Zoom with PRIMES + Legs.. Whats the formula for Distance vs. Focal length?

You can never truly replicate the effect of using a lens of one focal length by using a lens of another focal length and then getting closer to, or farther from, the subject; the perspective will be different.

That said, in my personal opinion and experience, the relevant point is that if you have a set of lenses whose focal lengths increase in ratios of somewhere between about 1.4 (the square root of 2) and 2, you can cover almost any reasonable need. Depending on what you want to shoot and how many lenses you're willing to carry (or pay for), you might look at sets like the 35mm equivalents of 24, 35, 50, and 85mm; or 28, 50, and 100 mm.

But IMOPO, for almost all uses, truly modern zoom lenses are a wonderful thing, and unless you really need large maximum apertures to get really thin depth of field, I'd much rather go out with one zoom than two or three primes.

Wait...why exactly do you need to be able to cover every single conceivable focal length?

You dont need that kind of granualrity. Particuarly, most tend to specialize into one area and put their money there, having cheaper options elsewhere.

A birder will have a Sigma 50-500 with adapter or Tamron, or whatever. Or a 55-210 with teleconverter. Mostly long range focused, using their kit for shorter range.

Myself, I have put my cash into the SEL35F18 for general purpose photography. I use a cheaper 58mm legacy portrait lens, a 55-210 with teleconverter. I have no kit lens, but would like a cheap one to do periodic wide-angle shots.

Landscapers might want a good prime wide angle for sharpest possible images, with maybe just a 55-210 for longer range.

A portrait person might go with the SEL50 instead...or a Rokinon/Nikon 85mm or whatever, then use kit for shorter range work.

A vacationer might go with a 18-105 or similar all-in-one lens so they dont have to swap all the time.


Try to think of which focal length you'd most expect to use and put your money there.

Desh Wasi said:

With the option to adapt lenses, its becoming tricky to figure out which PRIMES are really needed to cover the entire range from 20-50mm. how do i calculate how much distance i can cover with legs between 2 specific focal lengths? here is my list.

Click to expand...

Try thinking of it in reverse: think of where you want to stand relative to your subject, then figure out which focal length will do the job. You can "zoom the prime", but your perspective changes, and it's a totally different picture.

For example, if you keep you 20mm and use it for portraits, all of your subjects' noses will be exaggerated and the wider angle of view will "suck in" more background. This will look completely different from a 50mm shot with the subject at the same magnification.

Having said that, there's a reason why 20-24mm and 35mm are popular on crop cameras; most situations have you at the shooting distance that works with these focal lengths.

thanks. so.. is it worth getting a 24/40 to complement the 20/32 ? and is that good enough to cover the lack of an expensive zoom (i have the SELP1650) ? is there a sub $350 (used) compact zoom in Canon EF-S that matches the SEL1670z ? given my affinity for small primes, i think a used SEL1670z is too darn expensive.. if only YongNuo could hurry up their cloning project..

Desh Wasi said:

thanks. so.. is it worth getting a 24/40 to complement the 20/32 ?

Click to expand...

No. You'll probably using one of the 20 or 32 most of the time, unless you have a specific purpose in mind.

Desh Wasi said:

and is that good enough to cover the lack of an expensive zoom (i have the SELP1650) ?

Click to expand...

SEL1650 covers pretty much 80% of your shooting needs unless you need distance (SEL55210) or landscape (SEL1018)

To take a step back, you can do a lot with the lenses that you already have. It's really a matter now of knowing which focal length you want for what specific purposes, and what you can't do with what you have. If you've got this down, then it will be easier knowing what lens you actually need to ad.

There is no formula... some things we only get by practicing, the more the better. Use the lenses you already have for 1 or 2 years and just shoot, shoot, and shoot some more.

Set you zoom lens to one focal length only (say 24mm equivalent), and use that for 1 month; set it to another focal length (say 50mm equivalent) and use that for only 1 month. Make an effort to learn what focal length you like more for the subjects you shoot.

