Looks like you could of done with a wide angle lens and you’d have been able to fit the whole elephant in 😉

geetee1972 – Member
Every prime lens is also a zoom lens. It’s a unique system called legs.

Fine and dandy, let’s see you walk across a mile of open water to get a close-up of something on the other side.
Or several fields of crops bounded by hedges and fences, with no footpaths.
There are many occasions when walking isn’t an option.

Every prime lens is also a zoom lens. It’s a unique system called legs.

Only if you don’t understand perspective.

Elefant +1

Its not just the walking across the water. Its loosing the water as the forground

I just happen to have pair of wide and longish shots from about one spot

[url=https://flic.kr/p/ncd5xa]castle (1 of 1)[/url] by John Clinch, on Flickr

[url=https://flic.kr/p/n4cM2D]Dunstanburgh Castle (1 of 1)[/url] by John Clinch, on Flickr

^^^^ see. Nice example of foreshortening….

Yep. The water looks quite loose in those snaps.

The compression effect is a product of focal length, not the zoom function. You get the same result with a 200mm prime lens as you do a 50-200mm zoom set at 200m focal length. Besides, we all know that the vast majority of people use zooms to frame rather than add any ‘creative’ element to a composition.

The compression effect is a product of focal length, not the zoom function. You get the same result with a 200mm prime lens as you do a 50-200mm zoom set at 200m focal length. Besides, we all know that the vast majority of people use zooms to frame rather than add any ‘creative’ element to a composition.

Of course and I was blown away I put something other than a 50mm lens on my first SLR

Or you could just own a wide and crop for everything, like phone owners do

I’ll also agree that alot of people should use their feet more and zoom less

But that doesn’t make a prime a zoom does it?

Still not sure esp. after reading this months STW magazine and the Tuscany article that shows the amazing scenery!!

for what its worth I used a Fuji XT1 and the 18-135 lens in New Zealand, both worked flawlessly (even when soaked) and also a Sony RX100 for when I was travelling realy light

The compression effect is a product of focal length, not the zoom function.

It’s just perspective. You can crop a wide angle and end up with the same photo as you’d get with a long lens as your position dictates the perspective, not the lens.

That’s the thing the Fuji produces beautiful images!!

Interesting – I often found otherwise – good case in point is the classic 135-150mm portrait lens. It’s just not possible to get same photo from a 28mm cropped. Distortion of facial features and pulling of background is one noticeable aspect..

You can crop a wide angle and end up with the same photo subject as you’d get with a long lens

Just had a look on the Fuji website and the 18mm lens (27mm eqiv) only weighs 115g.

Hmm….

Ah. I popped in thinking a decision might have been made! 😀

Sounds like you’ve just found another option to ponder. New lens time? 😉

I hope we’re gonna get to see some of the pictures taken as a result of this in depth decision making process?

Yeah I know, I had decided on the 50mm buying I can pick up the 18mm really cheap it might be worth it.

You could always use exposure plot to determine your most popular focal length.
http://www.vandel.nl/

I know personally – I’d take the 28mm equiv. You must have an incling which you would prefer before you posted right?

I had to explain foreshortening and perspective distortion to a friend when those topless pictures of Kate Middleton were in the papers (he said they looked a bit flat).

If it was purely down to focal length then 28mm rather than 50mm would be the choice I’d usually gravitate towards.

But the 28mm is on a compact camera without a viewfinder and the 50mm is on a Fuji X-T1 which has an awesome viewfinder and is a pleasure to use. Both cameras produce lovely photos and have ace quality lenses.

I should take the Ricoh as its light and small, but the Fuji with the 50mm is a just about acceptable comprimise as far as size and weight.

Interesting – I often found otherwise – good case in point is the classic 135-150mm portrait lens. It’s just not possible to get same photo from a 28mm cropped. Distortion of facial features and pulling of background is one noticeable aspect.

The distortion you mention comes from perspective, it’s not lens distortion.

If you take a portrait with 135mm, don’t move and take a photo with a 28 then crop you will get the same image. The only difference will be the number of pixels (which obviously may make this impracticable).

the effect is the same – try it? I’m not sure I get your point..

edit

http://gizmodo.com/5857279/this-is-how-lenses-beautify-or-uglify-your-pretty-face

The point is simple, it’s the distance to the subject that matters. In the link you’ve given the distance is changed to maintain framing (the images have not been cropped).

The distance to the subject causes a change in perspective that looks like distortion.

distortion is distortion though and I do prefer to avoid it – once I spot it..

IMHO Assuming 28mm and 135mm: if the subject distance and exposure remains the same; DoF is then different due to effect of focal length – thus photo containg any elements of the scene is different -The backdrop has a different rendering. Unless a crop is 10px of a cheek perhaps. For me the effects seem real and practical through observation.

Maybe I’m missing your point, perhaps it’s theoretical – but don’t worry about it, many ppl are wrong the tinternet – often me!.. 😀

You are, and it’s not theoretical. You’re confusing focal length and perspective. Understand perspective and everything else falls into place.

And… It’s not distortion, it’s perspective. Try sticking your eye 6″ from someones face. Looks funny.

ok – if it is a practical and not theoretical point – what is your practical focal length recommendation for head shot portraits? Maybe that will help me get it.

Something like 10′ to the subject is normal, so the focal length to achieve that without cropping on full frame would be 135mm ish – 90mm on apsc, 65mm on m4/3 or you could use either of those on FF and crop to give the same result.

bonchance sorry he is correct

A portrait lens needs an angle of view not a focal length

On Microfourthirds then a portrait lens might be 45mm, on FF 90mm on Nikon 1 32mm. That’s as they have the same field of view. So the distortion is identical for all 3 systems

A portrait lens needs an angle of view not a focal length

…to achieve the image you want at the distance you want. It’s the distance which is often overlooked and is actually the key to all this.

Which takes us back to what started this. Zooming with your feet doesn’t work and ‘zooming’ (or digital zoom that the poster seemed to mean by this) is the same as changing focal length.

5th elefant

I couldn’t be trying any harder to agree

I know you know 🙂 , just wanted to tie it all back together.

all fascinating, I do prefer FF equiv 135-150 for portraiture, for the reasons I mentioned – and for all this it seems we all may 🙂 I was comparing my results with 28mm and 135mm FF equiv.

AFAIK Focal length has been commonly used to express the angle of view. It’s certainly marked on every lens I have owned – I think even since std film size and std lenses were invented. Ampthill. I guess your just saying crop factor is a factor – perhaps an unusual way to express it.

I’ll let the OP have his thread back, keen to hear the final Lens judgement – my money is still on that great looking XF23 – obviously the one he doesn’t own – good luck all!

I’ll let the OP have his thread back, keen to hear the final Lens judgement – my money is still on that great looking XF23 – obviously the one he doesn’t own – good luck all!

And the one that’s £650 too :0)

all fascinating, I do prefer FF equiv 135-150 for portraiture, for the reasons I mentioned – and for all this it seems we all may I was comparing my results with 28mm and 135mm FF equiv.

Nope, you’re still missing it. It’s distance to subject that sets perspective (or what you’ve called distortion).

AFAIK Focal length has been commonly used to express the angle of view.

No it isn’t. It’s the distance between the centre of a lens and where it focuses. It’s literally the length of the lens (plus a bit). It does not tell you what the field of view is.

It’s certainly marked on every lens I have owned – I think even since std film size and std lenses were invented.

Which standard film size do you mean? There are several. A 50mm focal length lens on m4/3 gives a different field of view than it does on medium format. It is marked on the lens as it’s a physical measurement. It’s not a ‘standard’ or an equivalence, and not a field of view.

I mean the commonly accepted standard film size; from which popular contemporary consumer photography standards are derived:

Film 35 mm wide with four perforations per frame became accepted as the international standard gauge in 1909

From this the reference focal lengths and concerned fields of view are derived and came to be *commonly* known.

A camera system; with a medium below this standard size – is specified with a numeric ‘crop factor’.

Take this factor. Apply it to the mm focal length of your lens (marked on *every* lens).

The resulting figure is then *commonly* accepted as a specification which describes the field of view.

If you are genuinely trying to suggest otherwise, or that folk buy lenses marked in degrees – it seems disingenuous.

Semantics aside, your practical recommendation for portrait appeared to be the same as my related experiences – and many others – so we may in fact agree!?

In which case – If I misunderstand your intentions, or I have failed to understand the point you are trying to express – I apologise.

Well took a while but decision made and bought for anybody that’s interested.

The 23mm f1.4 was to expensive and heavy.

Couldn’t not take the 35mm f1.4 as its soooo nice, sharp and fast with almost 3D results so I got lucky and bought a brand new sealed box 18mm f2 lens from eBay for £150 (which is a bargain and cheaper than s/h prices).

Lovely lens that gets a bit of a bad rap. Only 120g and tiny. Stop it down to f5.6-8 and its sharp across the frame so fine for landscapes. It still has the fuji look to the photos, so very happy.

So it’s the Fuji XT1, 35mm f1.4 and 18mm f2 is the chosen camera.

All I weight is about 750g which is about 500g heavier than my Ricoh GR but I still think it’s worth it and my only luxury with all the rest of the kit parred back to the bone and super light. Still not a bad weight for a camera and 2 lenes.

Pleased that you’ve made the choice.

But wasn’t the original post about ‘only being to take one lens’ and ‘don’t want to buy anymore lenses for the trip’? 😆

Well done on sticking to the plan!!

Yep it totally was, but I gave in on two counts-

New lens only weighs 120g and is f2

and they retail for £300, s/h for about £200 and I got a brand new one with warranty for £150 :0)

Skimmed through this thread and did initially wonder why don’t you MTFU and take a couple of lenses? 😉

I totally get the travelling light thing but I’m a bit OCD with camera gear and would rather carry the extra ‘tools’ to cover most eventualities rather than do the who ‘what if’ teeth gnashing.

My fave lens this year has been the Canon 24mm TSE which I’ve been using for shift panos, often with focus stacking and the compulsory HDR bracketing. 🙄

#toomuchtime #toomucheffort #allthegearandnoidea

Old thread resurrection………

Thinking of trading in my XF 35mm f1.4 for a 23mm f1.4. I’m I mad?

Anybody?