What is your most common focal length/zoom range?

amol · April 10, 2007

Hi,

I was wondering what zoom range people use the most often, for general-purpose.

I'm debating on whether the all-popular Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is going to have

enough reach for a travel/general purpose lens. I looked up the EXIF info on

some of my recent pics, checked to see how many were shot at or below 51mm, and

how many were shot above 58mm. These were all shot using my Sigma 18-125, which

almost gives me all the range I need (I have a Tamron 75-300, for longer range

shots).

I know the typical advice, is to consider what I actually take pics of, and look

at the focal length, so I did. These are the situations, and percentage of total

images shot at or below 51mm (18-51mm), the remainder of the shots were

typically in the 58mm-125mm.

2yr old Nephew's B-Day (Younger kids running around everywhere)

300 images total, 84% shot at or below 51mm

Lake Almanor

326 images total, 48% shot at or below 51mm (most of the shots over 58mm were of

people skiing, or shooting from the shore)

Trip to San Francisco

137 images total, 68% shot at or below 51mm

Wedding (I was assistant/backup, main photograph shot with 17-50)

271 images, 79% shot at or below 51mm

Rome

384 images, 93% shot at or below 51mm

Paris

542 images, 86% shot at or below 51mm

Venice

243 images, 88% shot at or below 51mm

Florence

196 images, 72% shot at or below 51mm

Of course, perhaps the other thing I should consider is that I recently upgraded

from a Canon Rebel 300D to a Rebel 350D. So, in theory 6mp vs. 8mp, allows a

little more room to cropping, right? (A little?) How comparable or different is

this 2mp gain, in terms of optical zoom range/focal length?

(FYI: My equipment includes: Canon Rebel XT, Canon 50mm f/1.8, Canon 28-105

3.5-4.5 USM II (the nice one), Tamron 75-300, and Sigma 18-125mm. (and 430EX flash).

So, what are your most common focal lengths, for a general purpose lens? (I used

a free program called "ExifPro 1.0" It it allows you to sort by EXIF info, I

clicked the focal length column and it sorted them in descending or ascending

order.)

Thanks,

Amol

sandra_schaffer · April 10, 2007

I know on my film camera with no crop most of my shots are taken with a 35-70 zoom or a 50mm. Most of the 35-70 photos were taken at around 50-60mm.

I have an 80-200 that I rarely use.

I have a 105mm that I also use a lot.

geoffs1 · April 10, 2007

My "general purpose" is probably a bit warped, but probably 85% of my photos are taken with my 100-400mm - most often at/near the 400mm end. I just double-checked my gallery here (which is strongly weighted towards the "artsy" end) and five of the 7 shots are from the 100-400mm.

walang_pangalan · April 10, 2007

$ find . -name '*.cr2' -print | xargs crw | awk '{ print $9; }' | sed 's/mm.*//' | sort -n | uniq -c

128 17

11 18

17 19

41 20

9 21

55 22

24 23

16 24

17 25

47 26

12 27

27 28

26 29

31 30

12 31

22 32

7 33

4 34

261 35

12 50

66 70

3 85

2 98

2 100

2 105

2 108

1 135

10 140

9 150

4 160

1 170

1 175

3 180

94 200

189 300

130 420

819 500

64 600

1033 700

551 1000

First column is count, second if focal length, data spans a few months. Now, I can launch into detail analysis of the above results - linear, logistic, time-series - but to what purpose? Shall I sell my woefully under-used 50mm lens? Should I buy a wider-than-17mm lens? Does this data indicate I need the 600/4?

Going back to you, I get the impression from your question you simply hunting for an excuse to buy the Tamron 17-50/2.8. Personally, I'd suggest you get the better Canon equivalent, especially if you have to justify your expense with some kind of usage report like this. Whatever you choose, just buy it now. Right now: wherever you are, just get up and go buy it. It won't be the end of the world if you make a mistake here..

andre_mcnichols · April 10, 2007

About half of mine are shot at 50 or below (Tamron 17-50 or canon 50 1.8) and the other half is shot with my 100-400, mostly at 400.

Don't rely on the replies here to choose your glass or you'll end up buying both the tamron and the 100-400...

brucecyr · April 10, 2007

1. I like the detailed analysis you've made of your focal lengths.

2. I don't have the faintest idea where your head is at :-)

Why is it that you want to buy the Tamron 17-50? That's not a knock against that fine lens, but rather on how you frame your request. Are you worried about weight or lens speed? Are you going to sell the 18-125?

Most people in your situation would probably want to cover a gap in their focal coverage, say super wide-angle, or telescopic. But going faster or lighter would also make sense. So what is that you aim to do?

wandern · April 10, 2007

I suppose the question is, what's wrong with your Sigma 18-125mm? The usual answer is that super zooms have a large convenience/image quality tradeoff.

I don't find it too troublesome to be missing the 51-69mm focal range, so a 17-50mm and 70-200mm make a good affordable pair with great IQ.

The Tamron 17-50mm is now selling new on ebay for about $400 shipped (and about $450 at reliable places like B&H), and you can get a Canon 70-200mm F4 L for under $500 (or use your Tamron 75-300).