In the end, if you find out that a zoom lens is appropriate for you, sell all your lenses and get the Zeiss 16-70, it will be all you need.

You made the typical mistake of getting too many lenses to start with, just because you read somewhere that you need a lot of lenses... you don't, at least not for now, not until you learn, get experience, and decide for yourself.

With respect, it doesn't sound as though you have been using you 5100 for long and you need to get a bit more experience with what you really need before spending more money (and lightening that other cargo pocket)

My own opinion is that you should use the 16/50 a bit more, keeping note of the FL which you are actually using most (after all it covers the range of all the primes you are thinking of) and then decide what is going to be valuable for you if you do need better IQ

You certainly don't need so many, as close together, as you suggest. Changes lenses takes time during which you may miss a shot, and increases the chances of getting dust on the sensor. You need to balance a real need for changing to a different FL with these problems against the option of taking a step or two back or forwards, (or cropping a bit)

Most people using other than E mount lenses are doing so because they have them already, and/or enjoy the challenge of MF. Do you fall into either of these categories? I could not recommend anyone starting out in photography with a Sony to buy Canon lenses, even with an adapter which focuses (slowly) especially as unless you buy the top quality L lenses (at a price) you are not going to get better quality than you can from Sony 35/1.8, 50/1.8 (which also have OSS). You add a whole new layer of difficulty to your photography which you probably don't need yet...even though MF can be fun and challenging.

Why don't you post some results you have got from your 16/50, and perhaps we can help you get more out of this lens. Although it comes in for a lot of criticism from some people, others find it fine, especially if you are not printing too large. Of course its aperture is limited, but don't be fooled by a perceived need for large apertures. Very often a 1.8 lens has to be stopped down to get an acceptable DOF, or better results can be had by learning how to use a flash properly.

Of course I may have misread your mail, you may be a really experienced photog and can teach me a lot, in which case, apologies

Anyway good shooting, it's your money!

tom

The "downside" of zooming with your legs is the change of perspective. With a zoom lens, the subject distance stays the same and you can take shots at different FLs (full body, upper body etc).

Teh kit zoom or maybe a decent legacy zoom lens in the bag can be useful in such cases, like e.g. the famous Minolta MD 35-70 f3.5 (around 30$)

Desh Wasi said:

thanks. so.. is it worth getting a 24/40 to complement the 20/32 ? and is that good enough to cover the lack of an expensive zoom (i have the SELP1650) ? is there a sub $350 (used) compact zoom in Canon EF-S that matches the SEL1670z ? given my affinity for small primes, i think a used SEL1670z is too darn expensive.. if only YongNuo could hurry up their cloning project..

Click to expand...

If you had a 20, 24, 32, and 40 I think those lengths are too close. I personally had the 16, 24, and 50 lengths as my setup for a long time.

since multiple people have suggested "learning" for years before buying, lets get that out of the way. I dont have time to do that. As for the focal lengths being too close, reason why i am considering 24 & 40mm Canon is because i may be going adapter route to save $200 on the 10-18mm (primarily because i dont know how much i will use it and SEL1018 is holding up $600+). assuming i have the adapter, i can get the stellar 24mm & 40mm combined for under $250. from what i understand,

i) 20mm Sony is not quite that good. Canon 24mm should be MUCH better IQ.

ii) i think 50mm is too restrictive for me but isnt 32mm a bit short for portraits? thats why i wanted to up my max focal length to 40mm.

obviously these choices are being made because they are costing next to nothing compared to Sony offerings while still giving stellar image quality (at expense of SLOW AF, f/2.8, NO OSS). i *think* i can live with 32mm as my max focal length for people shots. is there a sub-$300 24mm option that competes with Canon pic quality while being as small or smaller?

Desh Wasi said:

since multiple people have suggested "learning" for years before buying, lets get that out of the way. I dont have time to do that.

Click to expand...

Um, are you dying or something? And want to get as many good pics before you go? I agree that telling you "you must learn grasshopper" before buying a decent lens seems a bit much. But, you don't need to be in a huge hurry to get everything either... you want to discover what you REALLY need before buying a bunch of stuff you might not use.

