If you insist on talking so quietly he will never hear you. He works in a very loud office or maybe has a cat.
IT'S OK KOILVR, HAVE A WONDERFUL DAY!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Prime lens
- Thread starter High Desert
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
IT'S OK KOILVR, HAVE A WONDERFUL DAY!
Sorry, it's not "assuming."
All-caps has been considered "shouting" in social media long before it was called "social media." It was already a well-established convention in chat rooms, BBSes, and email discussion lists in the early 1990s. And before computers... Can you seriously tell me that business letters have ever gone out all-caps? Newspaper headlines are all caps... their job is to shout. The rest of the paper? Mixed-case. Telegraph messages went out all-caps (Morse code had its limitations).
You can expect the vast majority of people you converse with in social media to assume you're shouting. That will not change, no matter how often you explain yourself, or try to pass the blame. Jobs require us to do all sorts of things we may never do outside of work. We may have to follow a dress code, speak to customers in a particular manner... But human beings are remarkably adaptable to their social context. Working in greasy coveralls does not mean you have to wear greasy coveralls to your niece's wedding. If your spouse phones you at work, you aren't required to end the call with, "Thank you for calling (company name), have a nice day!"
Most commonly, hunt-and-peck typists use all-caps because they'd rather not be guilty of failing to capitalize the first letter in a sentence, or every first letter in a street address. Or it's just too bothersome to press two keys every time they need to capitalize. So, rather than commit an occasional error, nearly everything they do is in error. Quite logical!
Overall, unless the caps lock key is glued down, a person who regularly uses a computer should be capable of knowing when to use (and not use) the caps lock. Even if it happens that someone's work environment requires all-caps in certain circumstances (say, all they ever type are stock ticker symbols and numbers "AAPL 99.49, GOOG 711.80, YHOO 29.93, IBM 122.42"), I can't imagine that all their interoffice correspondence is also conducted in all-caps. And certainly, unless you don't proofread what you write, you're going to notice that what you've just written is in all-caps. It may seem too much trouble to fix the error... but that, too, sends a solid message to the people with whom you interact.
Landscape and nature can run the gamut of every lens Nikon makes. Wide isn't always best for landscapes. I'm pretty happy with landscapes I've taken at 21, 24, 50, and 85. Nature? That could be from a 10mm ultra wide to a 600mm prime. Hence my problem...I enjoy, landscape, adventure, and wildlife photography and just about any focal length can be in play. I guess that's why folks end up with the 24-70 and 70-200.
On a recent trip to the Tetons I only had room to carry two smallish lens. I was planning on landscape and adventure photos. I rented a Zeiss 21mm Distagon and took my 50mm 1.8D. I could carry my D750 with the Zeiss attached and the 50 in a small pocket on the small camera bag I had strapped to my pack. I'd say those focal lengths worked 75% of the time. The other 25% was when I needed some reach to get in closer on a person or wanted to compress a super huge vista a bit (21mm can sometimes be too wide out west!). I came away completely hooked on the Zeiss and am saving up now. Personally I think wider than 20mm is a bit much. If you want that equivalent on your D7100 you'll have to look for something in the 14mm range ($$$). In the end you can't go wrong with the 50 or 35. You'll always find a use for them.
Most of the time when people talk about lenses they are talking about them in terms of full frame (which means the sensor is the same size as the standard of 35mm film) since it is considered "normal." That being said most digital cameras sold from the likes of Nikon and Canon are cropped sensors (yours included). With this you have something called a crop factor. To figure out the focal length that a lens will be on crop sensor is fairly simple, multiple the crop factor (which in the case of Nikon is 1.5) by the focal length.
There are a few classic full frame (equivalent to 35mm film) length primes that people buy. My lens recommendations are using full frame as the norm but I will also correct for crop factor at the end in my probably misguided suggestions. A 50mm (or around there since a lens like the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 falls in this category) is a very natural looking focal length and basic part of a lens collection (due to it mimicking how your eyes see things). The advantage of the 50mm focal length is that inexpensive price and have great utility (you can do some macro work with a sharp 50mm and set of extension tubes plus pretty much everything else). A 35mm is a better choice if you want something a bit wider and also a classic prime focal length. Many like a 35mm for portrait since it allows a photographer to capture many people or get closer to their subjects in addition to being a versatile lens for things from street photography to landscapes. Fast apertures and optical quality are the reasons for getting primes (plus they are much cheaper than their optically equivalent zooms if they exist at all).
Look at your metadata on what settings your camera used in Lightroom or other photo management tool. Look at what pictures you like and what focal length you shoot. Make your decision for focal length based on that. For a cropped Nikon a 35mm focal length will be roughly equivalent to a 50mm on full frame while something around 24mm will be close to a 35mm on full frame, if you use a 50mm on cropped sensor you will get a short telephoto at 75mm. I am not a really familiar with Nikon lenses since I shoot an Sony A7II, but I can still try to help. The first question is can you live with manual focus? If so then you could easily get some excellent legacy glass and this would allow you to pickup both a 35mm and 50mm equivalent (with an actual 50mm acting as a short telephoto probably) within a small and/or limited budget. I would not be the person to tell you what Nikon legacy glass to get but I am certain a google search like best Nikon manual focus 35mm would lead you down the right path. If you want autofocus then you are best off getting something with a built in focus motor (I am not sure if you camera has one built in).
Just looking at the Nikon website if you are after a 35mm like lens then the F Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D is great deal at under 400 if you can live with that slower aperture for a prime (you would have to spend a lot more and probably would have to use manual focus if you wanted to beat it, but it is still far far faster and superior to your zooms. If you are after that 50mm like lens and are a speed demon then the AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G ED would be a good option and it comes in under 600 which is a great deal. If you want a slower but more affordable option then the AF NIKKOR 35mm f/2D would be the ideal choice (perhaps allowing you to pickup a AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G). If you want a short telephoto on your cropped image camera than a AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G is a must pick up (and probably what I would choose in addition to either the 24mm f2.8 or the 35 f2.0 depending on personal preference). There are probably Nikon guys yelling at their screens right now, but that is just my two cents. Keep in mind that even though a 35mm on a crop sensor works out to be around a 50mm on full frame you do lose out on things like the depth of field and background separation when using a cropped image sensor (since you are using a shorter focal length) as compared to a 50mm on full frame.
There are a few classic full frame (equivalent to 35mm film) length primes that people buy. My lens recommendations are using full frame as the norm but I will also correct for crop factor at the end in my probably misguided suggestions. A 50mm (or around there since a lens like the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 falls in this category) is a very natural looking focal length and basic part of a lens collection (due to it mimicking how your eyes see things). The advantage of the 50mm focal length is that inexpensive price and have great utility (you can do some macro work with a sharp 50mm and set of extension tubes plus pretty much everything else). A 35mm is a better choice if you want something a bit wider and also a classic prime focal length. Many like a 35mm for portrait since it allows a photographer to capture many people or get closer to their subjects in addition to being a versatile lens for things from street photography to landscapes. Fast apertures and optical quality are the reasons for getting primes (plus they are much cheaper than their optically equivalent zooms if they exist at all).
Look at your metadata on what settings your camera used in Lightroom or other photo management tool. Look at what pictures you like and what focal length you shoot. Make your decision for focal length based on that. For a cropped Nikon a 35mm focal length will be roughly equivalent to a 50mm on full frame while something around 24mm will be close to a 35mm on full frame, if you use a 50mm on cropped sensor you will get a short telephoto at 75mm. I am not a really familiar with Nikon lenses since I shoot an Sony A7II, but I can still try to help. The first question is can you live with manual focus? If so then you could easily get some excellent legacy glass and this would allow you to pickup both a 35mm and 50mm equivalent (with an actual 50mm acting as a short telephoto probably) within a small and/or limited budget. I would not be the person to tell you what Nikon legacy glass to get but I am certain a google search like best Nikon manual focus 35mm would lead you down the right path. If you want autofocus then you are best off getting something with a built in focus motor (I am not sure if you camera has one built in).
Just looking at the Nikon website if you are after a 35mm like lens then the F Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D is great deal at under 400 if you can live with that slower aperture for a prime (you would have to spend a lot more and probably would have to use manual focus if you wanted to beat it, but it is still far far faster and superior to your zooms. If you are after that 50mm like lens and are a speed demon then the AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G ED would be a good option and it comes in under 600 which is a great deal. If you want a slower but more affordable option then the AF NIKKOR 35mm f/2D would be the ideal choice (perhaps allowing you to pickup a AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G). If you want a short telephoto on your cropped image camera than a AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G is a must pick up (and probably what I would choose in addition to either the 24mm f2.8 or the 35 f2.0 depending on personal preference). There are probably Nikon guys yelling at their screens right now, but that is just my two cents. Keep in mind that even though a 35mm on a crop sensor works out to be around a 50mm on full frame you do lose out on things like the depth of field and background separation when using a cropped image sensor (since you are using a shorter focal length) as compared to a 50mm on full frame.
Last edited:
Zeiss makes some fantastic lenses. I am drooling over the 35mm Loxia f2 and the 25mm Batis f2 but those are beside the point. Your post is an example of how a few basic primes are all you really need and are superior to zooms in many ways. The nice thing is that if the OP ever goes to a full frame camera then he could use his new primes without an issue.
Wow - some excellent answers here that really makes you stop and think. By saying I like "nature" shots primarily, I am referring to scenes, not so much critters. I realize that for really good animal photography, aa large zoom is needed and I am not ready for the sticker shock associated with the price. I also enjoy landscape photography. what I am reading here tends to get me to thinking that the 35 or 50mm may be the right prime lens for my crop sensor Nikon. I really want to travel light (2 lenses and a tripod) for a day out in the woods or mountains where I live. Think I am zeroing in based on your suggestions and recommendations. Thanks all,
Based on that a would say go for the 50mm and the 24mm (which work out to around a 75mm and a 35mm on your crop sensor). You do have the gap at the middle, but the 35mm equivalent is a good option for outdoor photography, if just starting out and wanting to pack light (that gap will be filled in by a 35mm if you ever buy one). I would check out used lenses as well and just wait for one to pop up either on Craigslist or eBay.
Agreed. All caps look as though you are bad-tempered and shouting.
Actually, between @koilvr's horrible all-cap 'shouting' and @Boulder's bloc of incredibly difficult to read text - a heads-up, @Boulder, paragraphs physically break it up, and also serve to make a distinction between one point and another, thus making it a lot easier to respond to your post - this thread has become less easy - and less pleasant to read than should be the case.
Even if the subject matter is photography, and prime lenses, we use words - and preferably paragraphs - to discuss it.
Or just get a 24-70 then you are covered. Especially if you get a second hand one without VR. Should be pretty cheap.
And there's the discussion I keep having in my head! I want to carry a 24, 50, and a 85. Primes rule! Yeah...whatever, just get a 24-70 + 70-200 and be done with it. Back and forth I go. The only reasonable solution to end this madness is just to own them all and use what I feel like using at that moment!
I am developing a slightly self righteous affinity for strictly manual focus primes though. Makes me feel artsy![doublepost=1453922045][/doublepost]
2 lenses and a tripod. That makes it more interesting. I still say a 50 would be one of my lenses (on a DX, or FF body). The fact that your using a D7100 makes the second choice a little tougher. For my D750 I'd probably go with a 24 because I do more landscape than other types but a 24 on a crop gets you 35mm (still acceptable for me but not "real wide"). If I did more shots with a person, animal, or plant as the subject (than landscape) I might choose an 85mm as the second prime. Another thing I've also done with a 50mm is turn the camera vertical and take multiple vertical shots of a landscape and then stitch them back together. Turning it vertical helps save some of the height so you don't end up with a really narrow panorama.
Trouble with owning lots of lenses, is trying to decide which to take with you! I can't carry all of mine.And there's the discussion I keep having in my head! I want to carry a 24, 50, and a 85. Primes rule! Yeah...whatever, just get a 24-70 + 70-200 and be done with it. Back and forth I go. The only reasonable solution to end this madness is just to own them all and use what I feel like using at that moment!
[doublepost=1453922045][/doublepost]
2 lenses and a tripod. That makes it more interesting. I still say a 50 would be one of my lenses (on a DX, or FF body). The fact that your using a D7100 makes the second choice a little tougher. For my D750 I'd probably go with a 24 because I do more landscape than other types but a 24 on a crop gets you 35mm (still acceptable for me but not "real wide"). If I did more shots with a person, animal, or plant as the subject (than landscape) I might choose an 85mm as the second prime. Another thing I've also done with a 50mm is turn the camera vertical and take multiple vertical shots of a landscape and then stitch them back together. Turning it vertical helps save some of the height so you don't end up with a really narrow panorama.
Have you taken a look at landscapes and nature shots that you've made with your current lenses ? What focal lengths did you use for your favorite images , or the ones you consider most successful ? Maybe you could use those lengths as a guide for your prime purchases .
Sorry about that I typed it up in word and it did not copy over my paragraph breaks. Will fix that right now.
And there's the discussion I keep having in my head! I want to carry a 24, 50, and a 85. Primes rule! Yeah...whatever, just get a 24-70 + 70-200 and be done with it. Back and forth I go. The only reasonable solution to end this madness is just to own them all and use what I feel like using at that moment!
[doublepost=1453922045][/doublepost]
2 lenses and a tripod. That makes it more interesting. I still say a 50 would be one of my lenses (on a DX, or FF body). The fact that your using a D7100 makes the second choice a little tougher. For my D750 I'd probably go with a 24 because I do more landscape than other types but a 24 on a crop gets you 35mm (still acceptable for me but not "real wide"). If I did more shots with a person, animal, or plant as the subject (than landscape) I might choose an 85mm as the second prime. Another thing I've also done with a 50mm is turn the camera vertical and take multiple vertical shots of a landscape and then stitch them back together. Turning it vertical helps save some of the height so you don't end up with a really narrow panorama.
An 85 on crop is around 128 on full frame. At that focal length he is probably better off spending it on a Tamron 70-200 and having more options. Long focal length primes are not as ideal as their shorter focal length primes. You often end up running into issues with shot composition with a prime above 100 (85mm or 90mm primes are fantastic however on full frame).
Since this thread is about primes, wanted to share a few more examples that I took tonight. The first series is about DOF and cropping. The second series is about how focal length influences composition. Will end with a couple of comments about lens suggestions.
As in my previous post, all of these taken with a full frame camera (Nikon D810) on a tripod. ISO set at 64. WB normalized for all examples. All of these on a full frame sensor, none cropped in camera for a crop sensor.
Series #1: different focal length lenses all taken from the same spot and then cropped in LR to give a similar FOV. All lenses shot wide open. The point of the series is to show the effect of focal length on DOF. For the shorter focal lengths, the subject distance is pretty far away, so with a closer subject one could obviously achieve a greater degree of subject isolation.
![24290637949_7be4595fe0_b.jpg]()
35mm lens uncropped taken at f/1.4. Reference point for the other pics in this series.
![24632156486_ee0d2b15eb_b.jpg]()
Nikon 300mm @ f/2.8
![24658367615_71417f68fe_b.jpg]()
Nikon 135mm @ f/2
![24658367265_8acfbe666e_b.jpg]()
Nikon 85mm @ f/1.4
![24632155416_7445051013_b.jpg]()
Nikon 35mm @ f/1.4. This is a fairly extreme crop that resulted in significant image degradation.
Series #2: effect of different focal lengths and subject distances while keeping the subject the same size in the frame. I was attempting to show how you can achieve a relatively constant subject size within the frame with different focal lengths by changing subject distance. This was a PITA to shoot and it isn't perfect as the composition changed as I moved the tripod closer as I changed lenses. The composition changes radically as focal length changes (and thus shooting position has to change) to keep the subject the same relative size in the frame. Choice of focal length isn't just about "filling the frame," it's also about the relationship of all the elements within the frame. Notice how the relative size (and thus visual importance) of the glasses in the foreground changes as the focal length gets wider (assuming I wasn't shooting wide open and they were in focus).
![24658368475_b531e4e19e_b.jpg]()
Nikon 135mm @ f/2. Furthest away for this series.
![24632157506_1340fdbca2_b.jpg]()
Nikon 85mm @ f/1.4 a bit closer.
![24030221594_e2b5583ff3_b.jpg]()
Nikon 24mm @ f/1.4. Closer still.
![24030222164_e9d4e18c32_b.jpg]()
Nikon 20mm @ f/1.8. Closest.
Lots of factors to consider when choosing lenses. The suggestion of the 24-70 f/2.8 zoom isn't a bad one--it's a great lens. Bulky though and not as fast as shooting primes. For what I like to shoot, 35mm on full frame is my preferred focal length (which would be a 24mm lens on a crop sensor). Mentioned in a post above and I won't argue.
As I said in my first post (and others have echoed), take some time to figure out what *your* preferred focal length is. Shoot with your kit zooms and see where you tend to fall out. Think about that as the focal length you should choose for your first prime.
As in my previous post, all of these taken with a full frame camera (Nikon D810) on a tripod. ISO set at 64. WB normalized for all examples. All of these on a full frame sensor, none cropped in camera for a crop sensor.
Series #1: different focal length lenses all taken from the same spot and then cropped in LR to give a similar FOV. All lenses shot wide open. The point of the series is to show the effect of focal length on DOF. For the shorter focal lengths, the subject distance is pretty far away, so with a closer subject one could obviously achieve a greater degree of subject isolation.
35mm lens uncropped taken at f/1.4. Reference point for the other pics in this series.
Nikon 300mm @ f/2.8
Nikon 135mm @ f/2
Nikon 85mm @ f/1.4
Nikon 35mm @ f/1.4. This is a fairly extreme crop that resulted in significant image degradation.
Series #2: effect of different focal lengths and subject distances while keeping the subject the same size in the frame. I was attempting to show how you can achieve a relatively constant subject size within the frame with different focal lengths by changing subject distance. This was a PITA to shoot and it isn't perfect as the composition changed as I moved the tripod closer as I changed lenses. The composition changes radically as focal length changes (and thus shooting position has to change) to keep the subject the same relative size in the frame. Choice of focal length isn't just about "filling the frame," it's also about the relationship of all the elements within the frame. Notice how the relative size (and thus visual importance) of the glasses in the foreground changes as the focal length gets wider (assuming I wasn't shooting wide open and they were in focus).
Nikon 135mm @ f/2. Furthest away for this series.
Nikon 85mm @ f/1.4 a bit closer.
Nikon 24mm @ f/1.4. Closer still.
Nikon 20mm @ f/1.8. Closest.
Lots of factors to consider when choosing lenses. The suggestion of the 24-70 f/2.8 zoom isn't a bad one--it's a great lens. Bulky though and not as fast as shooting primes. For what I like to shoot, 35mm on full frame is my preferred focal length (which would be a 24mm lens on a crop sensor). Mentioned in a post above and I won't argue.
As I said in my first post (and others have echoed), take some time to figure out what *your* preferred focal length is. Shoot with your kit zooms and see where you tend to fall out. Think about that as the focal length you should choose for your first prime.
Last edited:
Since this thread is about primes, wanted to share a few more examples that I took tonight. The first series is about DOF and cropping. The second series is about how focal length influences composition. Will end with a couple of comments about lens suggestions.
As in my previous post, all of these taken with a full frame camera (Nikon D810) on a tripod. ISO set at 64. WB normalized for all examples. All of these on a full frame sensor, none cropped in camera for a crop sensor.
Series #1: different focal length lenses all taken from the same spot and then cropped in LR to give a similar FOV. All lenses shot wide open. The point of the series is to show the effect of focal length on DOF. For the shorter focal lengths, the subject distance is pretty far away, so with a closer subject one could obviously achieve a greater degree of subject isolation.
![24290637949_7be4595fe0_b.jpg]()
35mm lens uncropped taken at f/1.4
![24632156486_ee0d2b15eb_b.jpg]()
Nikon 300mm @ f/2.8
![24658367615_71417f68fe_b.jpg]()
Nikon 135mm @ f/2
![24658367265_8acfbe666e_b.jpg]()
Nikon 85mm @ f/1.4
![24632155416_7445051013_b.jpg]()
Nikon 35mm @ f/1.4. This is a fairly extreme crop that resulted in significant image degradation.
Series #2: effect of different focal lengths and subject distances while keeping the subject the same size in the frame. I was attempting to show how you can achieve a relatively constant subject size within the frame with different focal lengths by changing subject distance. This was a PITA to shoot and it isn't perfect as the composition changed as I moved the tripod closer as I changed lenses. The composition changes radically as focal length changes (and thus shooting position has to change) to keep the subject the same relative size in the frame. Choice of focal length isn't just about "filling the frame," it's also about the relationship of all the elements within the frame. Notice how the relative size (and thus visual importance) of the glasses in the foreground changes as the focal length gets wider (assuming I wasn't shooting wide open and they were in focus).
![24658368475_b531e4e19e_b.jpg]()
Nikon 135mm @ f/2. Furthest away for this series.
![24632157506_1340fdbca2_b.jpg]()
Nikon 85mm @ f/1.4 a bit closer.
![24030221594_e2b5583ff3_b.jpg]()
Nikon 24mm @ f/1.4. Closer still.
![24030222164_e9d4e18c32_b.jpg]()
Nikon 20mm @ f/1.8. Closest.
Lots of factors to consider when choosing lenses. The suggestion of the 24-70 f/2.8 zoom isn't a bad one--it's a great lens. Bulky though and not as fast as shooting primes. For what I like to shoot, 35mm on full frame is my preferred focal length (which would be a 24mm lens on a crop sensor). Mentioned in a post above and I won't argue.
As I said in my first post (and others have echoed), take some time to figure out what *your* preferred focal length is. Shoot with your kit zooms and see where you tend to fall out. Think about that as the focal length you should choose for your first prime.
I had a thought would it be possible for you to shoot a few shots in crop mode with the 24 and 35? That would give OP an idea about how a 24mm or 35mm looks on crop.
Yes, possible my last post was a bit too esoteric
Here are practical comparisons of 24mm and 35mm f/1.4 primes shot wide open on full frame (FX) and crop (DX).
Nikon 24mm @ f/1.4 on full frame
Nikon 24mm @ f/1.4 on crop sensor
Nikon 35mm @ f/1.4 on full frame
Nikon 35mm @ f/1.4 on crop sensor
Yeah it's hard to have a discussion on focal lengths when we mix FF and crop bodies into the same discussion. @kallisti is doing a great job in visually demonstrating the differences for the OP. Since the OP was specifically asking about primes I've kept my suggestions to just that. Available primes and the crop factor are some of the reasons I'm happy that I moved to FF. If the OP wanted true 24, 35, 50, 85 on his D7100 the choices in Nikon lens would be 16mm, 24mm, 35mm and 58mm. None of them cheap and the 16mm is a fish eye. If I was selecting 2 primes for my purposes (landscape and adventure) to use on my D90 it would be a 20mm, and a 50mm (30 and 75 on a D7100). If it was for my D750 it would probably be a 24mm and a 50mm (though it would be a tough choice between 50 and 85). Bottom line...I don't think anyone can go wrong with a 50mm on FF or DX.
I have a 135mm prime and you are right longer primes seem to start having a little less flexibility. Maybe because it's often easier to get closer than it is to back up? Plus, they get real expensive real fast. For me, personally, I'd certainly consider something like the 200-500 before a prime over 200.
There is almost no excuse for not owning a 35mm f/1.8 DX, given the price. This lens is the nifty-fifty for the DX format.
That said, if you want something a little special, consider the 40mm f/2.8 DX Micro. It has awesome resolution and contrast (far better than the price would suggest) and doubles as 1:1 macro lens. I use it often as walk-around lens on a D7000 when I don't want to pack anything else. It has much less CA than the 35/1.8 DX and, unlike the latter, virtually no geometric distortion (but in-camera JPEG conversion will compensate for those).
