraits, the one I like was the older, non-ED version. It is really large - about the size of a 400mm f5.6, so it is kind of a pain to work with physically, but it has an excellent (and well-balanced) tripod collar, so things work well once it is on the sticks.

Now, for me, the beauty of the lens is two-fold. First, the lens is slightly soft, which gives a great but very subtle soft-focus look. The effect is more subtle than "soft focus" lenses or filters, but still gives some softening overall. This is particularly attractive with backlighting to give a slightly old-world look.

The second benefit, as mentioned, is the bokeh. I am guessing that it has to do with where the iris is located in the light path, but at 200mm and up, the background has a marvelous soft quality. I have shot a lot of long lenses, but have never seen one that had such a velvetty (?) quality to the out of focus background areas. To accentuate this, I never use this lens at less than f8 (by the way, the lens gets a bit too sharp past f5.6, IMHO).

Finally, the lens may also have good attributes at ranges less than 200 mm, but I confess to never using it "zoomed out." This is not for optical reasons, but because I feel really stupid with a humongous lens - like I said, it looks like a 400mm - and then moving right up close to the subject. Their assumption would have to be that I am moving in for a detailed look at their left nostril!

By the way, I picked this lens up in a local shop for, I think, $280 in about 8+ condition. It works fine witht he S2, but of course there is no metering so I always shoot a test and check the histogram.

Oh, one other thing. Since the zoom range is so wide, the factory lens hood is not very long and does not protect against flare very well. And since my favorite use for the thing is backlighted subjects, I always need to put some kind of flag in front of the camera to block light sources from hitting the lens.

Best,

GPP

DF wrote:

I find your argument persuasive and convincing that a 50mm lens on the S2 renders perspective equivalent to a 75mm lens with film. This is good news, I think.> Best wishes,

DF said:

David

Click to expand...

well David, Greg P. IS very,very right. And yes, it IS GOOD NEWS, as you say! Greg's example echoes one I made this summer. I like having the 1.5x magnification factor.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=3108435
for my examples. here's an excerpt of my post:

I think we all realize that "effective" focal length varies with the size of the sensor or piece of film. Consider just what, in the REAL world, an 90mm lens is on the following: 1) Digital SLR 2)35mm film camera 3)Medium Format 6x6 or 6x7 camera, and on finally a 4x5 inch view camera. On the D-SLR the 90mm length yields a picture with a TELEPHOTO look and with telephoto magnification, while on 4x5 film a 90mm lens is QUITE a wide angle. On 6x7 90 yields a "normal lens" look. This is why bird/nature photography is seldom done seriously with anything other than 35mm....as the size of the film goes up, the need for an increasingly longer and longer lens becomes so problematic. Shoot using a 90mm lens on 35mm and you have a telephoto effect, with the background effectively being "pulled up toward the subject." Telephoto compression. Shoot with the 90mm on your 4x5 and you have wide-angle perspective, with near objects appearing significantly larger than more distant objects.
------End of quoted section--------

Does anybody recall the old "focal length equivalent" charts comparing the needed focal lengths for various film formats, like Half-Frame 35, 35mm,645,6x6,6x7,6x9, 4x5,5z7,8x10? The rule is simple--as the film frame gets smaller, magnification goes up--even if the lens length in question stays the same. A 90 on 35mm is a short tele--on 4x5 it's an goodly wide-angle lens, while on the Pentax 6x7 it's a "standard" lens!

On 6x6 film, the perspective of a 60mm is moderate wide-angle. It's a great length for wedding receptions on 6x6. On 35mm film, a 60 is a narrow-angle lens most often seen as Nikon's 60mm AF Micro. On your S2, a 60 looks like a 90mm telephoto on 35mm.

see http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=3108435

for my examples. here's an excerpt of my post:

I think we all realize that "effective" focal length varies with the size of the sensor or piece of film. Consider just what, in the REAL world, a 90mm lens is on the following: 1) Digital SLR 2)35mm film camera 3)Medium Format 6x6 or 6x7 camera, and on finally a 4x5 inch view camera. On the D-SLR the 90mm length yields a picture with a TELEPHOTO look and with telephoto magnification, while on 4x5 film a 90mm lens is QUITE a wide angle. On 6x7 90 yields a "normal lens" look. This is why bird/nature photography is seldom done seriously with anything other than 35mm....as the size of the film goes up, the need for an increasingly longer and longer lens becomes so problematic. Shoot using a 90mm lens on 35mm and you have a telephoto effect, with the background effectively being "pulled up toward the subject." Telephoto compression. Shoot with the 90mm on your 4x5 and you have wide-angle perspective, with near objects appearing significantly larger than more distant objects.

If this isn't 100 percent clear to everybody reading this, I guess I'll give up exasperatedly, as yet another person chimes in with some mathematically-based and yet inherently flawed attempt to erroneously explain that shooting onto a "smaller format" somehow does NOT effectively change both the focal length AND the perspective. It DOES change the perspective, and it does change the magnification, and there IS a benefit to shooting onto a smaller-than-35mm sensor with lenses designed for 35mm film. Especially is you like or want longer focal lengths and not wider-angle shots.

So yes,Greg is right....mounting a 50mm on a D1,S1,S2,etc gives you the PERSPECTIVE of shooting with a roughly 75-77mm lens on 35mm film.The actual multiplier on the D1 series is just a bit higher than 1.5x, with a 300mm being not a 450 but a 466mm, or 1.5533333.
--
Happy Shooting!
Derrel

I think you are correct...physics & common sense agree with you...the smaller the sensor, the greater the value of each photon landing on the sensor, be it film emulsion or tiny electrical sensors...I think folks who claim "its just a crop" really aren't being fair to digital SLR's

I for one, really don't want a larger sensory, but this is a reflection of what I like to photograph

of course if wide angle landscapes are your thing, there is a disadvantage to be paid having a smaller sensor; but a top flight super wide angle lens can be had for much less money than a top flight super telephoto, of this I am certain, though one can never regain the lost angle of view, of which I am equally certain
--
pbase galleries
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke

Sorry, but no... perspective is changed by one thing and one thing alone.... distance to subject. Viewing cone is what is changing with the lens.

Just to bring this home a little. The Fuji S2 has 6 million 7-8 micron pixels and the Kodak 14n has the same size pixels, just more of them covering the whole sensor size. It's like taking a pair of sciscors to your 35mm neg.

Excal

excal said:

Sorry, but no... perspective is changed by one thing and one thing
alone.... distance to subject. Viewing cone is what is changing
with the lens.

Click to expand...

Dear Excal,

Sorry, but you are not 100 percent correct when you state that perspective is changed by one thing and one thing alone(that one thing being distance from camera to subject).

If you need a good concrete example, please refer to the Time-Life book "The Camera", pages 112,113,114,115.' I will refer to over 30 years of my own photography experience, and this brief quote from the book:

"When a photographer wants to change the relative size of the image,does it make any difference whether he does it by moving closer to his subject or by switching to a longer lens? Indeed it does."

If you actually follow the examples the book uses,and do your own experiments, you will find that you can alter perspective by either moving closer or farhter from the subject, OR by switching focal lengths, OR by doing a combination of moving and switching focal lengths.

Anybody who has shot much realizes that a 90mm lens on 4x5 view camera film gives a TRUE wide-angle look on that format, while on 35mm a 90mm lens length is a short telephoto. On 4x5, 90mm makes the background appear VERY distant, and makes foreground objects appear very large in comparison to the background. On 35mm, a 90mm lens "pulls" the background closer to the subject ,just a tiny bit.

Distance is just ONE way to alter perspective. Focal length is another way.

-
Happy Shooting!
Derrel

your argument is all well and good if the focal length changes but it does not change going to digital from film on 35mm , it is simply a crop

Derrel said:

excal said:

Sorry, but no... perspective is changed by one thing and one thing
alone.... distance to subject. Viewing cone is what is changing
with the lens.

Click to expand...

Dear Excal,
Sorry, but you are not 100 percent correct when you state that
perspective is changed by one thing and one thing alone(that one
thing being distance from camera to subject).

If you need a good concrete example, please refer to the Time-Life
book "The Camera", pages 112,113,114,115.' I will refer to over 30
years of my own photography experience, and this brief quote from
the book:
"When a photographer wants to change the relative size of the
image,does it make any difference whether he does it by moving
closer to his subject or by switching to a longer lens? Indeed it
does."

If you actually follow the examples the book uses,and do your own
experiments, you will find that you can alter perspective by either
moving closer or farhter from the subject, OR by switching focal
lengths, OR by doing a combination of moving and switching focal
lengths.

Anybody who has shot much realizes that a 90mm lens on 4x5 view
camera film gives a TRUE wide-angle look on that format, while on
35mm a 90mm lens length is a short telephoto. On 4x5, 90mm makes
the background appear VERY distant, and makes foreground objects
appear very large in comparison to the background. On 35mm, a 90mm
lens "pulls" the background closer to the subject ,just a tiny bit.

Distance is just ONE way to alter perspective. Focal length is
another way.

-
Happy Shooting!
Derrel

Click to expand...

SoftD100 said:

your argument is all well and good if the focal length changes but
it does not change going to digital from film on 35mm , it is
simply a crop

Click to expand...

Again,yet another person failing to consider that the actual physical SIZE of the "film" format affects the nature of the photograph made. Again, for the last time....when you have a physically LARGE piece of film, it takes a relatively long focal length to create telephoto perspective. And of course, a relatively "long" lens is a WIDE-ANGLE on larger film.

Okay....it this clear? Have you ever shot a 4x5 inch view camera? Do you own a 6x6 cm SLR, where a 60mm lens is a wide-angle? Do you have a Pentax or other 6x7 cm camera where a "normal lens" is from 90 to 105mm? Do you remember Hasselblad's Super Wide C camera with the fixed 38mm lens? Is 38mm an ultra-wide-angle lens on 35mm film? Most decidedly NOT. When capturing to 120 film, a 38mm is an incredible wide-angle...almost unheard of.

Flip the mirror up in your digital SLR...unless it's a Contax, you'll see a smaller-than-35mm film sensor. I can tell I am arguing with people who have little concept of film size and the diagonal of the film plane as a measure of "normal" in terms of lens length. Shrinking the film size has been a standard way to get increased depth of field and was the underlying reason behind Kodak's development of the "disc" camera format, if you remember that format. The idea that shooting to a smaller-than-normal sensor instead of a 24x36mm rectangle of film--that such constitutes simply a "crop" is ludicrous....

Look at the angle of view....as you decrease film size it takes less and less focal length to give you wide-angle views and it takes more and more focal length to yield telephoto perspective and to bring about telephoto compression. If you have any ability with logic, ask yourself HOW a 90mm lens on 4x5 film makes a wide-angle picture with almost infinite depth of field,and yet on 35mm the result is NOT wide-angle, but that of short telephoto with SHALLOW depth of field. if you have a grasp on the physics and the way photography works, you'll see that it is much more than "just a crop". It is a way to get real-world perspective changes with the most beneficial use of telephoto lenses.

If my argument is erroneous--then why is a 60-mm lens on 6x6 film a WIDE angle lens? And why in the world will a 35mm length lens yield roughly the same angle of view on 35mm film as the 60 on 120 square? Almost equal perspective, but totally different focal lengths. The answer: Because the film (sensor) size makes a difference. Man...I think I'm wasting my breath....a 90mm lens on 4x5 is a wide-angle. On 35mm it's a short tele. On my D1 or S2, a 90mm yields the apparent perspective of a 139.8mm lens.

Do some tests. Dig out or rent a 4x5 camera and 90mm lens. Then get your S2 and a 90mm. A 90mm will be a wide-angle lens on the 4x5 and the pics will have a wide angle of view, with distinct,decided wide-angle perspective, with the background falling away from the foreground. On the S2 photos shot with a 90mm lens will have a distinct,decided,unmistakable short telephoto look, with the background clearly being pulled "closer". Those are the facts. If you don't believe this, then you really are not following along with the entire photo industry. This is part of the reason 4x5 reducing backs are STILL MADE for 8x10 view cameras, and part of the reason to buy a 6x6 camera system that also allows you to shoot with a 6x4.5 back!
----Derrel

Hi Derrel,

You would be true if we would go from the 50mm lens build for a 35mm film size to a 75mm lens build for CCD (1.5) size. These would be two different lens like when you refer to in the comparison with 4x6, 5x7, ..

In our case, we do not change the lens. We just crop the sensor. All the other optical parts remain the same. Not even the lens to focal plane distance change neither the perspective neither the normal lens which is still 50mm with the size of a CCD. The only other thing which change is the sensitivity to camera shakes which increase by 1.5 because of the enlargement of the image.

All this is very interesting by the way. Thanks for all you thoughts.

Regards,

David

Hi Derrel,

Just a guest .. To expose a sensor twice bigger than a 35mm film, you will need a lens twice longer to get the same photographic rendering because the focal plane is twice bigger. This is absolutly true. To expose a Kodak Disk film, you will need a very small lens very close to the film (small focal length).

I agree with everything you say but take in account that between the 35mm and CCD, all the photography devices are all the same. Just the CCD is smaller. The lens is the same.

Regards,

David

.. oupps .. I reversed the focal length .. this should read .. Sorry.

David Bilodeau said:

You would be true if we would go from the 75mm lens build for a
35mm film size to a 50mm lens build for CCD (1.5) size. These would
be two different lens like when you refer to in the comparison with
4x6, 5x7, ..

Click to expand...

Regards,

David

That is correct... perspective will not change by using a 50mm lens on the Fuji.

This put me off the idea of bying one ( I like and want a 75-85 'efective' look for my portraits and this would have been a 'cheap' entry into it.

However, as another forum member pointed out... as the magnification factor is brought in you are not going to be able to frame a head and shoulder shot at the same distance as you would with a 50mm/film combination. You would have to move back to bring the subject fully into view. So then you have altered the subject-camera distance yourself by moving away and altering the perspective at rhe same time.