With your current kit lens, what limitations are you running into? In other words, are you mad because your ISO is always too high for indoor shots? If so, a fast prime is needed like a F1.8 at least. Maybe even a manual focus 1.2 or 1.4 legacy. Are you really having issues with just not wide enough angle? So you must have an 10mm lens?? Can't you step back a bit? Or use Panaroma mode to simulate a wide angle shot? Are you wanting more background blur on shots? Are you seeing distortion in the people you shoot?

You dont have to have every focal length available...just what you need to do the job. Once you determine what the jobs are.

Desh Wasi said:

ii) i think 50mm is too restrictive for me but isnt 32mm a bit short for portraits? thats why i wanted to up my max focal length to 40mm.

Click to expand...

Portrait length is usually 85 to 130 mm full frame equivalent. So yeah, 32mm is kind of short, even with 1.5 crop factor.

Some options would be to grab the very good F1.8 50mm from Canon for cheap. You'd use it primarily as a portrait lens. A bit long for general purpose, but outdoors you can take shots and get nice blurred backgrounds with it. 85mm might work even better, but pricier.

The SEL50F18 is also an option...native and 200 bucks.

Desh Wasi said:

since multiple people have suggested "learning" for years before buying, lets get that out of the way. I dont have time to do that. As for the focal lengths being too close, reason why i am considering 24 & 40mm Canon is because i may be going adapter route to save $200 on the 10-18mm (primarily because i dont know how much i will use it and SEL1018 is holding up $600+). assuming i have the adapter, i can get the stellar 24mm & 40mm combined for under $250. from what i understand,

Click to expand...

I've only had experience with the Metabones adapters, but the experience seems to be similar across the board with adapting EF lenses. Yes it does work, but no, it does not work well enough that you would want to use it for anything other than an emergency. Focus is slow and tends to hunt; aperture control is sometimes incompatible with some lenses, though generally speaking they (EF to E adapters in general) tend to work fairly well. My perception might be skewed, but most of the people who stuck long term with an adapted lens tend to be videographers (manual focus and aperture control) rather than stills shooters.

perhaps a second body helps?

one with zoom, one with prime

or one with 24mm/19mm, one with 50mm/60mm

Desh Wasi said:

since multiple people have suggested "learning" for years before buying, lets get that out of the way. I dont have time to do that. As for the focal lengths being too close, reason why i am considering 24 & 40mm Canon is because i may be going adapter route to save $200 on the 10-18mm (primarily because i dont know how much i will use it and SEL1018 is holding up $600+). assuming i have the adapter, i can get the stellar 24mm & 40mm combined for under $250. from what i understand,

i) 20mm Sony is not quite that good. Canon 24mm should be MUCH better IQ.

ii) i think 50mm is too restrictive for me but isnt 32mm a bit short for portraits? thats why i wanted to up my max focal length to 40mm.

obviously these choices are being made because they are costing next to nothing compared to Sony offerings while still giving stellar image quality (at expense of SLOW AF, f/2.8, NO OSS). i *think* i can live with 32mm as my max focal length for people shots. is there a sub-$300 24mm option that competes with Canon pic quality while being as small or smaller?

Click to expand...

Maybe get the Sigma lens trio: 19mm/30mm/60mm. I've got two adapted lenses and the only other adapted lens I'm likely to get would be a long (400mm to 600mm) lens for birding.

Portraits -- I've used everything from a 50mm to a 105mm on APS-C -- what works best will depend on the kind of portraits you want to take.

Landscape -- wider than about 16mm on APS-C, the photos is about the lens and the photographer's cleverness more than the subject. Wide angles flatten mountains -- better take a longer lens for better sense of the size of the mountains.

General -- 24-35 for APS-C. Pick one, or pick two.

Perspective is a function of only one variable: lens position. If you move then tour have changed the perspective. The correct questing is how much are you willing to crop.

BobSC said:

Perspective is a function of only one variable: lens position. If you move then tour have changed the perspective. The correct questing is how much are you willing to crop.

Click to expand...

So the question should be, how much do you crop to get an equivalent longer focal length? For example, if you have a 20mm lens, how much do you need to crop to get a 24mm equivalent? At some point, the cropping is too much, but I don't see why you couldn't use a prime and crop slightly as desired.

For me, it turns out that I like the wider angles. Who knew?

As a very general rule, the higher up you go on the mm scale, the less one tends to notice the 'gains' in angle of view.

Another general 'rule' is that choice of wide angle is very personal. Some people think that, in Full Frame terms, 24mm (16mm for your A5200) is very wide whilst others think that 15mm (10mm for your A5200) is not wide enough and they really want a fish eye lens.

For my personal use, I like 24mm 35mm 55mm and 135mm on my FF cameras. That translates to 16mm, 18mm, 35 mm and 67mm on your A5200. All this is a personal choice.

Another 'general rule' is that wider angle lenses need more considered use for good results that 'longer' lenses. Pick your poison. Its generally true that one needs to get really close to foreground subjects to get the best use out of wide angle lenses'

Right now on my FF A7ii camera I have a 55mm (35mm A5200) and am looking for a 35mm (18mm A5200) plus a 135mm (67mm A5200) to round out my prime lens kit.

Brian

" ... since multiple people have suggested "learning" for years before buying, lets get that out of the way. I dont have time to do that. ..."

No time to learn = no improvement = nonsense.

Welcome to the nonsense of swapping a 30 mm lens for a 32 mm one and then for a 35 mm lens and then maybe for another, a 40 mm lens. As it seems you are prepared to do ...

How much time would that take, i wonder.

Luckily you might drop a lens or two to the floor and disencumber your lens set to thereby gain speed in swapping only between 2 lenses.

Great if that is your (hidden) desire and sadly it will happen to you if you do not take the time to learn.

I am sorry but your hobby or profession is so ill started and so ill advised in my eyes. Go ice skating or something else and enjoy your need for speed there ...

As far as lens progressions go, start out with a wide angle lens you like, note its focal length, say 16 mm and add lenses with longer focal lengths by a factor of about 1.5 to your collection, such as 24, 35, 50, 75 or 85, 135 , 200, 300, 500, 800, 1200 ... .

And none in between, except for one or a few super open lenses with f/2 or f/1.8 where you need them for dark and night shots.

But do take your time, or switch out of photography as quickly as you have entered here. A total waste of your time, your money and our sound advice.

uhligfd said:

" ... since multiple people have suggested "learning" for years before buying, lets get that out of the way. I dont have time to do that. ..."

No time to learn = no improvement = nonsense.

Click to expand...

The idea that learning is somehow impaired by trying several lenses in the first few years is laughable. The OP does not want to follow the standard advice of limiting himself to one or two lenses for several years. I'm almost sure that the OP is right if he has the funds.

uhligfd said:

Welcome to the nonsense of swapping a 30 mm lens for a 32 mm one and then for a 35 mm lens and then maybe for another, a 40 mm lens. As it seems you are prepared to do ...

Click to expand...

Galen Rowell, a fine landscape photographer, better than almost anyone, often carried a 24mm and a 28mm lens, even in difficult environs. Given that, who are we to say that carrying a 35 with a 40 is worthy of ridicule?

I will suggest to the OP that 20mm is not that wide on an APS-C sensor. It is not wide at all.

Also for the OP, you cannot "zoom with your feet" for objects at infinity. Zooming with your feet with such subjects has no effect.

The OP's stated programme of zooming with his feet is not likely to completely succeed. Besides the aforementioned problem with subjects at infinity, most photographers with fixed-focal-length lenses (a.k.a., primes) find that they use the single focal lengths to help choose great compositions rather than move themselves up or back to get just what they would have had had they been using a zoom lens.

Also, a prime is generally so good at 30mm that even zooming a zoom to 32mm will likely result in an inferior image compared to the 30mm cropped a bit.

--

Jerry Fusselman