The Canon 17-85mm is another obvious option that'd give you good coverage and might cover a number of your > 50mm shots without requiring a lens swap.

Let's see what lens I should be using more often...

Looks like I could stand to go with a longer zoom or swap lenses more often with all of those 50mm shots.

NOTE: What is this? I can't use the <pre> tag anymore? What a pain!

<tt>

exiftool -focallength -ext cr2 -ext jpg -r . | grep Focal\ Length |awk '{print $4}'|sed 's/mm//'|sort -n |uniq -c

<table>

</table>

amol · April 10, 2007

Hey guys,

The reason I'm looking at the Tamron is mostly, because of the f/2.8.

I have been using the Sigma 18-125 for a general-purpose lens. Recently, I dropped it, actually twice. The first time, it fell out of my pocket, bounced off a rock and fell in the sand. I had the hood on backwards, so, the hood took most the impact. It worked okay. Then the second time, it fell 3-4 feet onto a concrete floor, straight down onto the lens. The filter broke into tiny pieces, and the lens cap was stuck in the filter. The glass on the lens is fine, and actually the lens works fine, most of the time. Occasionally, the lens will stop-down for no reason, the view-finder becomes dim/dark. Almost like the DOF Preview button is being pressed, but it is not. Luckily, both times the lens was not on the camera. (The camera is fine).

So, I can possibly send the Sigma in for repair, and/or buy a new lens. I know the Sigma isn't a high quality lens, but I like the pictures it takes for the most part. My only issue with the lens is the 3.5-5.6 aperture. I sometimes wish it was more like f/2.8. Though, honestly, I like the zoom range of the lens. It is ideal for travel, and general-purpose shots.

I am on a budget.

Walang: I do have to justify my expenses, to my WIFE. What "better Canon equivalent" lens do you recommend? The Canon 17-55 IS f2.8? Even if I could afford this lens, I don't think, the addition of "IS", is justified, if the Tamron can give the same quality. From the reviews I have read the Tamron image quality comes pretty close to the Canon. Personally, (if I undersand how IS works) IS is nice for still objects, but pointless for moving objects, f2.8 is more useful... for me. Yes I realize: "It won't be the end of the world if you make a mistake here.." Though, I do want to consider my options, if there is something better than the Tamron. The only other option, that I can afford is the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5. But it lacks a constant f/2.8.

amol · April 10, 2007

The Canon 17-85 f/4-5.6 looks nice, but the f stops suck. I mean, f/4 @17mm, the Sigma 17-70 has 4.5 @70. Like I mentioned, IS is only good for static objects... pointless for moving objects.

m_barbu1 · April 10, 2007

</tt>

m_barbu1 · April 10, 2007

It might be the lack of a </tt> tag in Walang's post.

m_barbu1 · April 10, 2007

Walang, I have been considering learning more about sed and awk -- you just cemented my decision! ;-)

Amol, my most common (on a 20D) used to fluctuate between 100mm and 200mm (not the range, but those lengths). Now, it seems to have turned to 24mm and 70mm, followed by 35mm.

brucecyr · April 10, 2007

Okay, I forgot your earlier post -- you need that information to make sense of this one.

I don't think it makes much sense to ask what other people use unless you want to be part of the crowd. It makes more sense to focus on what you're interested in -- a fast, walk around zoom. Then the other parameter to factor in is your budget, and how useful you think such amenities like IS are. Maybe the key factor is final review by your Household Comptroller :-)

brucecyr · April 10, 2007

"IS is only good for static objects... pointless for moving objects"

Point of information: Latest two generations of IS have panning mode switch. But it sounds like you wouldn't find it useful.

roger_smith4 · April 10, 2007

"Point of information: Latest two generations of IS have panning mode switch. But it sounds like you wouldn't find it useful."

Not if you want to stop motion.

brucecyr · April 10, 2007

"Not if you want to stop motion."

Point taken.

amol · April 10, 2007

Bruce,

I didn't know about the Pan feature of IS. However, this is only helpful if the subject is moving horizontally or vertically across the screen, correct? So, if the subject is moving towards the camera or just moving around, randomly, the panning feature will not help?

"I don't think it makes much sense to ask what other people use unless you want to be part of the crowd. "

True, unless the "crowd" is a group of fairly competent professionals in photography, such as photo.net.

For me, $450 is a chunk of money, I want to be sure that I make a purchase that I don't regret. Especially, if I regret it, I probably won't be able to buy another lens for another year... or more.

So, yes, I can tell by looking at my EXIF data, that a 17-50mm will cover most (70-90%) of my shooting-style.

No one responded to this question, is this irrelevant, am I wrong about this:

Of course, perhaps the other thing I should consider is that I recently upgraded from a Canon Rebel 300D to a Rebel 350D. So, in theory 6mp vs. 8mp, allows a little more room to cropping, right? (A little?) How comparable or different is this 2mp gain, in terms of optical zoom range/focal length?

Thanks,

amol · April 10, 2007

I understand that sed and awk is a text formating programming stuff, actually that's all I understand about it.

