How many steps from 85mm to 200mm?

[anuragagnihotri]

To get the same framing as a 200mm, how many

steps/distance you have to walk ahead?

Just curious if someone has done this. Is it a big distance?

Regards,

Anurag

:)

[dan_brown4]

What is the distance of your steps?

[danield]

<p>As Dan suggests, it depends on how long your steps are :-) More importantly, it depends on the distance to the subject. If you are shooting a mountain miles away you may need to walk quite a bit :-)</p>

<p>There are online calculators that can give you the distance required to fill the frame with an object of a certain size for a given focal length. Have a look for instance here http://www.canon.com/bctv/calculator/</p>

 

[BelaMolnar]

<p>It is totally irrelevant question. It has two entirely different perspective, not the distance. You can get close to the one single subject being seen in the 200mm lens to get the same size with the 80mm but you still going to have the rest of the image of a view of the 80mm lens and not the 200 mm. And vice versa with the 200mm you never get a perspective, what you get from a 80mm lens.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Walk roughly 2.5 times further away from where you were shooting. It won't frame precisely the same, but I think that this may be what you want. (The precise number is 2.35 to the second decimal place, but this is a cumbersome number to work with.)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[dan_brown4]

Also, FX or DX?

[dwight200]

<p>FX or DX is irrelevant (assuming you're comparing the two lenses on the same body). It's a field of view comparison, not a sensor comparison.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p> It has two entirely different perspective</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

This is wrong. Perspective is a function of the relationship (distance and height) between the camera and the subject, not the focal length.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Really? Then look true of your 50mm and a 300mm lens, pick a single subject and get it in the viewfinder, with bot lenses, to get the same size, and see the rest of the image. Longer the lens more compressed the perspective, wider the lens more expanded the perspective. It is a plain physic with optical devices.<br>

The lack of proper English is not necessarily a luck of technical knowledge.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Perspective is never a quality of the lens. All you have to do is crop the 50mm shot to the exact same field of view as the 300mm and you have exactly the same thing. This is Photo 101, not some debated point.</p>

[bri1]

<blockquote>

<p>This is wrong. Perspective is a function of the relationship (distance and height) between the camera and the subject, not the focal length.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But isn't the OP asking how far to walk, which would change the distance between the camera and the subject and therefore the perspective?</p>

[Spearhead]

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>But isn't the OP asking how far to walk, which would change the distance between the camera and the subject and therefore the perspective?</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

 

<p><a name="pagebottom"></a></p>

<p>Yes, that is what the OP is asking. However, someone else gave an answer that is completely wrong and it is worth correcting the notion that lenses change perspective. Obviously changing the distance changes perspective, as you point out.</p>

[lornesunley]

<p>The Angle of view for an 85mm lens is about 24 degrees, a 200mm lens is about 10 degrees.<br>

The frame height divided by subject distance is the Trig function Tangent, so the tan(24) is about .445 and the tan(10) is about .176<br>

an object 10 feet high in the 200mm lens would be about 10/x = .176 or x= 10/.176 x = 56.8 feet away<br>

an object 10 feet high in the 85mm lens would be about 10/x = .445 or x= 10/.445 x = 22.5 feet away</p>

 

[jose_angel]

<p>It`s way easier than this, Landrum has it; if you just want to have the same area covered by the 200mm lens, but using a 85mm lens, just divide 200 by 85... it is 2.35.</p>

<p>Then apply this ammount to the shooting distance; if you are shooting with the 200mm at say, 10 meters (or steps, if you like), divide this distance by the constant to know the focus distance you have to be to get the same area (10/2.35= 4,25 meters or steps).</p>

<p>A good "memory rule" (excuse me, I don`t know how to say this in english), could be as follows:<br /> <br />With fixed shooting distance:</p>

<ul>

<li>If you shoot with a 50mm lens, at a given shooting distance, and you want to double the viewing angle (or covered area), switch to a 25mm lens (focal lenght/2).</li>

<li>If you want to half the viewing angle of the 50mm lens, switch to a 100mm lens (multiply the focal lenght by two).</li>

</ul>

<p>With a fixed focal lenght lens:</p>

<ul>

<li>If you are shooting at 2 meters with a 50mm lens, and you want to double the covered area (viewing angle), get backwards up to 4 meters (double the focus distance).</li>

<li>If you are shooting at 2 meters (same 50mm lens), and you want to half the covered area (viewing angle), get closer up to 1 meter (half the focus distance).</li>

</ul>

<p>As mentioned, perspective is related to the position in the space, so roughly speaking, to the focus distance. Once the position (roughly, focus distance) is changed, the relationship between the objects and the viewer in the space are different, so we say the perspective is different (and BTW, it could be more or less relevant, depending on each photographic situation, needs or pickiness :).</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>If the OP can tell me how many steps it takes him/her to walk from his current position to the subject then I can tell him how many step it takes to get the same framing (not the same perspective) if the switch to the 85mm lens instead of the current 200mm lens. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>BeBu, I think that he is going from the 85 to the 200, in which case he multiplies whatever distance he is from by subject by 2.35. If, on the other hand, he is going from the 200 to the 85, then he will want the multiplicative inverse of 2.35, which is 1/2.35, which is .425. That is, multiply the distance to the subject by .425 if he is going from the 200 to the 85 and wants to get the same framing with the 85 that he got with 200.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[anuragagnihotri]

Hi, thanks...my mistake...should have been more elaborate.

