Lens selection and the HUGE difference it can make!

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18624972
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

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18624972
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.

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

Great lens

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.

mystik610 wrote in post #18627035
. . . 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
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.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18628411
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.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18628411
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: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?p=7667298

mystik610 wrote in post #18628415
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.

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18628423
.
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