But how did it affect my posting, in fact, both of my postings. I didn't see any html tags in my post, when I was typing?

brucecyr · April 10, 2007

Amol,

I'm just not an other-directed type -- I know and buy what I want to use without soliciting direction from anyone else. If you slavishly followed "best practice" advice on photo.net you'd have a bag full of "L" glass, or its equivalents in other photo lines.

Actually, to frame the issue this way it bass-ackwards. You should continue to work from your own experience because you may not shoot what other people shoot -- in which case you'd wind up with irrelevant advice. Your purchases should be grounded in your practices.

In your case, I wonder why you haven't thought about primes if stopping motion is a major photographic goal? For example, for your budget you get the 50mm f1.8 and 35mm f2.0, both of which are faster than any zoom you could afford, plus have money left over to put towards next year's purchase.

amol · April 10, 2007

Bruce,

You make a good point. I probably have a habit of doing that, (must be my psych major... "Would you like to fill out my questionnaire, for my study I'm conducting?" Okay, fine, enough taking surveys.

The thing about primes, there are extremely difficult for travel photography, changing lenses is not convenient during travel. You mentioned the 50mm 1.8, which I already have. I usually ask for advice and then filter it through my own style. Otherwise, you're right, I would have a bunch of "L" and primes sitting in my camera bag, I have neither. (except for the 50mm, but how could you go wrong with a $80 lens)

I will probably get the Tamron 17-50, or maybe 2nd choice, the Sigma 17-70, still a little undecided between the two.

brucecyr · April 10, 2007

They're both pretty good choices based on feedback I've heard from others (is that my oxymoronic side coming out:-). I lean toward the Tamron just because I've always had a Tamron or two around and Bob Atkins' lens defects survey results (which ought to appeal to your background:-):

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/lens_defect_survey.html

m_barbu1 · April 10, 2007

Especially, if I regret it, I probably won't be able to buy another lens for another year... or more.If you don't like the lens, what is preventing you from selling it?

I understand that sed and awk is a text formating programming stuff, actually that's all I understand about it.

But how did it affect my posting, in fact, both of my postings. I didn't see any html tags in my post, when I was typing?First, it wasn't your post that was at issue. It was Brian P's (sorry, I confused it with a similar looking post from Walang). The reason you didn't see the HTML, is because you weren't looking at the HTML. View the source code of this page in your web browser and then search for <tt>. You'll notice there is no corresponding "close" tag for it. That was the problem.

amol · April 10, 2007

Yeah, I will probably go with the Tamron. And yes, I could sell it on ebay, if the range did not work for me. (though, probably at a loss).

I looked at Bob Atkins's page, that is a great idea, I think.

Though, re: Tamron vs. Sigma, currently, the Tamron sample size is lower than Sigma. In fact, the Sigma sample size is twice the Tamron:

"Sigma lenses - 1276 with 255 defects" The probability of getting a good lens is 80 %

"Tamron lenses - 623 with 71 defects" The probability of getting a good lens is 89 %

It is possible, if the sample sizes were equal, "the probability of getting a good lens" would be closer. Currently, they are pretty close, 89% vs 80%. 9% difference... I wonder, what's the Margin of error?

Though, as Bob Atkins points out: "Fourth, it's possible that people with complaints are more likely to be motivated to leave their data than those who are happy with their lenses."

So, this may explain the lack of a larger Tamron sample.

Okay, enough about stats. (psychology is not all about "rats & stats")... Neither is photography, but, I still like Bob's idea.

dogbert · April 11, 2007

Back to the OP. Then problem with basing lens chocies on what you typically shoot is that what you have shot in the past will be based on the lenses you already have. Persoanlly I think it is BS to go through EXIF data to determine what you need, even though this advice gets repeated adnausium on photonet.

How do you rate 1 great shot at 100 mm versus 50 average shots at 50 mm. To me photography is not about the averages which are mostly forgettable but rather the exceptions which are unforgettable.

Given you already have a quite good 28-105 as well as the Sigma 18-125, why not replace the Sigma with an ultrawide Sigma 10-20, or the Canon 10-22 if you can afford it.

amol · April 11, 2007

Geoff:

I'm not sure about your first point... from what I have seen, people on Photo.net are always telling other people to "look at what you commonly shoot to best determine your needs". I have not seen evidence of your last sentence "repeated adnausium", in fact, I've seen the opposite advice. Though, I do agree, that it is a good idea to shoot focal lengths beyond what I normally use; instead of restricting myself to my typical shots.

I do completely, agree with your second paragraph.

Yes, I had thought about a wide prime, or an Ultra-wide (ex: 12-24, 10-20, 11-18, or 15-30), to complement my 28-105. My main concern is that it seems, I often use the 18-50 range. So, it would mean switching out lenses often. Taking one shot at 28mm (44mm)using the 28-105 and then switching out lenses to get a shot at 18mm (28mm). It would be more time consuming during travel or general-purpose shots... Though, personally, you have very impressive portfolio, with nice "travel" pictures. So, I will take your advice seriously... I'll go research the ultra-wide lenses available, within my price range.

Thanks,

Amol

Sign In

What is your most common focal length/zoom range?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in