Up for debate: shallow or large DOF when traveling

deednets · Nov 15, 2018

There are numerous threads talking about "what lens to take" - to Burkina Faso etc. etc. Often enough zooms are recommended to "cover all the bases" from 10mm to 400mm at the extreme, to (read this just today somewhere here) "take the 27/2.8" - and leave it at that.

When Jerry visited the Baltic are of Europe earlier on this year and I suggested to take the 56/1.2. He mentioned that he didn't have much use for this lens as such but I thought at the time that using the 56 would add a little bit of "difference" to the typical large DOF pics one gets when using zooms e.g. the F4.2 FF equivalent of the 16-55/2.8 - or worse - the 10-24/4 where even Auntie Madge standing behind me would still be in focus ...

I have a lot of time for Jerry (and others here...) but thought at the time that it was a pity that he didn't fully engage with one of the lenses he actually owns. But we all tick differently, so it's all good.

Another travel nut, The Greg, used lenses that arent't even on the market yet, but think he also doesn't use much low DOF when he takes his pics. From memory I can't remember having seen any shallow DOF pics of his. And he would be THE capacity for all things Fuji, right?? ;-)

A user here on this forum asked what lenses to take to South East Asia (3 months, so a healthy time, it's been a long time since I used to count travel in months rather than weeks...) and some people suggested large DOF lenses (by comparison).

So, coming back to what I wanted to put up for debate: If there was no "it depends" option, what's your take on using rather shallow DOP for travel?

Here are some pics taken with the 56/1.2 (for street??????):

Deed

Vic Chapman · Nov 15, 2018

Hi Deeds, even the shallow DoF images show more than a hint of the environment. A fast lens can used at small apertures but vice versa isn't true. I don't have the 56 nor will I unless I find a very cheap one because I'm well covered for the FL if not for the aperture.

Perhaps it was doubling up on the FL with the 16-55 f2.8 that made Jerry decide to not take it. That's part of the reason I use the 90mm f2 for portraits and candids - because it's a different FL. I believe Jerry may have taken that also as part of his walk around setup. It is what I use and sometimes joined by a 14mm - 12mm would probably be better for interiors.

Anyway, I enjoyed your selection here.

Vic

--
The sky is full of holes that let the rain get in, the holes are very small - that's why the rain is thin.
Spike Milligan. Writer, comedian, poet, Goon. 1918 - 2002

Plagen · Nov 15, 2018

Absolutely marvelous images. It's a perfect travel, yes travel, lens.

To really appreciate the photos, need to view them at their full size, not at the reduced postal stamp size. Especially for the first image, the guy just pops up off the frame.

Can't even imagine being happy traveling with the upcoming 16-80 f/4(!) lens. It's almost like using a cell phone.

Jerry-astro · Nov 15, 2018

As always, terrific pics, Deed, and I do appreciate the callout and and all the advice you've given me in the past. A few thoughts to share on your post and travel photography in general. My current focus when traveling tends to be a lot more on places and things than it is on people. That can (and probably should) change over time as I develop my skills, but the lens setup I have now is fairly heavily influenced by that bias. For example, I don't own the 56/1.2 any more. I may be one of very few who have owned the lens and then decided not to keep it, but it honestly didn't get a lot of use, either at home or when traveling. That's most likely driven by my tendency to photograph places and things rather than people. I think it will take a lot of time for me to develop skills in composition, timing, etc. when photographing people while traveling, so it will be a gradual transition.

As I mentioned, my current lens setup is strongly influenced by this bias: 10-24, 16-55, 100-400 + TC, and 12mm Zeiss Touit (which is my only prime at the moment). This will limit my options for subject isolation, so any sort of portraiture when traveling that offers decent subject isolation and thin DOF really isn't much of an option. So, to some extent my ability to expand into more personal and intimate photography when traveling is sort of limited now by my equipment. As my interest (and budget) grows, I will likely add a lens back into my collection that will help me expand into this area, but for now, it's not all that practical.

I continue to be way impressed by your work with people and it will likely be one of the things that will inspire me to move on and dip my toe into that genre.

tc

--
Jerry-Astro
Fujifilm X Forum Co-Mod

Vermont3133 · Nov 15, 2018

Deeds, you have to be psychic, mate!

