-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
"zoom with my feet"
- Thread starter calson
- Start date
morinor
Senior Member
morinor
Senior Member
Currently by having a 35mm prime, I have to "zoom with my feet". So for my regular photography I do not find that I need a 24-70mm zoom lens. This makes me also to think more for what I need to include in my picture. But this has also its limitation. I cannot lets say get good portraits, unless I want half bodies and most preferably full bodies. If I try to get close ups also I still have a lot of information, unless I want it. Still though I have one lens that is 2 stops brighter than the fastest 24-70mm which I like it. It is on personal taste and need for everybody.
For long length lenses this thing can be difficult. What I mean? A 50mm, if it is not for portrait or close ups, most of the time cannot substitute a 100mm. Because when you need it you want to get something that is afar and getting closer can not be always achieved. Can I get the top of a mountain or the moon alone with my 35mm? Hmm... I can "zoom with my feet" by getting a space ship!
That is a reason I will get a 70-200mm and not a 135mm that is something in the middle. Because I cannot always "zoom in" or even "zoom out" because behind me can be a wall or even worse... a cliff. With this coverage I will have something for taking from close portraits to objects not so close to me.
For long length lenses this thing can be difficult. What I mean? A 50mm, if it is not for portrait or close ups, most of the time cannot substitute a 100mm. Because when you need it you want to get something that is afar and getting closer can not be always achieved. Can I get the top of a mountain or the moon alone with my 35mm? Hmm... I can "zoom with my feet" by getting a space ship!
That is a reason I will get a 70-200mm and not a 135mm that is something in the middle. Because I cannot always "zoom in" or even "zoom out" because behind me can be a wall or even worse... a cliff. With this coverage I will have something for taking from close portraits to objects not so close to me.
mrgs1
Senior Member
I zoom with my hands. Awkward with feet.
morinor
Senior Member
Other paint with them and make art and you tell me you can't zoom with them in order to take a photograph?
Richard B99
Senior Member
Oh dear, that phrase was never meant to imply an equivalence in effect between focal length magnification and moving position. Quite the opposite really. It’s more meant as prompt for (usually) beginners not to automatically stand rooted to the spot zooming back and forth to frame the subject / scene they first saw. Rather to try moving back and forth to explore the different perspectives and find the most interesting shot and composition between, for example, foreground and background elements. It’s not a rule or and definitely not an instruction not to use different focal length lenses (zoom or otherwise) just a reminder to experiment with the effect of perspective.
Thus, it’s actually meant to introduce you to exactly the change in perspective you describe above. You move in or out to change the perspective of the subject relative to it’s surroundings. So keeping a 35mm lens on and walking closer to a person will show them in prominence and in context with their surroundings and will usually be quite intimate by virtue of the proximity. Leaving a 300mm lens on and moving away will usually isolate the subject, often combined with shallow depth of field too. Same size subjects giving very different images. It’s a challenge to the easily acquired habit of standing rooted and just zooming to fit on your primary subject. It asks whether you have thought about the shot you are trying to achieve. In that respect, it’s very far from being stupid because it’s the challenge to think more.
Last edited:
briantilley
Veteran Member
Leonard Migliore
Forum Pro
Judging by that example, I can't shuffle either. Maybe I just plod.
larrywilson
Veteran Member
There was a rock wall in front of me that I was shooting over. Hard to bring a range of primes from a focal length of 12-24.Not being argumentative, but from the image posted alone and no other information, the first thing I’m thinking is that if you had “zoomed with your feet” by moving forward a bit, instead of zooming with the lens, you could have eliminated that distracting foreground and got a really great waterfall shot.
Salt Creek Falls, Oregon USA
When your doing wide to ultra wide angle photography standing at where you can't move very far its hard to have a single focal length lens for the right focal length. For an example this waterfall photo I took a while back with a cliff in front and back of me. I was on a trail.
I’m sure there was a reason you couldn’t, but your image alone sort of does the opposite of help your argument.
Technically, there’s no reason you couldn’t have brought a range of primes and mounted the most appropriate one - no need for a zoom - and getting a bit closer might have bagged you a better shot. This is the fundamental idea behind ‘zooming with your feet’ - exchanging convenience for effort - not limiting your focal range.
This image was just for an example, I realize not a real good image.
Lot of cases where it easier to carry one zoom, than 3 prime lenses, especially when hiking into a wilderness as an example.
