Hack to make your zoom game better

[iljitsch]

I'm preparing to do a vintage streetcar shoot tomorrow, and as always, Youtube has read my mind and suggested some photography videos. One had a very useful tip: when shooting with a zoom lens, keep resetting it to one focal length so whenever you approach a new subject, it's at a consistent focal length, just as you'd be using a prime lens. Then after you've "zoomed with your feet" to get a first go at framing, you then get a second go by zooming, if necessary.

But unfortunately, even though the camera knows exactly what your current focal length is (as shown in the EXIF data), it doesn't show that even with the display in the "everything and the kitchen sink" mode. (On my Z fc at least.)

But... my DX zooms have variable max aperture over the zoom range, so I thought I'd have a look at that. And then I discovered something amazing: with the Nikon 16-50 mm DX, 24 mm is f/4.2 and 35 mm is f/5.3! So just reverse the digits and you're at most a millimeter or two away from your intended zoom level.

Let me know if you think this was helpful.

 

[PLShutterbug]

I'm preparing to do a vintage streetcar shoot tomorrow, and as always, Youtube has read my mind and suggested some photography videos. One had a very useful tip: when shooting with a zoom lens, keep resetting it to one focal length so whenever you approach a new subject, it's at a consistent focal length, just as you'd be using a prime lens. Then after you've "zoomed with your feet" to get a first go at framing, you then get a second go by zooming, if necessary.

But unfortunately, even though the camera knows exactly what your current focal length is (as shown in the EXIF data), it doesn't show that even with the display in the "everything and the kitchen sink" mode. (On my Z fc at least.)

But... my DX zooms have variable max aperture over the zoom range, so I thought I'd have a look at that. And then I discovered something amazing: with the Nikon 16-50 mm DX, 24 mm is f/4.2 and 35 mm is f/5.3! So just reverse the digits and you're at most a millimeter or two away from your intended zoom level.

Let me know if you think this was helpful.

Interesting coincidence - maybe a coincidence …

 

[ghostfox_1]

I'm confused about what the point is. Who cares what focal length you're at, as long as you get the shot you want?

 

[iljitsch]

I'm confused about what the point is. Who cares what focal length you're at, as long as you get the shot you want?

The idea is that you mostly keep at one zoom level so your eye is trained to do something consistent.

 

[ghostfox_1]

I'm confused about what the point is. Who cares what focal length you're at, as long as you get the shot you want?

The idea is that you mostly keep at one zoom level so your eye is trained to do something consistent.

That doesn't really make any sense, but alright...

 

[Suntan]

Everytime I see someone type, "Zoom with their feet" I have to wonder how serious they are about composition.

When I started photography, I put the camera to my eye and then zoomed to get the "composition" (read: crop) that worked best from the position I happened to be in.

As I got some experience, I thought it was the cool thing to do to get some primes, look through the viewfinder, then move around to get the "composition" (read: crop) that worked for the lens.

As I got more experience I learned to pick the location that gave me the composition I wanted, long before I ever raised the camera to my eye (sometimes before even taking the body out of the bag or mounting a lens.) Only after deciding on my composition do I bother to get the camera involved, picking the lens and zooming to get the crop I desire.

As for picking my shots based on a specific/preferred focal length, can't say as I've ever done that.

 

[RBIV]

Everytime I see someone type, "Zoom with their feet" I have to wonder how serious they are about composition.

When I started photography, I put the camera to my eye and then zoomed to get the "composition" (read: crop) that worked best from the position I happened to be in.

As I got some experience, I thought it was the cool thing to do to get some primes, look through the viewfinder, then move around to get the "composition" (read: crop) that worked for the lens.

As I got more experience I learned to pick the location that gave me the composition I wanted, long before I ever raised the camera to my eye (sometimes before even taking the body out of the bag or mounting a lens.) Only after deciding on my composition do I bother to get the camera involved, picking the lens and zooming to get the crop I desire.

As for picking my shots based on a specific/preferred focal length, can't say as I've ever done that.

"Zoom with your feet" -- like so many things in photography -- depends on what and how one shoots. I shot with press photographers for a couple years, and (1) my cameras were never in a bag, and (2) zooms were too large and too slow, so one learned to anticipate where to be depending on the focal length that happened to be mounted (usually a 35mm on a rangefinder and an 85 on an SLR).

Those years are well past me now, but the habit persists, even if I'm taking a static scenic of a beautiful lake or whatever. I'm sure not suggesting that's the best way, but it is a way that can work. I have (and use now and then) a couple of zooms, but I find myself fiddling around with the zoom ring on occasion when I really should be moving around more.

 

[Suntan]

Everytime I see someone type, "Zoom with their feet" I have to wonder how serious they are about composition.

When I started photography, I put the camera to my eye and then zoomed to get the "composition" (read: crop) that worked best from the position I happened to be in.

As I got some experience, I thought it was the cool thing to do to get some primes, look through the viewfinder, then move around to get the "composition" (read: crop) that worked for the lens.

As I got more experience I learned to pick the location that gave me the composition I wanted, long before I ever raised the camera to my eye (sometimes before even taking the body out of the bag or mounting a lens.) Only after deciding on my composition do I bother to get the camera involved, picking the lens and zooming to get the crop I desire.

As for picking my shots based on a specific/preferred focal length, can't say as I've ever done that.

"Zoom with your feet" -- like so many things in photography -- depends on what and how one shoots. I shot with press photographers for a couple years, and (1) my cameras were never in a bag, and (2) zooms were too large and too slow, so one learned to anticipate where to be depending on the focal length that happened to be mounted (usually a 35mm on a rangefinder and an 85 on an SLR).

Those years are well past me now, but the habit persists, even if I'm taking a static scenic of a beautiful lake or whatever. I'm sure not suggesting that's the best way, but it is a way that can work. I have (and use now and then) a couple of zooms, but I find myself fiddling around with the zoom ring on occasion when I really should be moving around more.

I've shot press photography for a couple of years. I've never found limiting myself to just a pair of focal lengths beneficial in getting the best composition for the event I was trying to cover.

Obviously if all a guy is willing to carry is one or two little lenses, then yes, walk to the one or two locations that lens will allow you to shoot from. The choice then becomes easy.

As for the limitations of old camera systems (low ISO, low AF performance with dim lenses, and low zoom IQ) those really aren't limitations today, for mmost all situations. So I guess I fail to see the relevance to the discussion of past equipment. If people find limiting themselves to just 2 (or 3 or 4) focal lengths makes it easier to not get overloaded with choice, or just out of a desire not to change, that's certainly an option. As long as they don't delude themselves by claiming it isn't a limitation.

As for fiddling with a zoom ring, again decide on the picture to be made before consulting the camera's buttons and dials.

 

[RBIV]

Everytime I see someone type, "Zoom with their feet" I have to wonder how serious they are about composition.

When I started photography, I put the camera to my eye and then zoomed to get the "composition" (read: crop) that worked best from the position I happened to be in.

As I got some experience, I thought it was the cool thing to do to get some primes, look through the viewfinder, then move around to get the "composition" (read: crop) that worked for the lens.

As I got more experience I learned to pick the location that gave me the composition I wanted, long before I ever raised the camera to my eye (sometimes before even taking the body out of the bag or mounting a lens.) Only after deciding on my composition do I bother to get the camera involved, picking the lens and zooming to get the crop I desire.

As for picking my shots based on a specific/preferred focal length, can't say as I've ever done that.

"Zoom with your feet" -- like so many things in photography -- depends on what and how one shoots. I shot with press photographers for a couple years, and (1) my cameras were never in a bag, and (2) zooms were too large and too slow, so one learned to anticipate where to be depending on the focal length that happened to be mounted (usually a 35mm on a rangefinder and an 85 on an SLR).

Those years are well past me now, but the habit persists, even if I'm taking a static scenic of a beautiful lake or whatever. I'm sure not suggesting that's the best way, but it is a way that can work. I have (and use now and then) a couple of zooms, but I find myself fiddling around with the zoom ring on occasion when I really should be moving around more.

I've shot press photography for a couple of years. I've never found limiting myself to just a pair of focal lengths beneficial in getting the best composition for the event I was trying to cover.

OK. That's your experience, it's reasonable, I accept that.

Obviously if all a guy is willing to carry is one or two little lenses, then yes, walk to the one or two locations that lens will allow you to shoot from. The choice then becomes easy.

Yes, it does.

As for the limitations of old camera systems (low ISO, low AF performance with dim lenses, and low zoom IQ) those really aren't limitations today, for mmost all situations.I

I agree the modern zooms are good. They are rather large. And in some cases can be intimidating to subjects, non-photographers, whatever. Not always. But sometimes. Thinking in terms of "street" and "photojournalism" here.

So I guess I fail to see the relevance to the discussion of past equipment. If people find limiting themselves to just 2 (or 3 or 4) focal lengths makes it easier to not get overloaded with choice, or just out of a desire not to change, that's certainly an option.

Yes. That was the point I was trying to make. It *is* an option.

As long as they don't delude themselves by claiming it isn't a limitation.

I've viewed, printed, and assisted too many professional photographers producing stunning images using prime lenses to suggest to them, as a factory representative, that they might consider a zoom so they weren't so limited in composition. We'll have to disagree here, although use of a zoom probably wouldn't hurt them either.

As for fiddling with a zoom ring, again decide on the picture to be made before consulting the camera's buttons and dials.

Yeah. I pretty much agree. But for me, that zoom ring is just a tempting twist. Plus the resolution and dynamic range of our current cameras often allow post processing zoom.

My point is, shooting with primes and "zooming with your feet" seems to work better for some people. I suspect at the end of the day it has something to do with "seeing" the potential image, which I think the OP alluded to. Whatever. I'll leave it with an Adams suggestion that one component to producing a fine image is "knowing where to stand." :-D (humor...)

 

[busb]

Hopefully, we learn to adopt to what actually works for us. I'm with those who suggest you try to select your position before taking a single shot. Learn all the "Rules" 1st then learn when to break them.

Many photographers have their pet ways of working such always using manual, Auto ISO, shooting in mono only, shooting into the light etc - they fashionable for a while then enter the general tool chest.

 

[bikenerd]

The idea is that you mostly keep at one zoom level so your eye is trained to do something consistent.

Isn't this why they make prime lenses?

 

[AWG_Pics]

I have some zooms, but for most of my visible light shooting I have drifted into using primes almost exclusively. Hence, I have a pretty good idea of what I will be shooting, under what weather and lighting conditions and only shoot when I have a composition in mind and positioned myself to get it.

For infrared I use zooms exclusively. Perhaps because I am still trying to develop a feel for infrared compositions.

For me, not for everyone, zooms seem like an interim phase of learning to shoot.

When I walk around I use a 26mm, a 28mm or a 40mm prime. When I am shooting landscapes I use a 16mm or a 20mm for large subjects like rivers or canyon walls. Sometimes a 50mm or even a 105mm for panos. When doing birds in flight, and perched, I tend to use a 500mm or if in thick woods a 300mm.

I always carry zooms in my gear bag, but rarely use them.

 

[Suntan]

I have some zooms, but for most of my visible light shooting I have drifted into using primes almost exclusively. Hence, I have a pretty good idea of what I will be shooting, under what weather and lighting conditions and only shoot when I have a composition in mind and positioned myself to get it.

For infrared I use zooms exclusively. Perhaps because I am still trying to develop a feel for infrared compositions.

For me, not for everyone, zooms seem like an interim phase of learning to shoot.

When I walk around I use a 26mm, a 28mm or a 40mm prime. When I am shooting landscapes I use a 16mm or a 20mm for large subjects like rivers or canyon walls. Sometimes a 50mm

From the standpoint of compositional freedom, how is carrying a 16, 20, 26, 28, 40 and 50 really any different than a zoom or two?

or even a 105mm for panos. When doing birds in flight, and perched, I tend to use a 500mm or if in thick woods a 300mm.

I always carry zooms in my gear bag, but rarely use them.

 

[AWG_Pics]

From the standpoint of compositional freedom, how is carrying a 16, 20, 26, 28, 40 and 50 really any different than a zoom or two?

Well, that is the root of it. For me compositional freedom can be too free, as in wildly unconstrained. When I have a prime on the camera, the infinity of possible compositions shrinks to a manageable range. It is still infinite, but within a narrower scope. Perhaps it is the subjects I prefer to shoot.

Don't get me wrong, I have lots of zooms, some of them quite excellent. Gradually I have stopped using them because they lead me to a sloppy shooting style that I don't like.

Although, as I wrote previously, I do use zooms with my Infrared converted D810. I will try out several compositions from one location at different zoom levels. Still trying to get an intuitive feel for how I like to shoot IR, I suppose. Will I eventually move to primes for IR? Who knows? I am not there yet.

Your experience is different. That's fine. You don't shoot for me and I don't shoot for you.

 

[BasilG]

I'm confused about what the point is. Who cares what focal length you're at, as long as you get the shot you want?

The idea is that you mostly keep at one zoom level so your eye is trained to do something consistent.

This makes sense if you want a consistent perspective among your shots (why you would want that is a different topic), but only works if you are free to move around your subject. Which is often not the case. Personally, I have never used a zoom like this.

 

[BasilG]

The idea is that you mostly keep at one zoom level so your eye is trained to do something consistent.

Isn't this why they make prime lenses?

They make prime lenses because they can be made faster, better, smaller, lighter, and/or cheaper (well - usually a subset thereof because some of these are competing design goals).

 

[Suntan]

From the standpoint of compositional freedom, how is carrying a 16, 20, 26, 28, 40 and 50 really any different than a zoom or two?

Well, that is the root of it. For me compositional freedom can be too free, as in wildly unconstrained.

How many additional primes added to your bag would tip you over into "wildly unconstrained"? Would just adding a 35mm to what you already have be the limit? Maybe an additional 18mm and a 45mm would tip over into too much freedom?

Frankly, the large number of primes you already have seems close enough to compositional freedom already. I don't understand the argument of having 6 different focal lengths under 50mm in the name of forcing myself into one choice. It sounds like you just prefer to use primes, and as such you carry an entire bag full of them in order to have similar compositional freedom as a couple of zooms. Which is perfectly fine. Half my lenses are primes. I'm not anti-prime.

Again, my original comment was against the notion that "zooming with your feet" is a valid compositional tool. It's not. (It's just a workaround to get the field of view you want despite the limited focal length you choose to use.) I'm specifically in favor of finding your composition before even getting the camera involved (whether it has a zoom or a bag of primes ready to mount on it.)

When I have a prime on the camera, the infinity of possible compositions shrinks to a manageable range.

This is fine. As long as a person's honest about this, fewer choices is still fewer choices.

It is still infinite, but within a narrower scope.

Perhaps it is the subjects I prefer to shoot.

Highly doubtful. People shoot all sorts of things with both zooms and primes.

Don't get me wrong, I have lots of zooms, some of them quite excellent. Gradually I have stopped using them because they lead me to a sloppy shooting style that I don't like.

Although, as I wrote previously, I do use zooms with my Infrared converted D810. I will try out several compositions from one location at different zoom levels. Still trying to get an intuitive feel for how I like to shoot IR, I suppose. Will I eventually move to primes for IR? Who knows? I am not there yet.

Your experience is different. That's fine. You don't shoot for me and I don't shoot for you.

Sounds like our experiences have a lot in common. You just prefer to choose your focal length by digging around in your bag first.

 

[AWG_Pics]

From the standpoint of compositional freedom, how is carrying a 16, 20, 26, 28, 40 and 50 really any different than a zoom or two?

Well, that is the root of it. For me compositional freedom can be too free, as in wildly unconstrained.

How many additional primes added to your bag would tip you over into "wildly unconstrained"? Would just adding a 35mm to what you already have be the limit? Maybe an additional 18mm and a 45mm would tip over into too much freedom?

Frankly, the large number of primes you already have seems close enough to compositional freedom already. I don't understand the argument of having 6 different focal lengths under 50mm in the name of forcing myself into one choice. It sounds like you just prefer to use primes, and as such you carry an entire bag full of them in order to have similar compositional freedom as a couple of zooms. Which is perfectly fine. Half my lenses are primes. I'm not anti-prime.

Again, my original comment was against the notion that "zooming with your feet" is a valid compositional tool. It's not. (It's just a workaround to get the field of view you want despite the limited focal length you choose to use.) I'm specifically in favor of finding your composition before even getting the camera involved (whether it has a zoom or a bag of primes ready to mount on it.)