Here I was, pondering a trip to Burkina Faso [as one does] and wondering what lenses to take!

But to answer your question....depends on one's shooting style....for myself and a lot of people, it's generally f/8 and get it all in.....or the way you often seem operate....up close and personal and f/1.2 or be damned!

And the results, eloquently, speak for themselves!

500px

500px.com

Bill Ferris · Nov 15, 2018

deednets said:
So, coming back to what I wanted to put up for debate: If there was no "it depends" option, what's your take on using rather shallow DOP for travel?

When I travel to do photography, there's usually an emphasis on landscapes and wildlife. I love shooting at or near wide open when photographing wildlife. Often, I use a wide aperture as a tool to manage ISO but I also appreciate the separation of the subject from the background a large aperture delivers.

I typically prefer a deep depth of field when photographing landscapes but there are times when it's fun to approach a landscape photo as a portrait shoot and go for a more shallow depth of field.

--
Bill Ferris Photography
Flagstaff, AZ
http://www.billferris.photoshelter.com

The Davinator · Nov 15, 2018

Wonderful photographs! The 56 is a magic lens in my opinion...beautiful rendering.

Fezhat · Nov 15, 2018

Vermont3133 said:
Deeds, you have to be psychic, mate!

Here I was, pondering a trip to Burkina Faso [as one does] and wondering what lenses to take!

But to answer your question....depends on one's shooting style....for myself and a lot of people, it's generally f/8 and get it all in.....or the way you often seem operate....up close and personal and f/1.2 or be damned!

And the results, eloquently, speak for themselves!

https://500px.com/transact3133

Hi

I went to Mali, Burkina Faso and Côte d'Ivoire with a camera and a 50mm FF equivalent lens only. It was great, ended up with some of the best stuff I ever did, especially at a remote border crossing got stuck there for 2 weeks ........ there was one less chicken running around every third day. I always supplement stuff with postcards bats looking at everything through a lens

My best combo these days is a X-E3, 35mm f1.4, an old 50mm Leica mount lens, the Ricoh GRII and a smartphone. All stays in a bag more often than used on trips

cheekz4dayz · Nov 15, 2018

I'm still a noob so not in the best situation to answer but it basically just depends on where I'm going. As i've grown in photography I'm also noticing I like primes a lot more than zoom so for my trip to Ghana & Nigeria later this year I'm just taking an X100F and a fujixt-2+16mm (for food and night shots). I wanted the X100F just to not stand out as much while out and about. We'll see what happens.

TL

R: it just depends on where I'm going and how comfortable I want to be on the trip.

Greg7579 · Nov 15, 2018

Hey Deed -- great post. Very interesting. I should probably read the responses before writing this, but I didn't.

Those are some nice shots.

Sure, when focused on a face in a crowd or city scene it is nice to shoot wide open with a fast lens and get the bokeh and separation that people crave. And when I shoot in churches or palaces or cathedrals I want as much as I can get for light gathering, which means F1.2, F1.4, F2 or at the slowest, F2.8.

But for normal travel shots you want more DOF. Not less.

That's a pretty simple concept.

So, I want at least F2.8 on my lenses so I can use it when I need it, even though the vast majority of the shots will be at F8 or more. But when I need the F 1.2, F1.4, F2 or F2.8, it is nice to have a fast lens that can do it when you want to.

That is why I keep the Rok 12, Mighty 16 and 56 in the bag, and why the Brick is glued to the XH-1 most of the time. It is why the 23/35/50 F2s are so easy and cool to take along in the bag. And the 90 F2.

I don't want a lens slower then F2.8, even though I probably shoot 85% of my shots at f8.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas

Greg Johnson’s albums | Flickr

www.flickr.com

dv312 · Nov 15, 2018

When shooting people (individuals) I prefer shallow DOF to make the subject stand out

However, in practice, I usually resort to a light zoom , say the 18-55 or the 10-24 when traveling and this 'forces' me to go for large DOF mostly

I ended up shooting mainly groups of people or landscapes and find myself using 1 body and 1 lens most of the time

On my next trip, I 'll try something different

I 'll carry 2 bodies and 2 lenses on me: the 50-140 on one and either the 10-24 or the upcoming 16-80 on the other

The former for isolated folks like you shot here, and the latter for everything else

Voila

TFS

jjz2 · Nov 15, 2018

I think it’s fine. I’ve used 85 fov for street shots like that also. A lot of cultures don’t want you all up in their grill with a camera and act weird, so the rules that apply to a 50 and a little timid photographer apply even more so here. I used it a lot walking around souks in Morocco.

Its still not that big and on a mirrorless body so should be somewhat stealthy esp without the hood.

I’d probably stop down a bit more, but then becomes harder to stop the motion if you are still shooting into the evening hours on a longer lens like that.

deednets · Nov 15, 2018

Bill Ferris said:
deednets said:

So, coming back to what I wanted to put up for debate: If there was no "it depends" option, what's your take on using rather shallow DOP for travel?

Click to expand...

When I travel to do photography, there's usually an emphasis on landscapes and wildlife. I love shooting at or near wide open when photographing wildlife. Often, I use a wide aperture as a tool to manage ISO but I also appreciate the separation of the subject from the background a large aperture delivers.

I typically prefer a deep depth of field when photographing landscapes but there are times when it's fun to approach a landscape photo as a portrait shoot and go for a more shallow depth of field.

Excellent post! Thanks!

Deed

deednets · Nov 15, 2018

cheekz4dayz said:
I'm still a noob so not in the best situation to answer but it basically just depends on where I'm going. As i've grown in photography I'm also noticing I like primes a lot more than zoom so for my trip to Ghana & Nigeria later this year I'm just taking an X100F and a fujixt-2+16mm (for food and night shots). I wanted the X100F just to not stand out as much while out and about. We'll see what happens.

TLR: it just depends on where I'm going and how comfortable I want to be on the trip.

Nigeria?? Golly .. unless things have changed over there, this one would be near last on my countries I ever wanted to visit ...

Deed

deednets · Nov 15, 2018

Greg7579 said:
Hey Deed -- great post. Very interesting. I should probably read the responses before writing this, but I didn't.

Those are some nice shots.

Sure, when focused on a face in a crowd or city scene it is nice to shoot wide open with a fast lens and get the bokeh and separation that people crave. And when I shoot in churches or palaces or cathedrals I want as much as I can get for light gathering, which means F1.2, F1.4, F2 or at the slowest, F2.8.

But for normal travel shots you want more DOF. Not less.

That's a pretty simple concept.

So, I want at least F2.8 on my lenses so I can use it when I need it, even though the vast majority of the shots will be at F8 or more. But when I need the F 1.2, F1.4, F2 or F2.8, it is nice to have a fast lens that can do it when you want to.

That is why I keep the Rok 12, Mighty 16 and 56 in the bag, and why the Brick is glued to the XH-1 most of the time. It is why the 23/35/50 F2s are so easy and cool to take along in the bag. And the 90 F2.

I don't want a lens slower then F2.8, even though I probably shoot 85% of my shots at f8.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

Even at F8 you still benefit from the faster glass as the viewfinder typically uses the maximum aperture.

I disagree with your statement that you "want" more DOF - unless you were speaking for the majority (or perceived majority??) here .. ;-) as I "WANT" less DOF ...

Always as I don't have much interest in looking at pics that have everything in focus, like they were taken with a cellphone.

... but then I do take a LOT of portraits like the one shown here taken with the quickly borrowed 80/2.8 Macro. Not a bad rendering I thought. The woman sells pancakes/rotis and thought I was a hopeless case when I told her that I thought that she was an interesting woman ...

Deed

deednets · Nov 15, 2018

dv312 said:
When shooting people (individuals) I prefer shallow DOF to make the subject stand out

However, in practice, I usually resort to a light zoom , say the 18-55 or the 10-24 when traveling and this 'forces' me to go for large DOF mostly

I ended up shooting mainly groups of people or landscapes and find myself using 1 body and 1 lens most of the time

On my next trip, I 'll try something different

I 'll carry 2 bodies and 2 lenses on me: the 50-140 on one and either the 10-24 or the upcoming 16-80 on the other

The former for isolated folks like you shot here, and the latter for everything else

Voila

TFS

Whatever works for you!! I tend to reduce ratehr than expand what I photograph so a small point of interest is usually already enough for me.