 

I say perspective not withstanding. Adsuming it had no role to play. I am only talking about

framing.

Also, not far off mountains :) Reasonable distances. A full body framing.

 

I have a D800 body and i really want to purchase Sigma 85/1.4. I have a 300 f4 afs also. I had

originally planned to buy the 70-200/4 but if possible, i want to avoid it. Recently i played with a

friends 70-200 L and didnt at all feel that i am seeing a dramatic change in framing from 70 to

200. I thought maybe if i buy the 85/1.4 it will do the job as on my cameras crop mode (16mp)

it will be a 135/f2...and i already have a 300mm which cant be too far off from 200 perhaps.

Benefit is that i will be getting a 1.4 lens :)

 

What do you say?

[anuragagnihotri]

Must say, some great explsinations here.

[jose_angel]

<p>Some thoughts:</p>

<ul>

<li>You say perspective is not of an issue, but you mention "full body" and a portrait lens... in portraiture, perspective always counts. You can use any focal length to take a portrait (depending of the effect you were looking for), but you should know how does the focusing distance (again, perspective) affect the look of your subject.</li>

<li>Personally, I find a big difference between a zoom and a fixed lens, and specially between a 70-200 and a 85. The versatility of the 70-200 is big, and the 85/1.4 is somewhat limited.</li>

<li>In the other hand, the 85 is a relatively "compact" and comfortable lens, while the zoom is big and noticeable.</li>

<li>And I always say that a f1.4 lens brings *more* creative possibilities, specially if compared to a f4 lens.</li>

<li>From 85 to 300 there is a big gap... if you use a 85mm in DX crop mode, you get the field of view of a 135mm lens but, what if you want a full 200mm image? It is not the same, but I understand we cannot (or we don`t need to) have them all.</li>

</ul>

<p>Having said this, <strong>only you</strong> know which one suit you better... if you are fond of an 85/1.4 lens, that`s fine, go ahead.</p>

[anuragagnihotri]

Hi Jose,

Comparison is between 70-200 F4 and 85.

Its not 70-200 F2.8.

[jose_angel]

<p>Ok. Anyway, the 70-200/4 is 2x the length of the 85/1.4... the f4 is definitely more manageable than the f2.8 version, but the prime is still shorter (although thicker), and a bit lighter. I <em>always</em> use hoods, so lenses are noticeably longer with them.</p>

<p>As Shun use to say, if you don`t know if you need it, you then don`t need it, but if you feel a preference for one of these, for sure it will be the right choice.</p>

<p>FWIW, I have a 85/1.4 and a 70-200/2.8, and I almost never use them but a 105VR (which is a bit longer and heavier than the 85)... mostly because 1) it is a smaller, way more comfortable lens than the zoom, and 2) it is highly versatile for my needs, as I use to take from half body to close head "informal" type portraits, usually kids, outdoors, with a D700 camera.</p>

<p>I`d like to have it on f1.8-2, but the options were the "screwdriver" DC or the MF Ai/AiS, so I prefer the more modern VR version.</p>

<p>If I were looking for a shorter lens, I`d take the 85/1.4, instead of the 70-200, in any version. I only take the zoom when I have to ensure results, where I cannot loose a shot, like on weddings or social events. I also have good 135, 180 and 300mm prime lenses, but they use to live in the closet; when I want a long lens I use to take the 70-200 for its versatility.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Anurag, I am too lazy to walk the few steps... but yes, fully agree with Jose wrote above. Using my 80-200, I do not find the difference between 80 and 200 all that tremendous. Most of the time, I am fine with just a 105 (which is a lot smaller and lighter than the f/2.8 zoom), and that does all I need.<br>

But - sometimes you cannot make the step forward, sometimes you cannot get the right angle and framing with the short lens (and I need to walk back, with a longer lens instead - also a matter of perspective). So, even if the 105 can do 90% for my needs, the remaining 10% keeps me carrying a 180 f/2.8 frequently, or the zoom on other occassions.<br>

That said, if I would have to make the choice you face, I'd get the 85mm first.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>A 70-200 is almost a 3x zoom; that is a reasonably wide range. The wide end of the 70-200 is definitely going to be wider than the 85mm, but it won't go f1.4. Unless you need f1.4, f1.8, you are better off with a zoom to cover such a range. Otherwise, Nikon has a 85mm/f1.8 AF-S that is quite affordable.</p>

<p>The D800 is a fairly sophisticated camera. IMO it doesn't hurt to take some more photography classes to take full advantage of that excellent camera.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Again, for those who may need it - some more than others<br>

Here is the most excellent discussion of lenses and perspective from <em>Camera</em> volume of the wonderful Life Library of Photography series:</p>

[anuragagnihotri]

Thanks JDM.

Shun, photography classes??