Larry
Leonard Migliore
Forum Pro
My preferred technique for shooting landscapes is to wander around until I'm standing in a spot where I think it looks good. Then I pick a focal length to frame the stuff that looks good. So I'd say I compose with my feet and zoom with my zoom.There was a rock wall in front of me that I was shooting over. Hard to bring a range of primes from a focal length of 12-24.Not being argumentative, but from the image posted alone and no other information, the first thing I’m thinking is that if you had “zoomed with your feet” by moving forward a bit, instead of zooming with the lens, you could have eliminated that distracting foreground and got a really great waterfall shot.
Salt Creek Falls, Oregon USA
When your doing wide to ultra wide angle photography standing at where you can't move very far its hard to have a single focal length lens for the right focal length. For an example this waterfall photo I took a while back with a cliff in front and back of me. I was on a trail.
I’m sure there was a reason you couldn’t, but your image alone sort of does the opposite of help your argument.
Technically, there’s no reason you couldn’t have brought a range of primes and mounted the most appropriate one - no need for a zoom - and getting a bit closer might have bagged you a better shot. This is the fundamental idea behind ‘zooming with your feet’ - exchanging convenience for effort - not limiting your focal range.
This image was just for an example, I realize not a real good image.
Lot of cases where it easier to carry one zoom, than 3 prime lenses, especially when hiking into a wilderness as an example.
At least, that's what I did when I was using my D300. I carried a 10-24, a 16-85 and a 70-300. Had it all covered. Now I have a D750 which has tons better image quality but it shows up the weakness in my 24-120 zoom. The pictures are better than what I got out of the D300 but it annoys me that I can see fuzzy corners. So I end up carrying a bunch of primes, one of which is usually pretty near what I want. But I'd much rather turn a zoom ring than change a lens.
--
Leonard Migliore
As I said...
-
As I said...
-
As I said...
To reiterate - the fundamental idea is that zooms are a convenience thing. ‘Making do’ with primes is as much of a thought experiment as it is an exercise in improving your photography. Yes, it’s easier and more convenient most of the time to take a zoom, but if you’re willing to put in the effort, no matter how much effort that might be (in this instance, the possibilities range from simply jumping over the wall to anchoring yourself and strapping on a safety harness) you can get a better image.
Are there situations where a zoom is needed due to practical or regulatory constraints? Yes.
Does it make us better photographers to make us think about how to overcome the physical barriers to get the image we want rather than just turning the zoom barrel to change framing? Yes. And your image is a perfect example of the sort of situation where the image could have been improved by getting closer rather than zooming.
larrywilson
Veteran Member
I could not get closer in the image example, a rock wall with a cliff in front of the wall. In the image case I have shown there was no way to move closer or farther away, I don't know why you insist that there was, I was there. Dam good example.
You’re missing the point - the image would have been better if you could have secured a better shooting position. The thought experiment is to get you out of your comfort zone and think differently. The idea is to stop you thinking “there was no way” to get the shot and instantly/habitually compromise, but instead to think about ways that you could get the shot.
The anecdote “f/8 and be there” isn’t an advocation of a good f stop setting - it’s the “be there” part that matters.
The takeaway from this is that it’s not impossible to get the shot - you could use a harness, you could use a rig, you could use a drone. Sure, maybe it wasn’t practical - but that’s a big difference from “there was no way”.
You say it yourself - “it was easier to carry one zoom than 3 primes” - not impossible. It’s a compromise you chose to make. Another photographer may have packed the primes and got a better image - or packed a drone and got the better viewpoint.
I just have your word that it wasn’t practical to get closer on foot, and that’s fine I believe you - dude I wouldn’t want you to put yourself at risk for a photograph! But that doesn’t mean we should ignore the lesson and do as you do - instantly jump to the conclusion that “there was no way” to get the shot. It’s a good lesson, and I stand by what I say - your photo, with what looks like a better shooting spot in the foreground blocking part of the waterfall - is much more an example of how (practicality aside) compromising stops you getting the best photo, rather than an example of the merits of taking a zoom lens.
I don’t know why you’re insiting that I’m insisting from my previous post
larrywilson
Veteran Member
Dude, what you are stating is impractical, unsafe and impossible in the water fall situation. Drones, harnesses and whatever are not practical especially in this area. End of my input.
When all you do is photograph static items, i.e. statues, bowls of fruit, etc. it's very easy to say 'zoom with your feet'. For those of us who shoot subjects that are moving around, or are in places we can't go to or move about, it's obvious that 'zoom with your feet' is a stupid suggestion.
That's not how it's usually presented however. Usually we're told by someone with 15 different primes how inferior and poor our zoom lenses are.
In other words, it's not 'pro composition', it's 'anti-zoom-lens'.
Meanwhile, we're not all photographing statues or park benches - many of our subjects are moving and we can't follow them around.
Last edited:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum