Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » SLR Photography Question About Lenses (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: SLR Photography Question About Lenses
Christopher Duvall
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 500
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 03-28-2005 03:35 AM      Profile for Christopher Duvall   Email Christopher Duvall   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Next year, I will be in a situation where I will be doing press style and paparazzi photography. The room(s) I will be in will not be too large and I will have good access to the subjects so I will not not need anything major.

I just want to know what lens would be a good workhorse and very versatile for me. I currently have an 18mm-55mm lens and a 70mm-300mm zoom lens and I am using the Digital Rebel (and will be buying the XT version soon) but I do not want to constantly have to change lenses out. Also, should I consider the IS or L series lens or should I save my money stick to the standard lenses?

I am relatively new to this so any help would be awesome.

I am thinking something like a 28mm-135mm range zoom lens to cover the wide/standard and portrait area.

 |  IP: Logged

Stephen Brown
Film Handler

Posts: 91
From: Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 03-28-2005 06:47 AM      Profile for Stephen Brown   Email Stephen Brown   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Tamron have released a new lens that should fill the bill for you.

Its an 18-200mm lens that will fit on the canon-D range.

Here is the link to the product page

Tamron 18-200 Lens

quote:
Product Overview
Di II: Lenses are designed for exclusive use on digital cameras with smaller-size imagers and inherit all of the benefits of our Di products. These lenses are not designed for 35mm film cameras and digital cameras with image sensors larger than 24mm x 16mm.

At Tamron, our quest has always been to make the ideal zoom lens. As a result of this ongoing challenge, we have introduced the concept of our high-power zoom lens in the new AF18-200mm XR Di II for exclusive use with digital SLRs. Tamron's original development of proprietary core technologies such as Aspherical element production, Multiple Cam Mechanism and Integrated Focus Cam design lend to the creation of the world's lightest, most compact 11.1X zoom lens made for digital SLR cameras.

The 18-200mm (28-300 when converted to 35mm) provides the digital photographer with the versatility of a true wide to ultra tele zoom in an amazingly easy to use design.

Hope this helps.

Steve Brown

 |  IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 03-28-2005 07:47 AM      Profile for Scott Norwood   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Norwood   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The longer-range zoom lenses are almost never very sharp. An 18-200 sounds nice on paper, but is probably going to be very heavy and large and less sharp than primes or shorter zooms. If you want to get this, try to use it in a store or buy from somewhere with a liberal return policy before you commit to it.

You'll probably have to figure out what focal lengths work best for you. For 35mm, I use 24mm, 50mm, 200mm, and a 35-105 zoom. I'm happy with this mix (and would like to get a 20mm and 35mm), but it may not work at all for you (and you'll need to convert the focal lengths to ones appropriate for the smaller sensor size for digital cameras).

 |  IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 03-28-2005 09:49 AM      Profile for Gordon McLeod   Email Gordon McLeod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
For 35mm 8 perf I use a 90mm lens the most especially for portrature It has almost the same convergance of lines of perspective as the human eye so it gives images a natural perpective

 |  IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 371
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001


 - posted 03-28-2005 10:14 AM      Profile for Larry Myers         Edit/Delete Post 
Well most normal lenses for 35mm have a focal length around 52mm. This gives a 5x7 print with the correct perspective at 10 inches of view distance. With older SLR cameras, the same combo will give a 1:1 same size image when one eye is looking through the view finder and the other eye is looking at the subject. This doesn't work with newer cameras as the viewfinder itself is visually smaller due to the optics in the view finder.

Zoom lenses generally are about 1/2 to 1/3 the resolution of prime lenses. This will show up in larger film prints but might not show up at all in digital. This is mainly due to built in image sharping software in digital cameras.

Larry

 |  IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 03-28-2005 10:22 AM      Profile for Gordon McLeod   Email Gordon McLeod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Larry said "Well most normal lenses for 35mm have a focal length around 52mm. This gives a 5x7 print with the correct perspective at 10 inches of view distance."
It will give the same coverage angle but not the same convergance of lines of perspective to the vanishing points

 |  IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 371
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001


 - posted 03-28-2005 03:02 PM      Profile for Larry Myers         Edit/Delete Post 
It should. In other words, if you made a 5x7 transparancy from a 35mm negative using a 52mm camera lens, the vanishing points should line up with the original scene at 10 inches of view distance. It's more or less how depth of field tables are calculated and what is ment by a normal lens all with this 10 inch view distance in mind. A 90mm lens would never be considered normal with a 35mm camera but would be close to normal with a 6x9 folder. Actually the calculation would be 2.2x or 2.2 times 35mm equals 6x9 and 2.2 times 52mm is 114mm. So that 90mm lens would be slightly wide for a 6x9 camera.

Larry

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 03-28-2005 07:32 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Actually I would go with a Nikon F and 28 to 85mm Nikor zoom lens. Nikon made a dynamyte small zoom that is sharp as a tack, keep plenty of Tri-X on hand and push it to ASA 2000 for those grainy award winning shots you will be taking. That Rebel is for weenies! The main reason for the F is so you have something substantial to hit back with and then just pick it back up and keep shooting away! Award winning shots often happen this way [thumbsup] .

Mark

P.S. I used to work for Canon factory service and would never own anything they make....... at least todays products. They suck big time. The old Canon stuff was great though....... When the Canon Autofocus(otherwise known in the shop as outafocus)appeard that was the beginning of the decline for expecting anything good from Canon.

 |  IP: Logged

Will Kutler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1506
From: Tucson, AZ, USA
Registered: Feb 2001


 - posted 03-28-2005 11:39 PM      Profile for Will Kutler   Email Will Kutler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Mark and I are in agreement about Nikon! For many years, Nikon and other quality 35mm SLR cameras/equipment were really holding their prices. It had been a while since I had gone to a camera show or looked around for stuff, but my jaw dropped to the floor when I saw how the prices have fallen, thanks to digital cameras! Look around for Nikon equipment, as your bound to find quality stuff at reasonable prices.

