Zoom Lenses Not Needed

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by jim_mueller|2, May 25, 2005.

  1. For an all purpose vacation/street photography/landscape/city scape/group shot lens, consider the EF 24/2.8 on a 1.6X DSLR. This is like putting a 35mm lens on a Leica! The EF 24/2.8 is small, sharp, cheap, and fast enough. All you have to do is zoom with your feet.
    00CJrP-23734584.jpg
     
  2. All you have to do is zoom with your feet
    Sigh. You cannot zoom with your feet. Zooming changes the lens' focal length. The focal length determines the perspective. Distance does not.
    If you want the perspective of, say, a 135mm lens, you can walk back and forth all day long with your 24mm but you will not be able to get that perspective.
     
  3. The focal length determines the perspective. Distance does not.
    That's backwards. Distance determines perspective; focal length does not. Take a photo of the same subject from the same distance using (say) a 24mm lens and a 50mm lens, and crop the 24mm shot so that it gives the same framing as the 50mm shot. You will have the same perspective in both pictures.
     
  4. ::::You cannot zoom with your feet:::

    Sure you can! Simply crop to recreate any focal length perspective you want. What's more, we don't zoom to change perspective, we zoom to frame our shots, focal length be damned.
     
  5. Sounds like you've found yourself a golden hammer!
     
  6. PS: lovely jellyfish!
     
  7. A timely post from my perspective and one that's bound to stir up some controversy as it has already. (Aside: perspective is a function of distance). I'd like to think that I could get away with the 24/2.8 on my 10D as a wide angle solution, but I get nagging feelings that I'd prefer the 17-40/4. --tom
     
  8. A shot with a 600mm lens will look very different from a shot with a 24mm lens, even if you "zoom with your feet" so the subject looks the same.

    The angle of view will be different so the 24mm will show a different background, plus the amount of background blur will be different with the lenses shot at the same aperture (or even at different aperturs).

    "Zoom with your feet" has some truth to it, but is often essentially nonsense. You can't make a 24mm lens into a 14mm lens or 600mm lens by "zooming with your feet". You can probably make a 28mm lens into a fair approximation 24mm or 35mm lens by changing your position a lot of the time.

    I do use the 24/2.8 on my 20D for street work, but it's a fixed 24 and it acts like a fixed 38 (on 35mm), it's no replacment at all for a zoom.

    "Zoom with your feet" is total nonsense for most distant landscape work. Zooming might take several hours while you walk 10 miles nearer to the mountains to get the perfect framing...
     
  9. The equivalent 35mm FOV is cool, but I prefer the Sigma 1.8 for available light work.
    00CJvB-23735584.jpg
     
  10. /me looks at his own post wondering how did his brains turn to mush without him noticing... :)

    Duh! Replace "perspective" with "angle of view" and it starts to make a bit more sense -- not MUCH more, of course... :)
     
  11. Very nice Sheldon, what camera, ISO, etc. was used? OK, on to the perpective subject, and I'm no scientist but I am a logical thinker. I believe the perspective does change with the focal length of the lens. If I take a picture of some aspen trees that are several yards apart and I use a 24mm lens from about 100yards away I get a lot of trees in the field of view. Now, I want to isolate a single tree, if I zoom with my feet with the 24mm lens I'd have to be only inches away to exclude the neighboring trees and the single tree would pretty much fill the frame. But if I either take out a long telephoto or crop the original image, isolating the single tree is easy and I could have a good bit of background without other trees around the single aspen. Does this make sense? Is it the proper way this perspective thing works? Thanks, Bob.
     
  12. dk.

    dk.

    Hi, Just happened to stop in today and don't really want to get into heavy talk here with you all as I like primes myself but I also have two zoom anyway just wanted to say to Jim Mueller and Sheldon Hambrick. Really nice pictures keep up the good work I like both pictures very much. :eek:)

    DK.
     
  13. Thanks Robert.<p> 10D, Sigma 24/1.8, 400 ISO. The original looks better in color (she has pretty red hair), but I didn't have time to fiddle w/the color correction.
     
  14. les

    les

    Zoom with your feet...I guess that all sports photogs will now get rid of their 500mm superteles and spend all the money they save on good hiking boots...
     
  15. They'd better get some life and disability insurance, too, if they are covering NASCAR, the NFL, or the NHL with short primes.

    Seriously, I agree that primes are sharp, fast, light and well-priced compared to zooms, but for certain types of photography (PJ, weddings, event coverage) zooms are very convenient, and sometimes close to essential.

    Zooms also cut down on the number of lens changes required, an advantage that means a lot if you have ever had dust, etc. on the sensor of your DSLR.
     
  16. Everyone take a chill pill! All I am saying is that I like my 24/2.8!
     
  17. Jim did qualify the situations he was making his claim under. Bob Atkins made a good point in that Jum specifically listed landscapes and there have been many times when using a short lens would not work for the effect I wanted. You can only crop so much, then what are you going to print, a 2X3 inch photo?

    There are limitations to zoom with your feet. There have been times when I've had to switch from my main 28-75 to something wider because I physically could not back up anymore.
     
  18. It's not hard to operate a zoom with your feet, but you have to be pretty flexible to be able to keep your eye to the viewfinder while you're doing it.
     
  19. >> Everyone take a chill pill! All I am saying is that I like my 24/2.8!

    Phrasing is everything :) Well, I like my 24/2.8 as well but as I am still on film, I use my 35/2 much more often.....

    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  20. I do have to sort of chuckle at mentioning "Zooming with your feet" and showing a picture taken through an aquarium glass.

    Question - when the front of your lens is up against the glass, and you want to zoom closer on the subject, how do you do it without getting wet?
     
  21. I wouldn't wanto to 'zoom with my feet' if I wanted a closer view of the opposite rim of the
    Grand Canyon.
     
  22. Personally, I am very comfortable shooting with primes. They are usually lighter and less intrusive than zooms. However, nothing beats the flexibility of framing with a zoom lens, when you need to have it.

    Horses for courses...
     
  23. I thought of zooming with my feet to get a close up of the mine engine houses... Changed my mind and used the zoom instead ;-) Best wishes, Matt
    00CKZw-23752684.jpg
     
  24. And just to truly stoke the fires...

    My 24mm f2.8 was nowhere near as good as my 17-40mm is insofar as real world sharpness is concerned. If you really need the extra stop of course...

    All the best

    Damian
     

Share This Page