Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment People 
Thread started 02 May 2018 (Wednesday) 20:22
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Lens selection and the HUGE difference it can make!

 
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
10,534 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 2287
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
May 13, 2018 12:58 |  #31

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18624972 (external link)
That's exactly what I was thinking.

To me, the diference between the two photos that the OP posted is not so much the result of the lens. . Rather, it is the result in the change in perspective that he got by stepping back. . Stepping back completely changed the ratio between the camera-to-subject distance and the subject-to-background distance.

The OP also took the two photos from two different angles. . Not only did he step back, but ha also stepped to his right. . That is why the background is different.

And then we have the drastically different use of lighting between the two photos, which accounts for most of the difference. . When you change the amount of light on the subject relative to the amount of light on the background, that is going to make a vast difference in what the photos look like. . And it has nothing to do with the lens that was used.

I'd just hate for noobies to read this thread and think that the lens is what made the difference. . The 17-40mm could have produced an image very similar to the one that the 70-200mm produced, if it had been used differently. . The 2.8 aperture wouldn't have been necessary to get a photo that is pretty similar to image #2 - f4 would've been able to produce a fairly similar result, so long as the afore-mentioned distance ratio had been maintained.

I think that the difference between the two photos is attributable to good photography - a photographer who knows what to do to create a pleasing image in a given situation. . The OP's skill and experience is what led to the change in perspective and the change in lighting. The lens just allowed him to more readily facilitate those changes, as the 17-40 would have resulted in different framing if used from the further-back camera-to-subject distance.

.

Couldn’t of said it better myself


My entire hobby of gear lust has temporarily been shifted into overload. Please be patient while my mind tries to get back onto the road to recovery. We do apologize for any inconvenience this may cause....
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
drmaxx
Senior Member
907 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 167
Joined Jul 2010
     
May 13, 2018 13:59 |  #32

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18624972 (external link)
And then we have the drastically different use of lighting between the two photos, which accounts for most of the difference. . When you change the amount of light on the subject relative to the amount of light on the background, that is going to make a vast difference in what the photos look like. . And it has nothing to do with the lens that was used.

Well said.


Donate if you love POTN

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ShutterKlick
Member
Avatar
222 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Likes: 98
Joined Oct 2017
     
May 13, 2018 15:21 |  #33

Tom, et all..
One reason why I upgraded to HSS with 1/8000 shutter.. these images could be done with ND filters and flash, but.. Ive done that, and its a measurable amount of trial and error and aggravation, plus the results are not as easily repeatable.

Andrew


"Camera rich, Cash poor"
http://shutterklick.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
! ­ martinaover ­ !
Hatchling
Avatar
2 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2018
     
May 16, 2018 22:46 |  #34

Great lens :love:


http://hamdore.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,637 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 6814
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
Post edited 4 days ago by mystik610.
     
May 16, 2018 23:20 |  #35

Biggest difference between the two images is lighting IMO. Yes there's a difference in compression, but I think the OP over attributes the differences between the two images to the lens. The subject is poorly lit in the first photo and that had nothing to do with the lens...

FWIW, I actually don't prefer 70-200 zooms for portraits as the FOV is too compressed on the long end and if shooting a series of photos the look gets stale after awhile. In a typical set, maybe 10% of my photos will have that super compressed look. I like fast apertures on wider FOV's that bring more of the background in as the subject background relationship leads to more interesting photos. Of course you have to be more careful and creative with how you frame the background with wider fov's.


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀII - RX1ʀII - α7ʀIII
Zeiss Loxia 21 - Canon 24-70 2.8LII - Sony/Zeiss 35 f1.4 ZA - Sony 50 1.8 - Sony 85GM - Sigma 135 f1.8 ART

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
11,845 posts
Gallery: 137 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2674
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
May 19, 2018 11:45 |  #36

mystik610 wrote in post #18627035 (external link)
. . . I think the OP over attributes the differences between the two images to the lens. The subject is poorly lit in the first photo and that had nothing to do with the lens...

I completely agree.

.

mystik610 wrote in post #18627035 (external link)
Yes there's a difference in compression . . .

FWIW, I actually don't prefer 70-200 zooms for portraits as the FOV is too compressed on the long end and if shooting a series of photos the look gets stale after awhile. In a typical set, maybe 10% of my photos will have that super compressed look.

