7 ms·
It's not the only take on the subject, and I actually think it's quite mistaken.
50mm is great for street portraits or fashion shots. This is where you 1) can'
It's not the only take on the subject, and I actually think it's quite mistaken.
50mm is great for street portraits or fashion shots. This is where you 1) can't come too close to not spook the subject, 2) want tighter framing, 3) want to put your subject on a little bit of a pedestal so to speak, or 4) want to make a huge print out of your shot.
However, for candid "photos of your own loved ones" as in the article, I think you'll find it a pain. In these circumstances I can't recommend enough a wide lens instead. Try both and make your conclusions.
- On the surface a wide lens makes things look "farther away", but in fact what it does is emphasize the actual distances in the scene-- meaning with close-up shots it gives a strong sense of presence, which is presumably what you want. 50mm might be good for fashion portraits, but for shots like in TFA it's IMO way too long and puts unnecessary emotional distance between you and the subject (this was my first feeling when I looked at author's photos).
- The article sidesteps the fact that F-number is not the only factor in motion blur. 1/8 second with a 21mm lens is not great but it'd look loads better than 1/8 with a 50mm lens that would be very unforgiving as far as any shake.
- Framing and focusing is much less finicky. For casual snaps most of the time you don't even need to look at the screen: with close-ups it's self evident where the camera is facing, and if something is happening right now a little distance away just point your camera in the general direction and you'll most likely have it in frame. And if you have some time to frame for aesthetics, it's still easier because unlike a long lens with background separation a wide one wouldn't over-emphasize every object that happens to be near your subject.
Get a prime lens compact like Ricoh GR, it's too wide for street portraits but your loved ones will not object if you occasionally use it in close proximity.
I cannot recommend a 35mm for close-up pictures of people. The perspective is too weird. I have a 35mm lens, I used it a lot, and it has its uses--and the main way I use it is to capture more of the room or more people when I'm taking pictures indoors. Going too close with it results in distorted pictures which is fine as an artistic choice but it's not the choice most people want to make.
The Ricoh GR III has a 28mm equivalent, which puts it well into the "wide angle" category. You may like shooting with a 28mm FOV, or you may absolutely hate it. If you want to buy a camera like that, try it out first and see how you like it.
> Meanwhile 50mm is good for fashion,
It's really not. I would start at like 90mm equivalent for fashion or general portraiture (i.e. not candids).
Feel free to maintain your opinion, but I can't agree with it.
> I cannot recommend a 35mm for close-up pictures of people.
Also a little too long. Emotional distance, framing difficulty, yada yada. 28mm is probably the best bet for casual candids with relatives for the reasons I listed.
> The perspective is too weird.
Who cares. If you fail to capture a memorable moment because you were busy looking into the viewfinder focusing and framing, you fail, period. Very hard to do with a wide lens.
Distortion is just not a problem for casual shots of loved ones. It's not fashion or advertisement-- for the purposes of capturing memory & feeling you may want to emphasise intimacy and presence rather than perfection of proportions.
> It's really not. I would start at like 90mm equivalent for fashion or general portraiture (i.e. not candids).
Hard disagree. Wow. A prime of 90mm poses way too many constraints to work with. Unless we're talking professional photography, at which point you might be OK investing loads in a high-quality zoom/a spacious studio/lights/etc., there's really no point in shelling out for a lens that long that would be useless in most scenarios.
You're personally excited about wide-angle lenses and you seem to be convinced that everyone else will feel the same way about them, for candids of friends and family, and I just don't think that's true. You say that longer lenses create "emotional distance" but this is, to be honest, one of the most horeshit photography opinions I've heard. The lens doesn't create emotional anything, it just changes what you get in the frame.
I like the way the photos in the article look. They're not your style.
I’ve spent time with a lot of other hobby photographers and there’s always a few people with preferences like yours, but it’s never been a majority, and most photographers I’ve met have the humility to recognize that their own personal choices aren’t automatically the right choices for others.
> Who cares. If you fail to capture a memorable moment because you were busy looking into the viewfinder focusing and framing, you fail, period. Very hard to do with a wide lens.
Framing is not a problem that goes away if you use wide-angle lens. You can shoot wide and crop later, but all you're doing is changing when you're making the framing decisions, and the crop-later approach has the disadvantage that when you crop, it's too late to reframe. Framing is not easier with wide-angle lenses versus normal lenses. It's easier to get something in-frame, but harder to keep something out.
There's no "default" lens which is right for everyone or every circumstance.
I'm also not sure why it would take me longer to frame or focus with a 50mm lens. For candids, I almost always use an autofocus camera these days. It focuses at the touch of a button.
> Wow. A prime of 90mm poses way too many constraints to work with.
I've been using a 90mm equivalent for a long, long time. It's my go-to lens for when a friend who's a makeup artist or costume designer wants a good picture of their work, or when somebody wants a simple portrait, and I think it's easy to work with.
Maybe I just got used to working within those constraints. And maybe... just maybe... you got used to working with the constraints of a 35mm lens, and you've forgotten what it felt like when you were first dealing with those constraints.
I've done a lot of personal with 35mm, 50mm, and 90mm equivalent primes. There's a reason why people who get a set of three prime lenses most often get three lenses in this range or something similar--like 28mm, 45mm, 110mm.
It's easy to fall in love with the look of a wide-angle lens and then get disillusioned with it. You find that you're including too much stuff in-frame that you don't want, or you find that you're shooting too close to people and they look distorted. That's why I recommend that people spend some time with a wide-angle lens before deciding if they want to purchase a camera with a fixed wide-angle lens, like the Ricoh GR III. The Ricoh GR III is like $900 and forces you to use a 28mm perspective or crop in post--not everyone is going to like that.
Well, more than anything I wanted to present an alternative viewpoint. The author presented his as if it's the only way.
I arrived at my understanding after years of learning about photography and experience of doing it not professionally, taking tends of thousands of photos of all sorts of subjects. I think the point about emotional distance is under-appreciated.
Of course, this author (and I don't know why) clearly wanted to create the distance--you can see it by frequent use of monochrome/sepia coloring that mimics the nostalgic look of old photos. However, this was left unsaid, and someone may miss this factor when choosing the lens based on this article.
> Framing is not a problem that goes away if you use wide-angle lens. ... It's easier to get something in-frame, but harder to keep something out.
The core task is different IMO. When you are enjoying family time, especially with children, it's more important to 1) get something in frame in any way possible fast while 2) still being in the moment yourself than with other types of photography. If you are shooting children as models that's different, sure.
> I'm also not sure why it would take me longer to frame or focus with a 50mm lens. For candids, I almost always use an autofocus camera these days. It focuses at the touch of a button.
If you haven't tried wide-all-the-time, try. I shot a lot wide (20-28mm), 40-50mm and 75mm. With wider lenses I often shot from the hip with subsecond time between the moment and the shot, and got interesting dynamic frames (and I rarely crop). It just doesn't happen already at ~40mm, even if I spam shoot, I need to see the frame.
As to focus, you don't even need to focus many ~25mm lenses if you shoot with moderately closed aperture (just leave it around 5m~infinity). A longer lens makes it much easier for subject to be off, I have to make sure focus is right and a compact camera's autofocus is rarely reliable enough in low light to capture action. Remember that this is candid family shots, there's no proper lighting.
And 75mm, while great for street portraits or casual fashion, is additionally unusable as a main driver for candid family shots since in a random room you often can't back far enough away to capture enough of the action. In the circumstances described it's easier to come closer rather than opposite.
I thought 40-50mm would be a nice middle ground, but it doesn't give the really pronounced separation, bokeh and aesthetics of longer lenses like 75mm yet it does make things more challenging in all regards for no good (to me) reason. I find it OK for street shots but now I am more informed about its limitations in other scenarios.
> I think the point about emotional distance is under-appreciated.
I think you’re presenting your personal aesthetic preferences as more universal than they really are. The wide angle lens gets you physically closer to a subject, not emotionally closer. It can be close and intimate, or your subjects can feel like you’re invading their personal space, or the pictures can end up looking a bit gonzo (think Vice Magazine). It’s not an automatic win, it’s just an artistic choice.
I just think here that “get closer to your subject to create an emotionally close picture” is a bit reductive, and typical of the kind of advice you’d see on hobbyist forums that fails to really explore what “emotional closeness” means in photographic terms.
> […] you can see it by frequent use of monochrome/sepia coloring that mimics the nostalgic look of old photos […]
I think the article is actually from 2002 and it’s just been updated. The author may have just shot those pictures on B&W film in the first place.
> When you are enjoying family time, especially with children, it's more important to 1) get something in frame in any way possible fast while 2) still being in the moment yourself than with other types of photography.
That’s important to you. I think Sontag would probably have something to say about the experience of trying to simultaneously (1) be present in the moment and (2) stay vigilant so you can capture the good moments on film. You are trying to participate in your family activities and produce photographic evidence of moments of connectedness that your family experiences. That desire, and your personal style, lead you to prefer wide angle lenses.
The catch is—not everyone takes pictures that way!
I got a new camera with a 50mm f/1.4 long ago, and promptly tested it by shooting two or three rolls of film with my family over a couple hours. If you shoot enough pictures, people may start to ignore the camera, which is what happened. I got the pictures I wanted—which are records of my family looks at home, when they are not posing themselves for a picture.
> If you haven't tried wide-all-the-time, try.
I’ve definitely tried it. The normal lens for one of my cameras got damaged, so I used mostly a wide lens with it for a couple years.
I’ve tried a lot of different equipment combinations, sometimes using rentals or used equipment. Some of my favorite pictures are ones I took of family members with a simple 35mm prime. Some are candids that I took with a 110mm prime and a tripod…
> As to focus, you don't even need to focus many ~25mm lenses if you shoot with moderately closed aperture […]
I have a prosumer DSLR from several years ago. It takes about 150ms to focus and take a picture, from when you press the button. This is fast enough, for sure. If you understand how AF works, and have a camera with a good AF implementation and enough AF sensors, it’s very fast.
> I thought 40-50mm would be a nice middle ground, but it doesn't give the really pronounced separation, bokeh and aesthetics of longer lenses like 75mm […]
It depends on your budget and which system you are using.
With a high budget, you can go for the “big glass” look, but with a more modest budget, the humble 50mm f/1.8 is available for under $200 and gives excellent bokeh / background separation. The difference is not so big—the 50mm f/1.8 has a 28mm aperture, and a high-end 85mm f/1.4 has a 60mm aperture. That’s about a factor of 2x difference in bokeh, but a 10x difference in price.
It sounds like this is just not your style, but it’s not like any one lens would work for everyone—just like getting a 28mm or 35mm equivalent wouldn’t solve everyone’s problems.