PDA

View Full Version : Best FAST lens for street photography.


dissembled
20th of March 2006 (Mon), 01:16
100mm = roughly 'eye level' on a full frame lens.. Correct me if i'm wrong..

On a 1.6x camera, I'm guessing that a 85mm lens is almost equivalent to what you actually see? Yes? By 'see' I mean, the distance I am from subjects. I want that distance to be equivalent to what I actually am in real life from them.

I want a fast lens that 'equates' to what I'm seeing. Preferably at least as fast as f2.0 to induce background blur in ST shots. I know i could just buy a nifty 50 and just step forward until I like what I'm seeing..but in the ST photography world, you're gonna get stared at. And your subject will stare at you like youre nuts. And that's not the type of photos of people I want. :p

So basically, the best affordable st. performer for someone like me is the 85mm f1.8 lens?

a good choice?
God..so confused.

Thanks. Tried searching but there's just soo many lens threads..:confused:

NordieBoy
20th of March 2006 (Mon), 02:38
50mm on full frame surely?
32mm on 1.6 crop.


I'm after a 28-85 type lens for walkaround.

buze
20th of March 2006 (Mon), 02:44
You'll be stared at with any big SLR with a plonker of a lens on. The Canon 85mm actualy draw stares just by the size of the front element. I got plenty of "wow, nice zoom" when I have it on.
I have electrical tape on the "CANON" of my 350D and try to be as discreet as possible in the street, but it always draws stares..

If you want to have people grin, pose and be happy to be photographed, get and old folding camera, you'll have fun !

If you want to be discreet and have people around you just ignore you, just pick an old 70's rangefinder. Some are tiny, will costs $20, and have excellent lens.

dgcorner
20th of March 2006 (Mon), 02:44
Gotta agree with Fran -- not just because he's also a Kiwi ;-) 50mm has always been considered a normal lens, i.e., because it is closest to what our eyes see. And yes, with a 1.6X crop a 30mm should come closest.

buze
20th of March 2006 (Mon), 02:50
The 50mm is not a "normal" lens "because it is closest to what our eyes see" -- it is a legend that tries to rationalise why there were so many 50mm equivalent around.
And there were so many around because it is the simplest lens to make; simplest lens formulas, smallest glass elements etc.. For 150 years it always has been, and therefore was shipped with so many cameras photographers "relied" on their "normal" lens on whichever camera they used.

I don't know about *your* eyes, but I "see" a LOT wider than 50mm (on a full frame). I'd be more of a 20mm or even less!

Hermes
20th of March 2006 (Mon), 03:16
Bear in mind theres only 1 lens whereas we've got 2 eyes, and that our eyes are constantly moving to bring everything into our field of view. Close one eye and keep it absolutely still and you'll find that the field of view isn't that far off a 50mm ff.

Also, I think the point being made was not how much the lens can see but the size objects appear through the lens compared to the size our eyes see them as.

Streetshooter
20th of March 2006 (Mon), 05:43
on the streets, I use either a 35L most of the time and sometimes a 50 1.4.....that's with a 5D
when I was using the 20D, I used a 24L and a 35L........don't worry about people looking at you afterall...your looking at them....being invisible on the streets isn't about what camera you use, it's about how you respond to the scene in and around you....don

karusel
20th of March 2006 (Mon), 06:50
35L no doubt, although I've made some nice shots with 135L as well...

ron chappel
20th of March 2006 (Mon), 08:00
50mm (about 28 or 35mm of 1.6 crop) are considered normal because they give the same magnification as human eyes .
Don't try to confirm this by looking through your viewfinder though because it has it's own magnification factor.

BottomBracket
20th of March 2006 (Mon), 08:29
The classic focal length for street photography would be something wide, such as 35mm or lower on full frame. On a crop camera such as the 20d this would mean getting a focal length in the 20's. With this you will have to immerse yourself into the street environment and become one with it. You will have to take pictures of your subjects up close and you must have the right frame of mind for it. The nice thing about these wide angle lenses is that if you situate the subject near the edge of the frame when you shoot, he/she will be unaware that you are taking a photo of him/her. Also, these wide angle lenses have tremendous DOF and can be set to hyperfocal focussing for fast action. Also, you can shoot from the hip or waist level and still come up with a reasonably framed pic.