Deed

norjens · Nov 15, 2018

Reading your question literally doesn't make much sense to me: "If there was no "it depends" option, what's your take on using rather shallow DOP for travel?"

You want to rule out "it depends", but that really is the answer! Why should the question of whether you are traveling or not make a difference for what makes the best composition in the moment? Some subjects work better with shallow dof, others work best with a wide. Out of your photos, I would say most work best with a wide aperture, while number 4 and 8 would be best at f8 in my opinion. So; it depends, and that's the only direct answer to your question. However, it seems to me that is not really what you are asking.

The thing travel does affect is what glass you choose to bring, and it seems this is what you really mean. You are questioning the paradigm that the answer to "what lenses do I bring for travel" is to get as great a focal length coverage as possible.

An f1.4 lens can always be stopped down to f4, so of course you want the f1.4 if you can! Just like greater focal range increases your range of options for compositions, a wider maximum aperture increases your range of options for lighting conditions and subject isolation.

However, you can't carry all the glass in the world, so there's a compromise between three factors. More focal range (whether it be zooms or bringing multiple primes) and wider apertures both means carrying more glass, and these two factors work multiplicative with each other.

The traditional wisdom is to optimize for compactness and/or focal range, as in the examples you give: "take the 27/2.8 - and leave it at that" or "10mm to 400mm". Something in the lower left area of the lens compromise triangle.
I agree with you that this is flawed, and getting something with a wide aperture is also useful. It is however a compromise, so I would think about it like this: Which focal lenghts do I want to use, and for which of them is wide aperture the most important? This way you can spend your "weight budget" on wide aperture where you need it, and let it go elsewhere.
For example, if you are an astrophotography enthusiast and are traveling to the Southern hemsiphere you probably want to prioritize bright wide angle lenses and might bring both the 8-16 f2.8 and the 16 f1.4 (more likely you are using a bigger sensor system, though) and just grab the 27 f2.8 to have some flexibility on the normal end. If you're going to Hong Kong and want to South East Asia or Hong Kong and want to do some "street" or documentary style photography or portraits of family then you'll want the aperture more on the long end like 35 or 56mm.

I think a good flexible combination is taking the 10-24mm f4 and the 50mm f2. The 10-24 lets you really capture the whole of the environment you like, and goes all the way to 24mm which is good for "environmental portraits" at f4. Meanwhile the 50mm f2 is a good portrait and street lens while not being so long as to be unusable indoors where lighting may be low. The 35mm f1.4 can serve the same purpose, the 56 is even brighter but is just too long for anything indoors in my opinion.

deednets · Nov 15, 2018

jjz2 said:
I think it’s fine. I’ve used 85 fov for street shots like that also. A lot of cultures don’t want you all up in their grill with a camera and act weird, so the rules that apply to a 50 and a little timid photographer apply even more so here. I used it a lot walking around souks in Morocco.

Its still not that big and on a mirrorless body so should be somewhat stealthy esp without the hood.

I’d probably stop down a bit more, but then becomes harder to stop the motion if you are still shooting into the evening hours on a longer lens like that.

I am 6"3 and in countries like Myanmar or Idia I am a superstar, often asked to pose for selfies ... It goes both ways, but even without the selfie "thing" I don't have issues mixing with the crowd and seem to - after all these years - to get away with it.

Deed

deednets · Nov 15, 2018

norjens said:
Reading your question literally doesn't make much sense to me: "If there was no "it depends" option, what's your take on using rather shallow DOP for travel?"

You want to rule out "it depends", but that really is the answer! Why should the question of whether you are traveling or not make a difference for what makes the best composition in the moment? Some subjects work better with shallow dof, others work best with a wide. Out of your photos, I would say most work best with a wide aperture, while number 4 and 8 would be best at f8 in my opinion. So; it depends, and that's the only direct answer to your question. However, it seems to me that is not really what you are asking.

The thing travel does affect is what glass you choose to bring, and it seems this is what you really mean. You are questioning the paradigm that the answer to "what lenses do I bring for travel" is to get as great a focal length coverage as possible.