I have to disagree with this.

In fact, there is actually no such thing as telephoto compression. . It is a myth that, sadly, many photographers are misled into believing.

From any given perspective, the "compression", or lack thereof, is exactly the same, regardless of what focal length is used.

Somewhere on this forum there is a sticky on perspective control, in which member Skip D does a great job of exposing this myth and shows us that telephoto focal lengths do not compress things any differently than wider lenses do.


.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,637 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 6814
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
Post edited 2 days ago by mystik610. (4 edits in all)
     
May 19, 2018 12:04 |  #37

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18628411 (external link)
I completely agree.

.

I have to disagree with this.

In fact, there is actually no such thing as telephoto compression. . It is a myth that, sadly, many photographers are misled into believing.

From any given perspective, the "compression", or lack thereof, is exactly the same, regardless of what focal length is used.

Somewhere on this forum there is a sticky on perspective control, in which member Skip D does a great job of exposing this myth and shows us that telephoto focal lengths do not compress things any differently than wider lenses do.

.

Eh its understood that if you use a longer focal length you will step backwards to get an equivalent subject framing as a wider focal length ...hence greater compression related to using a longer focal length vs using a short focal length and standing closer.


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀII - RX1ʀII - α7ʀIII
Zeiss Loxia 21 - Canon 24-70 2.8LII - Sony/Zeiss 35 f1.4 ZA - Sony 50 1.8 - Sony 85GM - Sigma 135 f1.8 ART

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drmaxx
Senior Member
907 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 167
Joined Jul 2010
     
May 19, 2018 12:07 |  #38

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18628411 (external link)
Somewhere on this forum there is a sticky on perspective control, in which member Skip D does a great job of exposing this myth and shows us that telephoto focal lengths do not compress things any differently than wider lenses do.
.

Here we go: http://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?p=7667298


Donate if you love POTN

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
11,845 posts
Gallery: 137 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2674
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Post edited 2 days ago by Tom Reichner.
     
May 19, 2018 12:19 |  #39

mystik610 wrote in post #18628415 (external link)
Eh its understood that if you use a longer focal length you will step backwards to get an equivalent subject framing as a wider focal length ...hence greater compression related to using a longer focal length vs using a short focal length and standing closer.

.
Yes, apparent compression is achieved via a change in perspective, not a change in focal length. . Specifically, it is a function of a change in the ratio between camera-to-subject distance and subject-to-background distance.

In other words, it is the "stepping back" that causes the change in apparent compression, not the choice of a longer focal length. . We could step back and use the same wide lens that we used when we were standing closer, and achieve the same exact 'compression' as we would with a longer lens ..... but of course we would have to crop in order to get the same framing, and then we wouldn't have as many pixels on target ...... nor would we be able to achieve as shallow a depth of field as we could with the longer lens.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,637 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 6814
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
Post edited 2 days ago by mystik610. (4 edits in all)
     
May 19, 2018 12:50 |  #40

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18628423 (external link)
.
Yes, apparent compression is achieved via a change in perspective, not a change in focal length. . Specifically, it is a function of a change in the ratio between camera-to-subject distance and subject-to-background distance.

In other words, it is the "stepping back" that causes the change in apparent compression, not the choice of a longer focal length. . We could step back and use the same wide lens that we used when we were standing closer, and achieve the same exact 'compression' as we would with a longer lens ..... but of course we would have to crop in order to get the same framing, and then we wouldn't have as many pixels on target ...... nor would we be able to achieve as shallow a depth of field as we could with the longer lens.

.

Yep. I get corrected for this all the time here, but tbh its semantics because of the way we portrait photographers are wired to think. We dont think in terms of subject distance. We think in terms of subject framing and subject to background relationship. And in that mindset, different focal lengths do mean different field of views because shooting a half body shot with an 85mm lens will have a very different background fov from a half body shot with a 200mm lens. Of course this is because we're changing subject distance but this is basically implied when it comes to framing portraits


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀII - RX1ʀII - α7ʀIII
Zeiss Loxia 21 - Canon 24-70 2.8LII - Sony/Zeiss 35 f1.4 ZA - Sony 50 1.8 - Sony 85GM - Sigma 135 f1.8 ART

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,120 views & 41 likes for this thread
Lens selection and the HUGE difference it can make!
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment People 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is ChrisS76a
834 guests, 410 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.