That said I am not adverse to using other focal lengths for street phtography. I find the 50mm to 135mm very nice for its perspective (on a crop camera), but using this requires you to point the camera directly to the face of the subject (for semi portrait shots) and this may be a bit uneasy for both you and the subject. It does take some getting used to. I walk around Manhattan sometimes with only one lens to study how to best use it; here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=143650) is a walk with an 85mm, and this (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=140001) is with a 135mm.

I also use a 70 to 200mm zoom sometimes. Using the extreme 200mm focal length is what I call the 'sniping' technique. Here you are more detached from the subject's environment as you are quite some distance away. Purists may balk at this, but I think it is nice to have this option sometimes for a pleasing shallow DOF effect or when you really want the subject to be unaware of your presence.

So, if you were to pick one lens for street photography, I would go wide. Try out the 17-40 if you have one, it might be what you need. That said, I must say that a noisy bulky dSLR isn't the best tool for street photography. I find that I take better, stealthier pics with my G6 set to hyperfocal focussing. It is small, quiet, and has a swivel screen so you can take pictures with no one knowing. That is just my preference, but then I am used to rangefinders, long ago.

Double Negative
20th of March 2006 (Mon), 09:38
I'd have to say the Sigma 30mm ƒ/1.4 or Canon 35mm ƒ/1.4L... Maybe the Sigma 20mm ƒ/1.8.

dissembled
20th of March 2006 (Mon), 09:42
Actually, I'm planning to buy the Zigview for waistlevel shooting. (NOOOO!:P) I have an A80 P&S (w. titling screen) so I'm pretty much dependent on waist-lv shooting.

ZV however, is only sold in the UK so I'm not sure if the rechargeable adapter will be of use here in the US..hmm...

If you guys say that 28mm (1.6x) is roughly 'eye level' then I'm right to assume that the nifty fifty (88mm) is actually 1.76x what we see? WOW.

And the 85mm (1.6x) is in reality, 136mm which is roughly 2.72x what we see? Very nice!

Oh how I wish there was a zoom (:P) lens w. f1.8 or faster from 28mm-85mm.
And how I wish it were less than $500!

Of course, I could just buy a zoom lens w. f2.8....but that would require telephoto shots to induce background blur.

And no P&S recommendations please! Hehe. I've had my A80 since '04 and I'm sick of the idiotic manual focus button and waiting for the slow AF to get it right. Not to mention the noise at iSO400. Not good for subway shots at all!Meh.

Thanks people! Now I know how to 'measure' lens instead of being blind.
I'll take a look at the 20's-30'smm lens and if it's around $300, I'll get it. If not (hehe), then I think the 50mm f(1.4)/85mm both have enough 'zoom' to satisfy me. And they're cheap!

condyk
20th of March 2006 (Mon), 12:39
Really great advice from BB and I'd agree 110%. The thing is that there is no right lens for street shooting. LAst weekend I went out with m,y 200mm, 135mm and 13-30 zoom. Personally, for buildings and streets I like a wide angle to standard like the one above or something like the 17-40mm, but I really like my 135mm for people shots because my personality is such that I don't want to shove my camera in peoples faces. This is not right or wrong but a subjective preference. I also use my 85mm some times. So, what do you want to shoot and how close do you want to be to people, if you want to shoot people?

dissembled
20th of March 2006 (Mon), 13:14
I'm leaning more the 85mm lens actually. That's roughly 2.7x what we actually see..so it seems ideal enough.

Can you comment on your experience w. the 85? How far do you shoot w. it? Is it ideal for street 'portraits'?

I'd like one that gives you the option to really focus on a person's face when you're like 14 feet away from them. Street portraits if you will...w. the background blurred of course.

vjack
20th of March 2006 (Mon), 16:23
For full frame, if 50mm does not correspond to "normal view" then every photography book I have and have ever seen is lying. Must be a great conspiracy.

basroil
20th of March 2006 (Mon), 16:52
if you have something like the 300d or 350d and want a fast lens that doesn't gather stares, go for a 50mm. the 1.8 is great for it's price (<80 bucks), or you could go for 50mm f2.8 macro or the 1.4 if you have enough money. all the lenses are small enough to blend in , especially the 1.8 (it looks like it's an inch long on a 350d). you can stand reasonably far away from someone and get a nice picture with a lot of background blur (or you can stand about 4' from them and have only their face in focus)

Lord_Malone
20th of March 2006 (Mon), 16:53
If I'm taking one lens out to town (or a night out on the town), it's usually the 35L mounted on my 20D.