An f1.4 lens can always be stopped down to f4, so of course you want the f1.4 if you can! Just like greater focal range increases your range of options for compositions, a wider maximum aperture increases your range of options for lighting conditions and subject isolation.

However, you can't carry all the glass in the world, so there's a compromise between three factors. More focal range (whether it be zooms or bringing multiple primes) and wider apertures both means carrying more glass, and these two factors work multiplicative with each other.

The traditional wisdom is to optimize for compactness and/or focal range, as in the examples you give: "take the 27/2.8 - and leave it at that" or "10mm to 400mm". Something in the lower left area of the lens compromise triangle.
I agree with you that this is flawed, and getting something with a wide aperture is also useful. It is however a compromise, so I would think about it like this: Which focal lenghts do I want to use, and for which of them is wide aperture the most important? This way you can spend your "weight budget" on wide aperture where you need it, and let it go elsewhere.
For example, if you are an astrophotography enthusiast and are traveling to the Southern hemsiphere you probably want to prioritize bright wide angle lenses and might bring both the 8-16 f2.8 and the 16 f1.4 (more likely you are using a bigger sensor system, though) and just grab the 27 f2.8 to have some flexibility on the normal end. If you're going to Hong Kong and want to South East Asia or Hong Kong and want to do some "street" or documentary style photography or portraits of family then you'll want the aperture more on the long end like 35 or 56mm.
I think a good flexible combination is taking the 10-24mm f4 and the 50mm f2. The 10-24 lets you really capture the whole of the environment you like, and goes all the way to 24mm which is good for "environmental portraits" at f4. Meanwhile the 50mm f2 is a good portrait and street lens while not being so long as to be unusable indoors where lighting may be low. The 35mm f1.4 can serve the same purpose, the 56 is even brighter but is just too long for anything indoors in my opinion.

We possibly come from 2 complete different corners of what's possible regarding "what gear to take".

Put into context: I would never want the 10-24 as I wouldn't know what to shoot with it, the results leave me lackluster and the distortion ... don't get me starte on that lens ... F4??? Why bother would be my take on that lens where you would consider taking it. Diametrally opposed I guess.

You have 19 posts here but use BOLD in your response, so not really a newbie when it comes to internet based debates right??

10-24/4 borrowed for an hour from some other traveller.

norjens · Nov 15, 2018

deednets said:
We possibly come from 2 complete different corners of what's possible regarding "what gear to take".

Put into context: I would never want the 10-24 as I wouldn't know what to shoot with it, the results leave me lackluster and the distortion ... don't get me starte on that lens ... F4??? Why bother would be my take on that lens where you would consider taking it. Diametrally opposed I guess.

You have 19 posts here but use BOLD in your response, so not really a newbie when it comes to internet based debates right??

I think you're misunderstanding me here. I'm not saying what is and isn't possible to take traveling. I'm saying on any single trip there is such a limit, but of course the limit for one trip might be what fits in a small bag next to shoes and sunglasses while for another it might be a dedicated photo gear backpack.
Focal length preferences are personal. For me the 10-24mm isn't meant for being at 10mm all the time. Distortion is unavoidable at those wide angles, the manufacturer can only edit what types of distortion there is. Regardless, it's not a 10mm prime which many seem to treat it as, it goes all the way to 24mm which is squarely in the "normal" range. F4 isn't very impressive, it is a compromise between that and the other factors I have mentioned. For me, that is the right compromise to make as there is usually light (or time for longer exposure) enough in the situations where I would use a wider angle, but it might not be for another's use cases. That's often the problem with lens discussions; we extrapolate our use case to someone else's.

As for your last sentence, again I'm not really sure what you mean. Not sure if you are you accusing me of being a "newbie when it comes to internet based debates", or saying someone who isn't a newbie should know better than to make use of bold text. Regardless, I used the bold text to emphasize what was actually my main point, but I recognize that it can be interpreted other ways, including offensively. It is of course better to improve writing technique to reach the goal of emphasizing what the main point is, but the post was already long as is.

Up for debate: shallow or large DOF when traveling

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Community Leader

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts