Right place, Right time, Wrong lense

[peter_h1]

Just musing ..

But has anyone ever been caught out in the perfect place only to find

that the lense they have is just wrong for the situation, so the shot

was missed or just .. isn't .. RIGHT !!

[leslie_cheung]

You can always zoom with your feet if the situation allows and

crop later. What happened to you?

[peter_h1]

I've had a few, but the one that springs to mind :

My partner and I were taken on a tour boat to the seal rocks just off Phillip Island in Victoria (Aus). I only had a 24mm with me (ie. for the odd tourist happy snap).

The sun was just setting when the boat was literally surrounded by hundreds of seals jumping, dancing, playing, in the water.

 

Never seen anything like it, even the guy who ran the tour said it was a 'once every 10 year or so' occasion as there simply were so many of them .. and all I could get were wide angle shots.

 

On the way back to the dock we then ran through the sprawl of fairie penguins returning after a days feeding. Again all I could get were wee lil pengiuns in a big pool of blue.

[ilkka_nissila]

It happens all the time. Carry more gear with you!!! Or get one of those 24-120 mm VR zooms.

[rajiv1]

It happens all the time. Stop shooting and enjoy the moment. Photography as many will agree is about emotions and not recording.

[ShunCheung]

This problem doesn't happen to me very often. For one thing I use mainly zooms for below 200mm, and I usually have my 17-35, 28-70 and 80-200 around. Those 3 lenses should cover most situations. Moreover, it is important to think about where you are going and what lenses you might need at that location. Always have a 24-120 or 24-85 type lens as a backup.

 

In reality, the so called "zoom with your feet" method rarely works. You could be shooting near a cliff, on a boat, or inside a small room where you can't move around much. You could be shooting small animals that you don't want to scare away or you could be shooting large animals that you don't want to get too close .... Bring a few different lenses and don't get stuck with those 30-year-old out of date idea that only "primes" are good. Today's high-end zooms are just fine and it is more important to get the picture.

[sm. alec]

How 'bout Right Place, Right Time, Right Lens, Wrong Film...

Forgot the slide film I'd specifically bought for the occasion to get some nice enlargements, and ended up using old 800 speed color neg. I still got the shots, but anything past 5x7 was unacceptable (to me).

[richard_cochran]

<center><img src="http://webs.lanset.com/rcochran/images/bighorn.jpg"><br>

<cite>Bighorn sheep</cite>

</center>

Sure. It happens all the time. I took the above shot when I was

on a rafting trip where the purpose wasn't photography. We

arrived at our campsite one afternoon to find eight bighorn sheep

who weren't particularly skittish. Because this wasn't a photo

trip, and logistics were difficult, the only camera I had

was a <em>disposable</em> fixed-focus, fixed exposure camera

with about a 35mm lens. It would have been wonderful to have a

long fast telephoto on a tripod. I took a snapshot to tell the

story.

<p>

On the other hand, it was nice taking that trip with a

waterproof camera that I could leave in the bottom of the

raft, and rinse off in the river when it got dirty, with

absolutely NO worries about protecting valuable equipment.

[greg s]

Typically occurs for me with min focus distance on tele-primes. We took 4 photo walks thru the Corkscrew Swamp (Florida) in March. On the first walk I had the 600mm and could not photograph the numerous snakes basking in the sun (too close to boardwalk). On the next 3 walks I went much lighter with a 300mm and never saw another snake... :(

 

Took lots of bird pics with both though, just missed out on the reptiles.

[ilkka_nissila]

I would like to add that those pictures that you <i>do</i> get are

more important than those that you miss. I find no positive correlation between getting good pictures and having an array of fast zooms with me instead of primes. (I'm sure someone will attack me about saying this.) I do find that I enjoy photography (the actual taking of the pictures) more with the primes. Either way, I'm going to miss opportunities.

<p>

I mainly photograph subjects which I know well and I get to photograph them from a number of angles over time anyway. If I were an adventure photographer, or someone who has to cover whatever presents itself when things happen, I'd sure have a look at those VR zooms!

[diana]

I have the 28-200mm lens and can miss close-up shots since that lens has a minimum focusing distance of something like 10 feet or so. Arrrgh!

<P>

 

 

<a href="http://leovilletownsquare.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=453489&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=all&vc=1">Nikon Fanatics at Leoville</a><P>

[ky2]

Right place, Right time, Wrong lens? This never happens -- It's Right place, Right lens, Wrong Time.

 

Just sit back and enjoy the moment. I sometimes force myself to go out with a two lens setup: 24+105, 35+105, 50+180, etc. If you'll lug around 6 primes or 3 zooms, you'll end up juggling focal lengths and never actually looking around. I'd rather shoot half a roll of memorable photos, then 5 rolls of rubbish.

[craig_bridge]

I've had several cases where I was setting up with a long tele on a DSLR and had the subject come right up to get a close look at me. I've tried backing up only to have the subject follow me, so zooming with your feet doesn't always work! Even if you had a shorter lens in your pack or on your belt, chances of changing lenses quickly lowering yourself to down to the subject's level will likely scare the subject away. Enjoy the moment.

 

I've seen this happen to others with a 500/600mm lens on a DSLR and a juvenile bird less than 6 feet away and a family with kids and their point and shoot zoom camera 12 feet on the other side get the picture. I even have a group shot from 150 feet away to prove it.

[albert_smith]

<I>I sometimes force myself to go out with a two lens setup: 24+105, 35+105, 50+180, etc. If you'll lug around 6 primes or 3 zooms, you'll end up juggling focal lengths and never actually looking around. I'd rather shoot half a roll of memorable photos, then 5 rolls of rubbish.</I><P>

 

Wow! These words could have came right out of my mouth. I go out with a 24/85 or 35/105 combo and that is it. If I can't make one of those lenses work, I don't need the photo. Know your lens, and get to the place that makes it work.

[julian_love]

I agree with some of the others here - I have an MF body with 3 primes and an AF body with 3 zooms. I get more enjoyment out of photographing with the primes, and often get more creative compositinos than I would have done with the zooms. The results are usually technically just as good, despite no AF (I don't shoot sports or wildlife though, where AF clearly helps)

[mskovacs]

The classic I think of is the rare bird that lands on a birder's 600/4 lens. This bird tries its best to give this Nikon lens "Canon colours" then goes on its merry way.