/p/ - Photography » Thread #2611189

[45 / 4 / ?]

396KiB, 1598x1600, focal-length-exp-comp-exhibitc.jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

Subject and Focal length

Anonymous Mon 22 Jun 2015 21:23:12 No.2611189 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>2611223 >>2611234 >>2611235 >>2611265 >>2611323 >>2611373 >>2615465 >>2615992

Just wonder what do people photograph and what focal length(s) do you find yourself using?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jun 2015 21:43:25 No.2611199 Report

Quoted By:

Urbex photography mostly.

I find myself mostly using 24mm, and 80 or 90mm depending on what lens I have on. Sometimes 50mm and 35mm.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jun 2015 22:01:22 No.2611213 Report

Quoted By:

I find myself using anything from 18 to 270mm with my tamron (tm) superzomo

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jun 2015 22:10:49 No.2611223 Report

Quoted By:

>>2611189
what a qt

Anyway I think short-telephoto is my most used range. Say 75-150mm equivalent. Obviously great for portraits, but I find myself preferring it even for things like landscapes that a lot of times you want normal or wide-angle for. It's not so telephoto that your subject has to be either the size of a bug or a mile away, but at the same time it's tight enough that it makes me think "okay, what one thing here do I want to focus on?"

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jun 2015 22:14:23 No.2611225 Report

Quoted By:

Clubs, mostly a Sigma 18-35 for that wide angle and 1.8, other than that I always have a 70-200 2.8 with me that I occasionally use and a 8mm fisheye because customers seem to love the crazy shots you can get with it

Anonymous !!uPiHYFPeJke

Anonymous !!uPiHYFPeJke Mon 22 Jun 2015 22:20:59 No.2611231 Report

Quoted By:

24mm, 50mm and 70-200mm
Mostly shooting landscapes or architecture.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO AjjKBMg.jpg, 45KiB, 904x607

Anonymous Mon 22 Jun 2015 22:23:32 No.2611234 Report

Quoted By: >>2611272 >>2612785

>>2611189
>what focal length(s) do you find yourself using?
I use a camera wih APS-C, so there is acrop factor. My lenses are
-Fuji 14mm F2.8R (Nature/Arch/Landscapes)
-Fuji 35mm F1.4R (My "50mm", Street/Allround)
-Fuji 60mm F2.4R Macro (Macro and Textures)

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jun 2015 22:25:07 No.2611235 Report

Quoted By: >>2611404

>>2611189

MODS

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jun 2015 23:07:22 No.2611265 Report

Quoted By: >>2611285

>>2611189
I do bugs and animals.

>90mm 2.8 macro for the bugs
>~120-200mm range for pets and zoo with a 70-200
>300mm f4 sometimes with a 1.4x tc for wildlife

I'm happy with my gear for the first two categories but the old tank Nikon 300mm prime I have is pretty soft in comparison to modern lens design. I'm going to have pay out a painful amount of money to upgrade that though. Some day...

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO e8d2bb966510095a662ede03b08f654c.jpg, 101KiB, 605x800

Anonymous Mon 22 Jun 2015 23:17:43 No.2611272 Report

Quoted By:

>>2611234
Pretty cool, I'm looking into replacing all the bits and pieces from my experimenting years with:
Pentax K3
Pentax 15mm F4.0 Limited (indoors & landscapes)
Pentax 35mm F2.8 Limited Macro (walkaround & miniatures)
Pentax 70mm F2.4 Limited (people & landscapes & objects)
Pentax 100mm F/2.8 Macro (people & bugs)

These approximate the focal lengths I've found and enjoyed through my old stuff

I'm looking into a Sigma 30mm F1.4 Art instead of the 35 limited, since they're the same price. I may go for that

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jun 2015 23:39:09 No.2611285 Report

Quoted By: >>2611430

>>2611265
>but the old tank Nikon 300mm prime I have is pretty soft in comparison to modern lens design.
Which tc are you putting on it? You sure you're nailing focus? Because that's a pretty nice lens, when there's nothing wrong with the lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jun 2015 00:46:46 No.2611321 Report