Someone must have done this here ( I have not got the kit yet) or may want to tryt it out and let us see the result?

any takers?

DF said:

Thank you for this valuable information on lens perspective in
conjunction with the 1.5x image "magnification/crop" of the S2. I
see this issue argued back and forth endlessly on all the SLR
forums.....namely, whether perspective (and hence noses for
example!) will change or not when a lens of given "35mm flim"
length (say 50mm) is "magnified" (or the FOV cropped) by the 1.5x
factor. As you know, many argue that the perspective does NOT
change.....but I find your argument persuasive and convincing that
a 50mm lens on the S2 renders perspective equivalent to a 75mm lens
with film. This is good news, I think.

Again thank you.

Best wishes,

David

DF said:

Greg Poulsen wrote:

Actually, perspective WILL be the same as with a 75mm lens. Only
depth of field will vary (be less with the 50 on the Fuji than with
a 75 on a full-frame at the same aperture). The perspective will
be identical. Really. Try it for yourself if you don't believe
me, or check the math. The angles are what emphasize or
de-emphasize the different distances of the face from the camera
(e.g. nose enlargement), so the angles are the same.

Consider an extreme example. A 210mm lens is "normal" on my 4x5
camera, and will give a fairly similar perspective in a portrait to
a 50mm on my F5. However, I can put a frame of 35mm film in the
back of my 4x5 camera and take a picture with this lens, and it
becomes a telephoto shot (just the same as using a 210mm lens on a
35mm camera). All I did was "crop" the image, but I really, truly,
moved from a normal image (on 4x5) to a telephoto on the 35mm film.
So, really, I am doing the same thing with the Fuji, except on a
less dramatic scale. So, 75mm film = 50mm Fuji for the look of the
picture EXCEPT for depth of field. You will lose the attractive
depth-of-field reduction that the longer lens gives, so you will
probably need to shoot at larger apertures than you would require
with a 35mm film camera and longer lens.

Best,

GPP

Click to expand...

--
http://www.mongoosephoto.com

Click to expand...

--
regards to all

Sooty

F5, F80, Oly C3oooZ

grazuncle said:

So then you have altered the
subject-camera distance yourself by moving away and altering the
perspective at rhe same time.

Click to expand...

Spot on. At least you are getting it! I think Derrel is getting in a muddle is he is using the circles of confusion and DoF to the "feel" of the image. But that's not perspective.

Excal

excal said:

Sorry, but no... perspective is changed by one thing and one thing
alone.... distance to subject. Viewing cone is what is changing
with the lens.

Just to bring this home a little. The Fuji S2 has 6 million 7-8
micron pixels and the Kodak 14n has the same size pixels, just more
of them covering the whole sensor size. It's like taking a pair of
sciscors to your 35mm neg.

Excal

Click to expand...

I think that people are arguing the wrong point. Let me agree that perspective is changed by subject distance. The point is that to achieve the same size image (for the final PRINT) for the same subject distance takes different focal lengths depending on the size of the capture medium. So, again, at the same subject distance, I will need, say, a 75mm lens with 35mm, a 50mm lens with a D1X (et. al.), a 150mm with medium format, and a 250 with 4x5 (or there about). With these lenses and formats, my PERSPECTIVE WILL BE THE SAME ON EACH, as will the subject distance (approximately).

At any rate, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE IMAGES IS A CROP of the overall image generate by the lens. So, while you are right that the S2 is like taking scissors to your 35mm, your 35mm film is like taking scissors to a medium format negative, which is like taking scissors to a 4x5 which is ...

So, there is absolutely NO reason to assume that we are being shortchanged by a smaller sensor, except that there is more image which could be used (which is exactly the argument that large format photographers have used with film for decades - I know being one of them).

Anyway, the key is the resolution of the lens and the sensor, not the focal length of the lens. Really.

Best,

GPP

Hi Alan,

You are right that you will have to move back with a 50mm lens with an S2 to achieve the same framing as with a 50mm lens with 35mm film. However, you would be at about the same distance back from the subject with the 50mm/S2 combination as you would with a 75mm/35mm film combination, and the perspective would be about the same (and you would have a fast lens to boot).

Best,

GPP

alan Brown said:

That is correct... perspective will not change by using a 50mm lens
on the Fuji.

This put me off the idea of bying one ( I like and want a 75-85
'efective' look for my portraits and this would have been a 'cheap'
entry into it.

However, as another forum member pointed out... as the
magnification factor is brought in you are not going to be able to
frame a head and shoulder shot at the same distance as you would
with a 50mm/film combination. You would have to move back to bring
the subject fully into view. So then you have altered the
subject-camera distance yourself by moving away and altering the
perspective at rhe same time.

Someone must have done this here ( I have not got the kit yet) or
may want to tryt it out and let us see the result?

any takers?

Click to expand...