That said, if you want something a little special, consider the 40mm f/2.8 DX Micro. It has awesome resolution and contrast (far better than the price would suggest) and doubles as 1:1 macro lens. I use it often as walk-around lens on a D7000 when I don't want to pack anything else. It has much less CA than the 35/1.8 DX and, unlike the latter, virtually no geometric distortion (but in-camera JPEG conversion will compensate for those).
Really appreciate the time, and effort on kallisti's part, to go through the various explanations and viewpoints re: prime lens selection. I can certainly use this s a base to make an educated decision on the direction I take now. Thanks to all for your help...
No trouble at all. Happy to help out
I think two take home messages when shooting primes instead of zooms are:
(1) DOF relates to lens focal length whether you crop in-camera (by having a smaller sensor relative to full frame) or crop after the fact in post.
(2) Lens focal length influences the relationship of elements within the frame (near-far relationships most notably, and by this I mean the relative size and perceived distance between near and far elements in the composition). When using a prime you often have to "zoom with your feet." Doing this will *always* have an effect on the composition. There are often practical reasons to choose one focal length over another (you don't have the space to either move closer or further away), but there are also compositional reasons to choose one focal length over another. Zooms give you more flexibility in this regard.
Last edited:
One last series of pics, just to be complete. This thread has mostly been about choice of focal length, but wanted to include a series showing the effect of aperture on DOF. All of these shot with a 50mm lens on a full frame sensor with the focus on the nose.
Note in particular the difference between f/2.8 and more open apertures. The zoom vs prime debate is complicated for many, many reasons but even professional zooms usually have a maximum aperture of f/2.8. Aside from the practical advantages in some circumstances of a faster lens (ignoring the issue of VR as that opens up a different can of worms), there are artistic reasons to prefer a faster lens (at least for some subjects/compositions).
![24399517900_32d52d0719_b.jpg]()
50mm @ f/1.4
![24695050605_eb1f380bfc_b.jpg]()
50mm @ f/2
![24695051315_2fa8d4d8a4_b.jpg]()
50mm @ f/2.8
![24068219293_512bfe52d2_b.jpg]()
50mm @ f/4
![24577284142_184d610a6f_b.jpg]()
50mm @ f/5.6
Note in particular the difference between f/2.8 and more open apertures. The zoom vs prime debate is complicated for many, many reasons but even professional zooms usually have a maximum aperture of f/2.8. Aside from the practical advantages in some circumstances of a faster lens (ignoring the issue of VR as that opens up a different can of worms), there are artistic reasons to prefer a faster lens (at least for some subjects/compositions).
50mm @ f/1.4
50mm @ f/2
50mm @ f/2.8
50mm @ f/4
50mm @ f/5.6
Another useful tutorial. Should help people decide on which lens to buy next!One last series of pics, just to be complete. This thread has mostly been about choice of focal length, but wanted to include a series showing the effect of aperture on DOF. All of these shot with a 50mm lens on a full frame sensor with the focus on the nose.
Note in particular the difference between f/2.8 and more open apertures. The zoom vs prime debate is complicated for many, many reasons but even professional zooms usually have a maximum aperture of f/2.8. Aside from the practical advantages in some circumstances of a faster lens (ignoring the issue of VR as that opens up a different can of worms), there are artistic reasons to prefer a faster lens (at least for some subjects/compositions).
![24399517900_32d52d0719_b.jpg]()
50mm @ f/1.4
![24695050605_eb1f380bfc_b.jpg]()
50mm @ f/2
![24695051315_2fa8d4d8a4_b.jpg]()
50mm @ f/2.8
![24068219293_512bfe52d2_b.jpg]()
50mm @ f/4
![24577284142_184d610a6f_b.jpg]()
50mm @ f/5.6
Maybe they should make your tutorials a sticky thread.
Aperture size has an effect on out of focus blur (background blur in most cases). This out of focus blur is called bokeh. As you increase in f stop you get a less bokeh and as you decrease in f stop you get more bokeh. It is an individual taste but faster lenses do allow more background blur.