Sean-Mcr
20th of March 2006 (Mon), 17:00
I use my 35mm more then anything else. I don't like long lenses for street shots. Though i have used them

subtle_spectre
20th of March 2006 (Mon), 17:11
Let's try this: the "right" lens for street shots or any setting, for that matter, is the lens which gets you the image you visualize?

Sean-Mcr
20th of March 2006 (Mon), 17:26
Well i know what i'll see the second i put the lens to my eye, as my 35 on my 20D is close to that of the the human eye. I'm also so used to shooting with that lens, that i know where i need to be to frame a shot as i want it.

ducdubbq
20th of March 2006 (Mon), 18:53
Like many I use something wide. i think a walk around street lens is my canon 20/2.8. figure I want to get everything and make sure its all in focus then crop as needed.

but when I want to walk around manhattan I use my hexar rangefinder with a 35 or 50mm lens, set it to auto shutter, f8, put some 1600 speed black and white in and shoot away.

RuggerJoe
20th of March 2006 (Mon), 20:03
My uderstanding is that it isn't so much the field of view, but the perspective the 50mm is about the same as our eye sight.

dissembled
20th of March 2006 (Mon), 20:15
So you guys don't suggest the 85mm?

It's about 2.7x what we see...so maybe it's the right tool for some candid st. shooting.

dissembled
20th of March 2006 (Mon), 21:06
on the streets, I use either a 35L most of the time and sometimes a 50 1.4.....that's with a 5D
when I was using the 20D, I used a 24L and a 35L........don't worry about people looking at you afterall...your looking at them....being invisible on the streets isn't about what camera you use, it's about how you respond to the scene in and around you....don

Hey SS just to let you know, I saw your work and I'm very impressed. I have your respect O Great One.

Some really, really, really, really good stuff. Haha.

Other good st. photographers for the interested, can be found here:
http://esafian.deviantart.com/
and
http://gonzale.deviantart.com/

hef
20th of March 2006 (Mon), 22:10
For walking around I would like the 35L for wide & the 85L for just a little distance.

blackviolet
21st of March 2006 (Tue), 00:02
For full frame, if 50mm does not correspond to "normal view".... Must be a great conspiracy.

it is a conspiracy. my best friend's sister's boyfriend heard it last night on Art Bell. clearly, it's a case of oppression of the Thirtfivians by the Fiftians using the media.

personally, i quite like the 85 1.8 for street. yes, it's not quite the same view but it's unobtrusive and allows me to stay far enough away to avoid 'personal space' invasion. additionally, its fast focus means i can aim at something else, then quickly point it and take the shot.

ScottE
21st of March 2006 (Tue), 00:29
The diagonal of a 24x36 mm full frame image is about 50 mm. (Actually it is about 43.26 mm, but rounded to 40 or 50 mm by lens manufacturers.) For this reason lenses in the 40 to 50 mm range have been considered standard. The diameter of the image circle equals the focal length. Apparently this symetry is an advantage to optical engineers because most companies produce very sharp, reasonably priced lenses in the 40 to 50 mm focal length. It also approximates the field of view of most human eyes. Note that the pupils of most human eyes are not rectangular, so the circle of vision cannot correspond exactly to a rectangular camera frame.

wanderer
21st of March 2006 (Tue), 01:26
When using my 17-85 zoom, and set at 85, the sizes of objects and perspective as seen by the right eye looking through the viewfinder and my left eye looking at the scene seem to be identical. Am I being fooled into thinking therefore that at 85mm on my 20D this is equivalent to having object sizes and perspective the same as seen by my natural vision? The viewfinder gives a close approximation to the recorded image.
Is this not also a different matter from speaking of Field of View? Isn't this what the original poster was asking?
Normal vision takes in a wide Field of View but if a lense was to include the same total field it would not present objects at the same relative sizes. In other words, is this not a question of what lens presents objects with the same relative size to their background as would appear to normal eyesight?
I think there were several separate issues being discussed in this thread.
(I may also just be confused.:confused: )

I may have to print out a picture and stand at the same location to compare the image to what I see for a verification.

dissembled
21st of March 2006 (Tue), 02:12
By 'equal' I mean the size of objects.