The Nkion F4 will suit both digital and 35mm film photography. I remember when that camera first came out, and it's price. The military was one of the first customers. I saw many operations in the early 1990's where a photo was taken with an F4 and was at the Pentagon via computer download in a matter of minutes! I have lately seen these cameras reasonably priced.

Nikon F series equipment is quality, rugged dependable and reliable!

Cheers

K.

 |  IP: Logged

Christopher Duvall
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 500
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 03-29-2005 03:05 AM      Profile for Christopher Duvall   Email Christopher Duvall   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks guys. You gave me some ideas. If anybody else has anything...keep it coming.

 |  IP: Logged

Stephen Brown
Film Handler

Posts: 91
From: Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 03-29-2005 06:37 AM      Profile for Stephen Brown   Email Stephen Brown   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I shoot with a Nikon D70 DSLR (yes digital I know, I can hear the groans but it has its advantages) and use a Tamron 70-300mm lens as well as a 28-80 Nikor. The Tamron actually is quite light and quite quick to use. Even out on the end of the lens it produces nice sharp results. The new Tamron 18-200 looks like a good universal lens for shooting where you need to have a wide range of focal lengths.

I'll certainly be getting one.

I'll upload a picture from the camera in the random pictures 2 thread.

Steve Brown

 |  IP: Logged

William Hooper
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1879
From: Mobile, AL USA
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 03-29-2005 06:51 AM      Profile for William Hooper   Author's Homepage   Email William Hooper   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I don't know much 'bout them devilish digital cameras; yours may have anti-shake, autofocus, etc., & you may be specifically needing to use a digital camera for speedy export not requiring scanning, taking a bunch of pictures many of which you may want to throw away, etc.

Longer lenses have a problem with exacerbating lens shake. As light levels get lower, any blurring from longer exposures piles on top of lens shake to make things worse.

A flash is always irritating to subjects & other folks in the room.

If you want these long lenses in these small rooms so that you can pick out 1 or 2 faces from the back of the room, a flash won't help anyway.

If you get a faster lens (most longer zooms are slower, & much more expensive if faster), you start having depth of field problems & have to constantly ride focus. This may be less of an issue with autofocus cameras if you devise a technique that makes the autofocuser happy & always point where it wants to focus.

Zoom lenses with huge ranges (like 28-210) are always mch mushier-looking than primes. It's less of an issue with smaller zoom ranges (28-50, 110-250, whatever).

If they're small rooms & you want paparazzi-style photos of 1 or 2 individuals in the crowd, I think you don't need a wide lens like a 28mm or less, unless you're right up on them. With a f2.5 lens around 35-70mm & a bit of distance, if the light is decent, you won't need a flash. You will need to be steady, but that's a given with anything, & not as big a problem with longer lenses.

If it's got to be digital, I'd say a 35-70mm lens about f2.5 & a high resolution camera (4 megapixels, I dunno from megapixels), & crop out what you don't want.

You'll have problems if you get further back, have to stand on chairs, etc. to shoot over a crowd, etc.

If lighting gets low, then you'll need a flash, so you'll have to get still further back to keep from bugging folks, & so need a longer lens & a more powerful flash.

--
My pictures are different, & I'm primarily interested in wide spectacle shots in theaters with & without crowds. I'm have only been taking the Nikon FG out for a long while, & I've bought another.

[john] :
http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/emfgfg20/fg/index.htm

They're the lightest, smallest Nikon made, use Nikon AIs lenses, & don't call attention to themselves. I do get some wandering through crowds shots, & the size makes pitcher-taking non-distracting or even unobserved. They're stupidly inexpensive, because they don't look like the dadgum space shuttle camera, but have TTL flash, excellent metering & autoexposure modes. There's something a little different about the center-weighted metering on the FG, but it adapts well for the big auditorium shots I do where the hot spots are scattered away from the center. You'll often find people selling them because they mistakenly think they're broken: the AE readout doesn't work until the frame counter is advanced to 1 (no freebie AE shots before frame 1).

Light, rugged; I have no straps on mine (except wrist straps) & instead have one of those spring-loaded belt loop clips like you put on huge keyrings. EASY for going up ladders & through crowds!

 |  IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 03-29-2005 09:25 AM      Profile for Gordon McLeod   Email Gordon McLeod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I still use my old trusty exacta 1953 model SLR with a set of matched zies lens
noisy heavy but very reliable

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 03-29-2005 09:50 AM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Next year, I will be in a situation where I will be doing press style and paparazzi photography. The room(s) I will be in will not be too large and I will have good access to the subjects so I will not not need anything major.

If you are not using a flash, you may not be able to hold the camera steady enough for a really long lens, even with fast film. For a 35mm SLR, most people need to use a shutter speed faster than the reciprical of the lens focal length in millimeters.

So at 50mm, most can get steady images at 1/50 second or faster, but a 250mm lens would usually require 1/250 second to reliably avoid motion blur from a hand-held camera.

Consider a monopod or even a tripod if you have to use long lenses in photojournalism shoots.

A really fast film can help alot, and the granularity is quite acceptable for moderate blow-up:

Kodak Portra 800 Film

Kodak T-Max P-3200 Film

 |  IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 371
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001


 - posted 03-29-2005 11:55 AM      Profile for Larry Myers         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, that is why a 21mm lens is a real natural for existing indoor light photography down to about 5 ft candles. With this lens and 1/15 of a second, you don't need a flash even with ASA 100 film. It also works great with high reso Ektar 25 film although you still might need to support the camera with this type of film.

Larry

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.