Photography Questions

[davelin315]

OK, so now that I have my Nikon D80 and a lens (it took me 2 months to get around to buying a lens), I have more questions!

 

I went to Penn Camera to look at used lenses and instead walked out with a new Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens (which was explained to me to be the film equivalent of 42mm-107mm lens). I thought that this would be a good lens to start with that is for general use, has a fairly low aperature, and would not necessarily be a lens I'd have to replace if I buy a zoom lens (something in the 80-200mm spectrum) and a macro lens. Anyway, based on the conversation I had with the person at Penn, who was very nice and spent a whole lot of time with me, I am unsure of what the next step will be.

 

For zoom, I know that the longer the lens, the greater the zoom and also the lower the aperature, the sharper the picture can be. So, if I get an 80-200 or similar lens, I should be looking for a lower aperature, correct? Based on my limited understanding, the smaller the aperature, the sharper and the faster the picture can be taken, so if I'm taking pictures of my kids at the pool from across the pool this summer, I'll get the clearest picture by taking a photograph with a higher mm lens and a lower aperature, correct?

 

For macro, I'm not clear on why a 100-105mm lens is considered to be a macro lens. Is this because it's able to focus in more clearly at a shorter distance? Why is it that the 12-24mm lenses are considered to be wide angle versus a macro lens, or am I mistaken on this classification? What macro lenses do people on here use to photograph corals up close as well as nature? Does the aperature make a big difference on a macro lens?

 

Last question, do I actually need a wide angle lens? I shot with several different lenses in the store and I could see how easily a 20mm lens shot a wider view as compared to a 50mm lens, but do the photography buffs out there actually feel that a wide angle is needed? My two photography applications are going to be my kids and their activities and photographing my tank (when I get it set up - I really need to do this as my tanks are basically just holding tanks right now and are by and large ignored at home so in trying out the lens I ended up photographing random things around the house, from the dog and cat fur stuck on my sock to posing and photographing some My Little Ponies!), so is a wide angle part of the high end amateur's photography kit?

 

Thanks in advance to all of you buffs out there (and if anyone wants to lend me a lens to try out, let me know!).

[dhoch]

A macro lens is designed to allow you to get closer to your subject and still be able to focus (that's something they should have done with you in the shop).

 

Lower aperture is better for those great detailed sharp shots.

 

Think about what you want to shoot and go from there...

 

Chris uses a macro lens (a 105mm Nikon I think) and a I think 30-55mm 2.8 as his fish lens... that's pretty much all he uses for the tank. If you have other needs think about what you use it for.

 

I have a Tamron 90mm that I use for most tank shots (it's a 2.8)... I also have a 5.6 that I use for "general" photography (28-300).

 

Dave

[Gadgets]

OK, so now that I have my Nikon D80 and a lens (it took me 2 months to get around to buying a lens), I have more questions!

 

I went to Penn Camera to look at used lenses and instead walked out with a new Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens (which was explained to me to be the film equivalent of 42mm-107mm lens). I thought that this would be a good lens to start with that is for general use, has a fairly low aperature, and would not necessarily be a lens I'd have to replace if I buy a zoom lens (something in the 80-200mm spectrum) and a macro lens. Anyway, based on the conversation I had with the person at Penn, who was very nice and spent a whole lot of time with me, I am unsure of what the next step will be.

 

Nice! A 28-70 is a great starter lens.I am glad that you purchased a lens with a fixed aperture of 2.8. I can't stress that enough. It is a fast lens and will give you sharp photographs. The next step depends on you. Remember that the quality of lens are very important. It can make or break the photograph.

 

For zoom, I know that the longer the lens, the greater the zoom and also the lower the aperature, the sharper the picture can be. So, if I get an 80-200 or similar lens, I should be looking for a lower aperature, correct? Based on my limited understanding, the smaller the aperature, the sharper and the faster the picture can be taken, so if I'm taking pictures of my kids at the pool from across the pool this summer, I'll get the clearest picture by taking a photograph with a higher mm lens and a lower aperature, correct?

 

Yes, that is correct. Also it is great to have a larger focal length when taking photographs of children, because it allows you to be discrete. You are farther away which gives you the ability to photograph them in their true selves. They aren't worried about posing and such. Candids are wonderful when done correctly. Some of the coolest shots I have seen of people were candids.

 

For macro, I'm not clear on why a 100-105mm lens is considered to be a macro lens. Is this because it's able to focus in more clearly at a shorter distance? Why is it that the 12-24mm lenses are considered to be wide angle versus a macro lens, or am I mistaken on this classification? What macro lenses do people on here use to photograph corals up close as well as nature? Does the aperature make a big difference on a macro lens?

 

A macro lens gives you the ability to shoot w/ a minimal focusing distance. In other words, you can get very close to a subject and still retain the ability to focus. It's a must have for marine photography. They have different focal lengths as well. I use a 105mm 2.8 A wide angle lens is just that, it's a wide angle lens. It's purpose is to get as much of the subject in the frame as possible. The macro allows you to get as close as you possibly can. Sometimes it gets confusing, because some zoom lens like a 28-70mm 2.8 are labeled as macro, but it is macro in the sense that simply reduces the minimum focusing distance. This distance is still large when compared to an actual macro lens. You have made an investment my friend. If you plan to continue shooting with this camera. I would suggest that you get quality lens. When lens are concerned, you really do get what you pay for.

 

 

Last question, do I actually need a wide angle lens? I shot with several different lenses in the store and I could see how easily a 20mm lens shot a wider view as compared to a 50mm lens, but do the photography buffs out there actually feel that a wide angle is needed? My two photography applications are going to be my kids and their activities and photographing my tank (when I get it set up - I really need to do this as my tanks are basically just holding tanks right now and are by and large ignored at home so in trying out the lens I ended up photographing random things around the house, from the dog and cat fur stuck on my sock to posing and photographing some My Little Ponies!), so is a wide angle part of the high end amateur's photography kit?

 

At this moment i would say that you could hold off on the wide angle. I am by no means down playing the importance of a wide angle lens. they are great and provide you with more flexibility.when shooting., but I think the 28-70 will be fine for right now. When photographing my tank. I use three lens.

 

These are in no particular order

 

1. 28-70mm 2.8 (great overall lens)

2. 50mm 1.8 (Very sharp and fast)

3. 105mm 2.8 (awesome for closeups)

 

Thanks in advance to all of you buffs out there (and if anyone wants to lend me a lens to try out, let me know!).

[fab]

Actually, macro photography is not about getting closer to a subject. Macro photograhpy means producing full-scale and larger than full-scale images on film.

 

That means that if you take a picture of a dime, then the image of the dime on the film, either positive film or negative film, will be as large as or larger than the actual dime. If you lay a dime on the film image it would not be bigger than the image of the dime on the film.

 

It turns out that for a given focal length lense the distance to the macro photography subject is short relative to a non-macro subject, whether the lense is a wide angle, normal angle or narrow angle lense. In other words you have to get closer for macro photography than for non-macro photography.

 

The normal angle lense for 35 mm film cameras is about 50-60 mm focal length, depending on the design of the lense and camera body taken together. Normal angle refers to an angle that is normal vision for a human. The angle is formed at the intersection of two rays with the eye being the vertex of the angle. Consider the apparent angle subtended by an object in the field of view. For example, if you have a car in the picture, the apparent angle would be the angle formed at the intersection of a line from your eye to the front of the car with another line from your eye to the rear of the car.

 

If the lense does not enlarge or reduce that apparent angle, then the car and other objects in the field of view will appear normal to the human eye. That lense would be called a "normal" or "normal angle" lense.

 

If the apparent angle is enlarged by the lense then distortion in the picture will appear to stretch things, but not uniformly, and the objects will not appear "normal" to the human eye. Such a lense is called a wide angle lense. With extreme wide angle lenses the distortion is very obvious such as causing a person's nose to appear way out of proportion to the head or causing a building to look like it is tilted back from the camera.

 

On the other hand if a lense reduces the apparent angle below the normal angle, the lense is called a narrow angle lense or telephoto lense. This allows the lense only to see a narrow segment of the scene relative to what an eye "normally" see. The effect is the picture looks like you zoomed in on it to capture only a narrow segment of your naked field of vision.

 

For 35 mm film cameras the normal lense is nominally a 50 mm focal lenth lense. Lenses with shorter focal lengths are wide angle lenses because they capture a wider angle than the human eye does. Lenses with longer focal lengths are narrow angle or telephoto lenses. So a 24 mm lense is a wide angle lense on a 35 mm film camera. A 15 mm lense is an extremely wide angle lense that can actually capture almost a full 180 degree angle. Lenses such as 90mm, 105mm, 300 mm are all narrow angle telephoto lenses of increasing telephoto power.

 

Macro lenses can be of any focal length from wide angle through normal angle to telephoto. I've never personally seen a wide angle macro lense. They don't have much practical value for a number of [unmentioned] reasons. I have both normal and narrow angle [telephoto] macro lenses. They satisfy different requirements the photograher has. The wider the angle of the lense, the closer the photographer can, and must, get to the subject for macro photography. Conversely, the wider the angle of the lense, the farther away the macro photographer must be from the subject. If you are taking macro photographic shots of something you can get close to without interfering with the shot you are trying to set up then you can use a wider macro lense, which might be a "normal" lense set to macro operation. This is common when photographing insects or flowers where the photographer can get up close. On the other hand if you can't get close to the macro subject, then you can use a narrow angle, or telephoto, lense set to its macro operation to get that large-scale, life size or bigger image on film by setting up at a distance from the subject. An example: consider trying to photograph the eye and mouth of a little critter that is too far from the front glass of your display tank for your 50 mm macro lense to focus on. Switch to a 105 mm macro capable lense and you can 'reach' farther into the tank for great macro shots. In my underwater photography work, in the wild, I often need to use a 105mm macro lense so I can get far enough away from a jittery critter so I don't scare it away whilst I'm trying to capture a facial detail on film.

 

One other important point about macro photography is that the depth of focus is tiny for any aperture. A 50 mm lense may only have a few to several millimeters depth of focus. You probably won't be able to get an eye and a gill both in focus at the same time for many varieties of fish with that small a depth of focus. Also, if your subject is waving in the current, it is likely to be moving in and out of focus, making it difficult (aka frustrating) to capture a crisp macro image of it. As you move to longer focal length lenses, the depth of field also increases in macro operation, but it still remains quite small.

 

And a last point, all these points apply to both still macro photography and and moving (including video) macro photography; except that the focal length for a so-called "normal" lense changes from one film format to another.

 

I hope this helps organize your understanding of focal length and macro operation in your photography,

fab

[Rascal]

I hope this helps organize your understanding of focal length and macro operation in your photography,

fab

 

Yes. Greatly. Thanks.

[lanman]

Actually, macro photography is not about getting closer to a subject. Macro photograhpy means producing full-scale and larger than full-scale images on film.

 

That means that if you take a picture of a dime, then the image of the dime on the film, either positive film or negative film, will be as large as or larger than the actual dime. If you lay a dime on the film image it would not be bigger than the image of the dime on the film.

 

I've forgotten more about photography than you've ever learned! Okay - maybe not... but I sure have forgotten a lot about photography! 30+ years ago, I was a very dedicated hobbiest photographer. I not only bought the Time-Life photography library - I read them word for word! But as the years passed, I got out of photography as a hobby. By 1980, I had sold most of my cameras and my darkroom equipment.

 

Which is all just leading up to - It's great to hear someone actually mention FILM!!

 

My macro-photography setup was my Pentax Spotmatic, a 'bellows' arrangement, and a 50mm lens on the end of the bellows. With careful lighting and focusing, I could photograph the eye of a spider in a size that almost filled a 35mm negative. At a guess, I'd say my depth of field was probably about the thickness of a film negative.

 

I've recently purchased an old 4x5 enlarger, and I'm slowly (between saltwater events) setting up a makeshift darkroom so that I can print up some of my old negatives, and some 4x5 glass negatives (from about 1910-1920) that I purchased as a lot at an antique store. Way back then - I printed some of those glass negatives up to 16x20 size or more. Even 30 years ago I found I enjoyed darkroom work more than I did photography.

 

Thanks for the memories!

 

bob

[fab]

Lanman,

I'm a bit shocked at the retort: "I've forgotten more about photography than you've ever learned! Okay..."

I can only hope that this just didn't come across the way you actually meant it. Since we don't know each other in the first place, neither of us have any basis to judge the other in terms of knowledge on anything, much less photography. That said, I will certainly accept valid criticism on the correctness of what I say on these forums, regardless of the experience level of the person criticizing. Did I mistake the meaning of your post??? I sure hope so.

 

Given what you said toward the end of your post, I am led to conclude that you actually do agree with the definition of macro photography I offered. Your post said:

"With careful lighting and focusing, I could photograph the eye of a spider in a size that almost filled a 35mm negative. At a guess, I'd say my depth of field was probably about the thickness of a film negative."

 

So, do I take it correctly that you agree with me that "Macro photograhpy means producing full-scale and larger than full-scale images on film" ???

 

 

fab

 

 

I would like to clarify something about macro photography.

 

You will often see the phrase "close-up" used in discussions of macro-photography, as in "close-up photography." Here close-up refers to the appearance of the final image, in that the image makes the subject appear to be viewed from close-up.

 

An excellent example is the one Lanman offers: "I could photograph the eye of a spider in a size that almost filled a 35mm negative." Now, whether or not he had actually to get the camera lens close to the spider's eye to achieve this effect is a totally separate issue. The effect is his image of the spider's eye registers on a human's perception as being a close-up view, very close-up. Thnt is macro photography.

 

fab

Edited May 5, 2007 by fab