It doesn't matter how 'much' the lens captures. I just want the size or distance of objects to be identical to what I see in real life.

dissembled
21st of March 2006 (Tue), 02:25
When using my 17-85 zoom, and set at 85, the sizes of objects and perspective as seen by the right eye looking through the viewfinder and my left eye looking at the scene seem to be identical.



Then I was right all along? I asked my sister and she said that a 150mm (35mm) lens would correctly capture what the eye sees. (The SiZE of objects. Not how much the eyes sees.)

So..the best option would be the 85mm f1.8 which is about 136mm on 1.6 camera.

Good enough. :D

dpastern
21st of March 2006 (Tue), 03:35
Not that this is really my genre of shooting, but I'd personally recommend a 70-200 zoom. You don't want to be right in someones face when taking a shot of them, I know it'd annoy the hell out of me.

Dave

fWord
21st of March 2006 (Tue), 03:52
Though I don't do street photography, I think it'd be hard to recommend an 'eye-like angle of view lens' just for you. The reason here is that I think it's possible to develop an eye that's biased towards certain views when you shoot enough with certain focal lengths.

When I first got into photography, a focal length of around 44mm or so was quite commonly a setting on my photos. But gradually that has changed with an interest in landscape, architecture and zoo wildlife. So now I tend to see things commonly at a field of view similar to a 28mm lens and if necessary, down to very narrow angle of views as well. This link about the common photography myths might explain why this is so:

http://www.mhohner.de/essays/myths.php?lang=e

Specifically, check up the section on the 50mm lens. To a certain extent, and based on my own experience, yes, 50mm on a film/ FF DSLR might be equivalent to what most people tend to see in their angle of view when they first pick up photography. But eventually they can develop a taste for either wider or narrower angle of views. Or both.

Recently I had the chance to try a 50mm prime on a film camera and found it a little narrow for my tastes. What I'd prefer is something along the lines of a 28mm f/2.8 on a film camera. On a DSLR like the 350D, that would mean using a lens with a focal length of 18mm or less.

So go according to your own tastes. Some people might shoot street photos using 28-80mm lenses. Others might go for a 70-200mm. Shoot extensively and find out what works for you. If you want to be discrete, then I think an old film SLR or better still, an old rangefinder might do it well. If you are lucky, an old rangefinder like the Yashica Electro 35 GSN might be picked up for next to nothing.

Check out this link for more on old rangefinders:

http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-frameset.html?YashicaElectro35GSN.html~mainFrame
It also makes some specific references to the use of these cameras for street photography. Good luck searching! :)

dissembled
21st of March 2006 (Tue), 04:28
Phew. Searched old threads.

either 50mm 85mm vs or 100 f2.0.

Found 50mm to be mostly a close portrait lens..not good.
Found 85mm to be very skinny..not good for composing.

100mm f2.0. Someone from an old thread said that you can use the thing to shoot b-ball players from the bleachers. Good for candid st. shooting!

My first lens!

Just to let you know..I don't even have a 350d yet..:P Right now I'm only equipped w. my A80 P&S (The horror!) but through these forums, i'm learning a lot. I'm researching very thoroughly. I don't want any regretful purchases in the future.

hehe. Maybe I'll head onto the Nikon camp to see how much their lens cost over there..:P

WOW. D50 is very cheap.

Sean-Mcr
21st of March 2006 (Tue), 06:24
Though I don't do street photography, I think it'd be hard to recommend an 'eye-like angle of view lens' just for you. The reason here is that I think it's possible to develop an eye that's biased towards certain views when you shoot enough with certain focal lengths.

When I first got into photography, a focal length of around 44mm or so was quite commonly a setting on my photos. But gradually that has changed with an interest in landscape, architecture and zoo wildlife. So now I tend to see things commonly at a field of view similar to a 28mm lens and if necessary, down to very narrow angle of views as well. This link about the common photography myths might explain why this is so:

http://www.mhohner.de/essays/myths.php?lang=e

Specifically, check up the section on the 50mm lens. To a certain extent, and based on my own experience, yes, 50mm on a film/ FF DSLR might be equivalent to what most people tend to see in their angle of view when they first pick up photography. But eventually they can develop a taste for either wider or narrower angle of views. Or both.

Recently I had the chance to try a 50mm prime on a film camera and found it a little narrow for my tastes. What I'd prefer is something along the lines of a 28mm f/2.8 on a film camera. On a DSLR like the 350D, that would mean using a lens with a focal length of 18mm or less.

So go according to your own tastes. Some people might shoot street photos using 28-80mm lenses. Others might go for a 70-200mm. Shoot extensively and find out what works for you. If you want to be discrete, then I think an old film SLR or better still, an old rangefinder might do it well. If you are lucky, an old rangefinder like the Yashica Electro 35 GSN might be picked up for next to nothing.

Check out this link for more on old rangefinders:

http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-frameset.html?YashicaElectro35GSN.html~mainFrame
It also makes some specific references to the use of these cameras for street photography. Good luck searching! :)


I record the life of my city pretty often. I find the 35mm on my 20D almost perfect, though i'm pretty sure 28mm 24mm would suite me to as i like to be close to my subject, i think you should be close to your subject. About the 50mm, Bresson used a 50mm for almost all of his career. The thing i like about it, is that i as i said, i know where i need to be before i lift the camera, i know what i'll see before i lift the camera. Because the the FOV on my 20D is close to the in-focus area of my eye.

Some good sites
http://www.pinkheadedbug.com/techniques/index.html

http://in-public.com/site/

The Magnum group which was founded by Robert Capa, Henri Cartier-Bresson, George Rodger, and David Seymour.

http://www.magnumarchive.com/c/Home_MAG.aspx?Stat=Menu_Home

Sean-Mcr
21st of March 2006 (Tue), 07:14
Not that this is really my genre of shooting, but I'd personally recommend a 70-200 zoom. You don't want to be right in someones face when taking a shot of them, I know it'd annoy the hell out of me.

Dave


I can tell with that statement that you don't shoot the street

That's simply not true my friend that people get upset, . You need to do some research on the subject and actually shoot the subject before advising somebody on lens they should use.

It's a valued, artistic artform, containing some of the most memorable and respected photographs of the last hundred years, and i dare say it will be the same for the next 100.

I've shot hundreds upon hundreds of people with short lenses. Some of which can been seen below.

http://www.pbase.com/sean_mcr/city_shots

I've used my 135 a couple of times, not because i was worried about getting close, just happened to be on my camera to give it a run out. Doesn't cut it. Too removed, it comes across in the photos.

[/URL]

If i want to convey a scene then more often then not i will be part of it. I don't hide in doorways with a 200mm. I can tell you for sure that will alarm somebody it also suggests that their is something wrong in what your doing and if it's wrong with a 35 then it's wrong with 200mm. I'm open and honest in what i do, because that's how it should be, and that's how you avoid upsetting people

Experience has taught me that.



[URL="http://www.pbase.com/sean_mcr/city_shots"] (http://www.pbase.com/sean_mcr/city_shots)

Wavy C
21st of March 2006 (Tue), 07:54
I really like the 35mm f2 for street /candid shots - even more so than the L version.

It is so small that people tend to regard it as a 'toy' and feel more at ease, where the L version looks more like a small zoom and tends to make people feel a little more wary. The 35mm f2 is so light your camera balances well when hung around your neck and always ready for quick shots (most lenses tend to tilt it downwards and are more uncomfortable to carry while walking around a busy street). Works well for me anyway - and great image quality too!

Sean-Mcr
21st of March 2006 (Tue), 08:03
Have you actually used the 35L to any extent to capture such shots?

I use the 35L more then any other lens and i'd never seen a soul looking wary. Carrying a camera around your neck for street shots is not a great idea. You stand out far more with a camera in the middle your chest then you do with it by your thigh

thundery
21st of March 2006 (Tue), 08:41
I use a 28-75mm f2.8 to shoot most photos on my 1.6x camera. I just like the versatility that this range gives (that's roughly 45-120mm on a full frame). Ocassionally I put on the 10-22mm and use it at 22mm which is equivalent to roughly a 35mm on a full frame. I pretty much use my 70-200mm in a controlled enviornment like for portrait shots or walking around zoos because it is heavy and it is really noticable.

Sean-Mcr
21st of March 2006 (Tue), 08:42
Really great advice from BB and I'd agree 110%. The thing is that there is no right lens for street shooting. LAst weekend I went out with m,y 200mm, 135mm and 13-30 zoom. Personally, for buildings and streets I like a wide angle to standard like the one above or something like the 17-40mm, but I really like my 135mm for people shots because my personality is such that I don't want to shove my camera in peoples faces. This is not right or wrong but a subjective preference. I also use my 85mm some times. So, what do you want to shoot and how close do you want to be to people, if you want to shoot people?


Now now Dave, you know i don't shove my camera in peoples faces.

You know that i'm in the camp that thinks the closer the better.

Not such a big issue for rusted locks and broken windows, they don't move and they'll be there tomorrow. But your one chance to say something might be lost because of your distance to subject when the elements that you can't control between you and your subject just happen to spoil the one thing that your subject did that made them worth photographing in the first place.

I think short lens users produce better street shots then those that use teles. I'm talking about people naturally.

BottomBracket
21st of March 2006 (Tue), 09:53
Now now Dave, you know i don't shove my camera in peoples faces.

You know that i'm in the camp that thinks the closer the better.

Not such a big issue for rusted locks and broken windows, they don't move and they'll be there tomorrow. But your one chance to say something might be lost because of your distance to subject when the elements that you can't control between you and your subject just happen to spoil the one thing that your subject did that made them worth photographing in the first place.

I think short lens users produce better street shots then those that use teles. I'm talking about people naturally.

Though I shoot street shots with wides mainly, I am not adverse to using sonething longer once in a while. Longer focal lengths are great for adding variety and for picking out details of architecture at a time. It is also useful if there is a scene across the street that is quite interesting, and for those cases a telephoto is the most useful tool.

Wides and teles require different approaches towards the subject. I say if you have both in your arsenal, use them for the appropriate scene. My walkabouts have me using a wides lens mostly, and switching to a longer focal length when the time arises.

There's no right or wrong lens for street photography. What matters is the photo - did it capture what you want to convey?

Jon
21st of March 2006 (Tue), 14:26
When using my 17-85 zoom, and set at 85, the sizes of objects and perspective as seen by the right eye looking through the viewfinder and my left eye looking at the scene seem to be identical. Am I being fooled into thinking therefore that at 85mm on my 20D this is equivalent to having object sizes and perspective the same as seen by my natural vision? The viewfinder gives a close approximation to the recorded image.
Is this not also a different matter from speaking of Field of View? Isn't this what the original poster was asking?
Normal vision takes in a wide Field of View but if a lense was to include the same total field it would not present objects at the same relative sizes. In other words, is this not a question of what lens presents objects with the same relative size to their background as would appear to normal eyesight?
I think there were several separate issues being discussed in this thread.
(I may also just be confused.:confused: )

I may have to print out a picture and stand at the same location to compare the image to what I see for a verification.
Don't forget, though,that the viewfinder applies a little "negative magnification" (0.9x) to what your lens sees.

Sean-Mcr
21st of March 2006 (Tue), 15:05
Though I shoot street shots with wides mainly, I am not adverse to using sonething longer once in a while. Longer focal lengths are great for adding variety and for picking out details of architecture at a time. It is also useful if there is a scene across the street that is quite interesting, and for those cases a telephoto is the most useful tool.

Wides and teles require different approaches towards the subject. I say if you have both in your arsenal, use them for the appropriate scene. My walkabouts have me using a wides lens mostly, and switching to a longer focal length when the time arises.

There's no right or wrong lens for street photography. What matters is the photo - did it capture what you want to convey?

I'll cross the street, and i'll get the shot and i wont miss it because of traffic or people in the way of my subject, the only thing i want between me and my subject is my lens. Tele lenses often result in shots that look like sniper shots. There's no connection with the subject, there's often no intimacy conveyed.

I think it's a common misconception that there no wrong lens for street photography. There's wrong lens for every genre, teles simply don't cut it like short lenses do. The history of the genre has been dominated by short lenses always has and with good reason

Lord_Malone
21st of March 2006 (Tue), 15:46
You all should really check out Sean's work. He's as credible a street photographer as any. ;)

Sean-Mcr
21st of March 2006 (Tue), 15:57
You all should really check out Sean's work. He's as credible a street photographer as any. ;)


Cheques in the post Lordy pal:o



I have a passion for it, and it's only getting stronger. I'm not saying i'm any good, but i'm having a good time trying to be.

BottomBracket
21st of March 2006 (Tue), 16:40
I'll cross the street, and i'll get the shot and i wont miss it because of traffic or people in the way of my subject, the only thing i want between me and my subject is my lens. Tele lenses often result in shots that look like sniper shots. There's no connection with the subject, there's often no intimacy conveyed.

I think it's a common misconception that there no wrong lens for street photography. There's wrong lens for every genre, teles simply don't cut it like short lenses do. The history of the genre has been dominated by short lenses always has and with good reason

I agree that wide to normal lenses are the classic lenses for street photography. That's what I usually use. However, I find that short teles, and occasionaly longer ones can produce some gems as well. I just don't subscribe to Petteri's "Telephoto is for Cowards" point of view. I say that if you have a lens in your arsenal that suits the situation, why not use it? It's all about the photo - when you see a great street shot that tells a story does one think about what lens was used, and if it were a tele, will one dismiss it as a lame excuse for a street shot?

I totally get your point though. It is a strong belief held by classic street shooters, and I think that it is wise for a budding street photographer to learn to use a wide focal length before depending on a long one. Wide angles force you to immerse into the environment, and somehow you get more in touch with the subject and the art. However, I am not adverse to the idea that teles have some role in street photography - they do.

dissembled
21st of March 2006 (Tue), 17:03
I use a 28-75mm f2.8 to shoot most photos on my 1.6x camera. I just like the versatility that this range gives (that's roughly 45-120mm on a full frame).

That seems an ideal choice. Can you or anyone here PLEAse describe the bokeh w. these lens?

You see w. a P&S, I know that f2.8 doesn't produce background blur at wide angle.

Is this different w. a DSLR because of the more sensitive sensor??

How far do the subjects and background be from each other to produce bokeh w. these lens? At what focal lt does the background blur w. these lens wide open?
Thanks. :confused:

Sean-Mcr
21st of March 2006 (Tue), 17:07
I have used them, i take all my lenses with me when i go out. The longest being my 135, i used it last week in fact for a short while,only to give it more use.

http://www.pbase.com/sean_mcr/image/56899668
http://www.pbase.com/sean_mcr/image/56899771

The question was asked what was the best fastest lens for street shots, well it's not a tele i think we agree on that.

Seefutlung
21st of March 2006 (Tue), 17:17
Firstly, 50mm on a FF is considered equal in magnification and perspective as the human eye.

Secondly, we all photograph different ... so there isn't one lens or a zoom range that is ideal for street photography. I have done a ton of street photography, and I agree with Bottom Bracket, wide would be my first choice, but usually I go with a full kit ... ready and looking for anything and anyone. Some street snaps from the 70's can be found here:
http://garyayala.smugmug.com/gallery/665480

Seefutlung
21st of March 2006 (Tue), 17:45
More recent snaps of Hollywood at night here:
http://garyayala.smugmug.com/gallery/895389

Universal City Walk PM here:
http://garyayala.smugmug.com/gallery/999430

Long Beach at Night is here:
http://garyayala.smugmug.com/gallery/1005005

ChopstickHero
21st of March 2006 (Tue), 18:32
More recent snaps of Hollywood at night here:
http://garyayala.smugmug.com/gallery/895389

Universal City Walk PM here:
http://garyayala.smugmug.com/gallery/999430

Long Beach at Night is here:
http://garyayala.smugmug.com/gallery/1005005

great shots! did you use a monopod? or were most of those handheld?

