Category Archives: Commentary

A General Response to the “What Lens(es) Should I Get?” Question

A common type of photography forum question asks “What lens(es) should I get?” or “What is/are the ‘best’ lens(es)?” It is really impossible to offer the type of answer that the poster is looking for without asking for a lot more detail. Here is a slightly edited version of a reply that I recently offered in response to such a question:

There is not a single “right” answer to most questions like this. Choice of lenses is a very personal thing and factors that affect one’s choice of “best” include: budget, future plans, type(s) of photography, zoom/prime preference, preference for many/few lenses, whether the end product will be electronic sharing or prints, how large the images will be, etc.

Without knowing a lot more about your photography and your preferences, most responses will be along the lines of “here is what I like for my photography” or “no idea, really, but here are some general guidelines that might work.”

With that in mind, here are a few general guidelines:

  • For landscape one probably wants wide angle – at least 17mm on a crop body – and doesn’t need large apertures as much since typical work is often done stopped down. Fewer and/or smaller/lighter lenses may be good if one works a lot on foot.
  • For sports/action photography one generally may want longer lenses, and larger apertures could be important for low light (e.g. indoors or at night) or permitting slightly faster shutter speeds. Image stabilization could be less important here, and for really long focal lengths primes may be a good choice compared to zooms, but it is hard to generalize.
  • For street photography, many prefer to use a small body with a prime or two, though others like to work with a single zoom. Many like wider but not ultra-wide lengths and some like somewhat wider apertures. On the other hand, there is a contingent that likes to use longer lenses and shoot from a distance rather then getting “up close and personal” with the subject.
  • For portraits, many like wide aperture primes in the 50mm to 100mm focal length range (on crop bodies), though some also like zooms that cover this range.

Trying to make one or a few lenses cover all or a good part of this range of uses will require some compromises and/or very deep pockets.

For general use, a lot depends on stuff like budget. The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a high quality choice for Canon crop bodies; the 18-55mm kit lens is a good starting point if you don’t really know what you want; the IS version of the latter lens is reportedly fairly sharp and is a great value.

Sunset, Mount Dana and Mount Gibb

631

Sunset, Mounts Dana and Gibb. Yosemite National Park, California. August 6, 2005. © Copyright G Dan Mitchell

I recently rediscovered this photograph taken on a spectacular evening in the Tuolumne Meadows area two years ago. I think it serves as a good example of the value of going back through old photographs from time to time. (I do this every year around the holiday season.) In this case, I had a particular subject in mind when I shot this scene – Mt. Dana, the peak to the left in this image. For that reason I had kept a version of the scene the aimed a bit more to the left and put that peak more clearly into the frame, and I had pretty much passed over this one in which the foreground creek leads the eye (my eye, anyway…) toward the beautiful light on Dana and the peak to the right, Mt. Gibb.

Mark Jaremko, Lena Tsakmaki and Rebecca Chang

Night Photography blog by Andy Frazer calls out the work of Mark Jaremko and a couple other Bay Area night photographers:

Mark Jaremko Bay Area night photographer Mark Jaremko has two photographs on display at 111 Minna Gallery this month in San Francisco for the Artspan Selections2007 exhibit. Selections is a biennial juried competition where close to 400 artists applied and they picked 20 artists in total. Only three photographers made it into the exhibit. And, get this… they were all Nocturnes folks, Mark Jaremko, Lena Tsakmaki and Rebecca Chang.

The show runs for the month of December and 111 Minna Gallery. – Andy Frazer [Night Photography blog by Andy Frazer]

I’ve only had time to look at Jaremko’s site so far, but some very beautiful photography can be found there.

When Sharpness Becomes an Unhealthy Obsession

Here is a small photo*:

100% crop sample

It is a tiny 100% crop from a photograph made with a Canon 5D, 70-200mm f/4 lens at f/11. (I don’t recall the shutter speed, but it was on a tripod). This image includes the head and shoulders of a person standing on an overlook above the Pacific ocean. Doesn’t look too sharp, does it?

If you viewed the entire photograph from which this portion comes at this resolution it would be five feet wide.

Make a direct print of this sample image so that it has the same dimensions you see on the screen. (If your screen displays at 72 dpi, print it at 72 dpi, etc. Or, put a ruler up to the screen, measure the image, then make a print that has the same dimensions.) The print will look awful – just as bad as it looks on the screen – but keep in mind that it is a very small bit of a much (much!) larger image.

The next time you have the opportunity to view some very large photographic prints at a show or in a museum, find one that is five feet wide. Discreetly take out your little print and compare the detail in the gallery print to the detail in this little sample image.

I think you’ll find that some very large (e.g. – five feet wide) gallery prints that look quite sharp don’t show any more detail than this. Some will show considerably less. A few – perhaps shot with LF equipment – may show a bit more.

Sharpness is a good and important thing, but it can also become an unhealthy and unproductive obsession.

* For reference, a jpg of the photograph from which this sample was taken is available here.

(This is from a message I recently posted in a long-winded and hopeless forum discussion of the “sharpness” produced by various types of equipment and in prints.)