When I have a prime on the camera, the infinity of possible compositions shrinks to a manageable range.

This is fine. As long as a person's honest about this, fewer choices is still fewer choices.

It is still infinite, but within a narrower scope.

Perhaps it is the subjects I prefer to shoot.

Highly doubtful. People shoot all sorts of things with both zooms and primes.

Don't get me wrong, I have lots of zooms, some of them quite excellent. Gradually I have stopped using them because they lead me to a sloppy shooting style that I don't like.

Although, as I wrote previously, I do use zooms with my Infrared converted D810. I will try out several compositions from one location at different zoom levels. Still trying to get an intuitive feel for how I like to shoot IR, I suppose. Will I eventually move to primes for IR? Who knows? I am not there yet.

Your experience is different. That's fine. You don't shoot for me and I don't shoot for you.

Sounds like our experiences have a lot in common. You just prefer to choose your focal length by digging around in your bag first.

O.K. This is funny. I should have not assumed you knew already that I don't go out on a day shoot with all those primes at once. Maybe two, or at most three, but often just one.

So I might go out with the 500 f4 PF and carry the 26 f2.8 along.

Or I might go out with the 16mm and carry the 40mm as well.

If I go out backcountry for a month I will obviously have more than one body. Usually three actually, one of which will be the IR converted D810, with three zooms. The other two bodies will be accompanied by up to a half dozen lenses. One zoom, the 70-200 f28E FL most likely. then a range of primes from wide to long. Maybe, say, the 16, 40, 105 (for macro), 400 (this is the f2.8 and pretty heavy, for tripod work) and 500 f4 (light and good IQ).

Short driving trips, a few days or a week, I will have one visible light body and a couple of lenses. Probably the IR body & lenses as well. They fit into a compact backpack nicely.

For air travel I never take more than one body and usually one or two lenses. A prime and a mid-range zoom, which gets very little use. I don't understand the notion of carrying two bodies and bunches of gear on travel by air. Not once have I had a camera or lens failure. And I have been to quite a few hellish, harsh places.

After 45 years of photography, mostly in association with work related travel in Europe, Africa and the Middle East, as well as all over the Western US, until retiring 5 years ago, I found what works for me. Mostly primes, occasionally zooms.

 

[iljitsch]

This weekend, I went out shooting old streetcars (see here if anyone cares) and when they're not moving, I just choose a position to shoot from that gives a a composition that I like (i.e., mostly avoiding stuff that I don't want to have in the shot) and then zoom in/out accordingly.

But I was also shooting them driving along from besides the tracks. It's not quite sports or wildlife level, but you still get only little time to take your shot if you don't want to use excessively long shots which flatten everything. But the good part is that you know exactly where they're going, so it's possible to zoom in to exactly the right focal length to capture streetcars of a known length. So I kept resetting my zoom level to 35 mm each time I had adjusted it for some reason, and I did found that predictability useful.

As for "zooming with your feet": between something like 30 and 70 mm full frame equivalent, there are many styles of photography where you can just move a bit closer or further back to get a good composition and it's fairly easy to get by without the ability to zoom. And of course in this digital age it's super easy to crop after the fact, further reducing the need for minor zooming.

I'm not sure that I'd ever be able to make good use of a 10 mm DX prime lens (15 mm full frame) and thus never buy/carry one. But a 10 - 24 mm DX ultra wide angle zoom (15 - 36 mm) is a killer lens for streetscape photography.

On the long side, I can envision some use for exotic primes, but those are still quite limited use cases, a zoom would be much, much better.

As a Nikon Z fc user, I'm reluctant to change lenses in general and extremely so outdoors, as the sensor is exposed at that point and it gets dirty very quickly. Come on Nikon, how hard is it to close the shutter when powering off the camera!? So walking around with a bunch of primes is basically a no-go for me.

Back in the day I would travel with my 18-55 mm kit lens, 70-300 mm tele and then a 50 f/1.8 for low light. On Z, there is no gap between 16-50 and 50-250, and I can either bring my 40 mm f/2 or 24 mm f/1.7 for non-static low light.