BottomBracket
21st of March 2006 (Tue), 18:33
I have used them, i take all my lenses with me when i go out. The longest being my 135, i used it last week in fact for a short while,only to give it more use.

http://www.pbase.com/sean_mcr/image/56899668
http://www.pbase.com/sean_mcr/image/56899771

The question was asked what was the best fastest lens for street shots, well it's not a tele i think we agree on that.

Indeed, the best would be something wide. Great depth of field, you get more of the scene in the frame, easier to use with hyrperfocal focussing. And more likely to get usable photos when shot from the hip :)

Sean you have great pics over there. Thanks for sharing!

BottomBracket
21st of March 2006 (Tue), 18:35
More recent snaps of Hollywood at night here:
http://garyayala.smugmug.com/gallery/895389

Universal City Walk PM here:
http://garyayala.smugmug.com/gallery/999430

Long Beach at Night is here:
http://garyayala.smugmug.com/gallery/1005005

Very nice series? I see you have some really wide pics - a 10-22 on a crop camera?

dissembled
21st of March 2006 (Tue), 18:40
I appreciate the help guys...There's soooo many lens to choose from.
I really dont share the philosophy of wider being exactly better tho. I think all lens should be open to you to suit your style of st. shooting.

I know that most here prefer a wide lens over a telephoto lens.

Some people (including myself) however isn't comfortable shooting a person straight on..Usually, when you're that close to you..they react in some way. And that's not the shots I want. I want to be invisible when I'm shooting so the people so the reactions that I get aren't "Hey I'm being photographed." Unlike many st shooters here, I want to separate myself from the world and observe the actions/emotions of others from a distance..To stay as CANDID as possible to capture actions/emotions that aren't 'shaped' at all by my presence.

That's why I've decided to wait a couple of years before I buy a Canon DSLR. Hopefully Canon will include a lcd preview image by then that's suited for waist-lv shooting.

Right now, I'm gonna get a super-zoom (:P:P) camera, DMCFZ30: f2.8 - f4.7/ 35-420mm.

I know it's limitations..but w. that amount of reach, I could best decide the focal distance best used to suit my style of shooting.

After that, I'll be more knowleadgle about what exact lens to buy. Instead of being blind like I am right now.

Appreciate the help folks..But I gotta be patient. :P

Seefutlung
21st of March 2006 (Tue), 19:53
great shots! did you use a monopod? or were most of those handheld?

Hero, no monpod. Street Photography is about speed. A monopod would do more harm than good ... it would be constantly in the way. Instead of a monopod crank up the ISO and practice low shutter speed shooting. Also, 99% of those shots were in manual mode.

Seefutlung
21st of March 2006 (Tue), 19:58
Very nice series? I see you have some really wide pics - a 10-22 on a crop camera?

Yep, love the 10-22, just wish it was faster ... like a 2.8. Hey, what kind of bike(s) you got?

thundery
22nd of March 2006 (Wed), 08:34
dissembled - I can't really describe them - but here's what a couple of them look like:
1) Taken with my Tamron - f4.5 1/1250 ISO 100
2) Canon 70-200 - f3.5, 1/800 ISO 200

BottomBracket
22nd of March 2006 (Wed), 14:41
Yep, love the 10-22, just wish it was faster ... like a 2.8. Hey, what kind of bike(s) you got?
I plan to get that 10-22. I'm sure it will work great in crowded places, with lotsa people. About my bikes, I have a couple of Litespeeds, one a road bike, the other a hardtail; a classic Bridgestone MTB that I converted to singelspeed; and a weird Strida fodling bike, see it here.
(http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=150126) I take it you ride :)

René Damkot
23rd of March 2006 (Thu), 03:47
Completely off topic: Nice collection of bikes. Show some pics!
I have a few bikes I use far too little: Klein Quantum (of around '92) refitted with Campa 10sp, Cannondale F800 nothing close to factory parts, Marin Palisades Trail made SS (http://www.moonglade.net/rene/Marin_af/image/a3ea3380.jpg) (stolen), Marin Eldridge Grade (http://www.moonglade.net/rene/Marin2web/singlespeed.jpg) to replace that one. Oh, and a SS race (some old Motobecane) and a crappy city bike ;)