Quoted By:

300, 135 and 80 because that is all I own.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jun 2015 00:48:50 No.2611323 Report

Quoted By: >>2611354

>>2611189

Who is this semen demon?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jun 2015 01:53:53 No.2611354 Report

Quoted By:

>>2611323
>>>/a/

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jun 2015 02:41:14 No.2611373 Report

Quoted By: >>2611391 >>2611404

>>2611189

MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODS

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jun 2015 03:17:53 No.2611391 Report

Quoted By:

>>2611373
just imagine how many shots it took and the amount of chimping for those six shots and for her to get upset.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jun 2015 04:32:31 No.2611404 Report

Quoted By: >>2613391

>>2611373
>>2611235

photographs of a child is not a moderation issue. moralfag back to facebook. there is no nudity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jun 2015 05:40:52 No.2611430 Report

Quoted By: >>2611479

>>2611285
I mean in comparison to the current gen 300 f4. The tank needs to be stopped down preferably to 5.6 or 8 even better for good results. Combined with the cold war era focus speed on that bastard it can be troublesome to work with. It's also possible mine has taken abuse over the years and is no longer in peak calibration.

When i do upgrade it will be something with all the nice modern stuff like af-s, vr, crispy even wide open, etc.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jun 2015 07:43:37 No.2611479 Report

Quoted By: >>2612880

>>2611430
hold a bright flashlight against the back element and take a look inside from the front. There might be a dust or fogging issue that softens the image.
Also film era lenses on digital usually introduces fringing that can come out as a soft glow. It's not the lenses issue btw, it is a microlens issue on the sensor and digital lens are corrected for that, hence the lower green-blue vibrance.
Film lenses have much better color rendition when there are no fringing inducing harsh contrasts.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO photo lens focal lengths.jpg, 607KiB, 1354x1508

Anonymous Tue 23 Jun 2015 12:02:28 No.2611565 Report

Quoted By:

disregard the shit eating grin

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jun 2015 12:04:20 No.2611567 Report

Quoted By: >>2613293

50mm on my 35mm film slr
35mm eqv on my Fuji x100s

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jun 2015 21:24:16 No.2612737 Report

Quoted By:

I love 40mm. 50mm feels a bit too tight and 35mm a bit too wide.

Then I recently started shooting 125mm. Not sure how I feel about it yet.

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM Wed 24 Jun 2015 22:40:37 No.2612783 Report

Quoted By:

I do astrophoto.

1000mm for nebulae, globular clusters and galaxies
1500mm for planets, sun and comets.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jun 2015 22:44:44 No.2612785 Report

Quoted By:

>>2611234
How does it feel knowing that the 60mm can't even get to 1:1 with the extension tubes? It's almost as bad as Leica's "macro" lens only getting to like 1:2 or 1:3 with the extension tube.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jun 2015 03:21:42 No.2612880 Report

Quoted By: >>2615447

>>2611479
Thanks for the tips. I hadn't taken a good close look at the inside of the lens in a while. Did so, fairly clean. Took out the rear element and cleaned it. Took test shots.

Still something off. Soft. Pixel peeping -which i rarely do- I saw subtle diagonal streaks in the bokeh. I looked back at some of the older pictures I had shot with this lens and noticed something. There was a specific date last year when the quality went down a bit. UV filter change. I had slapped a cheaper filter brand on to test the difference against my normal Hoya's and promptly forgot I had it on there.

And now I feel dumb. Anyway, thanks for suggesting I look closer at the lens. It probably would have been months before I tracked down the issue otherwise.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jun 2015 17:35:37 No.2613293 Report

Quoted By:

>>2611567
Same except 35mm eqv on X-T1.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jun 2015 20:03:02 No.2613391 Report

Quoted By: >>2613806

>>2611404
it was b8

Finland

Finland Fri 26 Jun 2015 14:00:38 No.2613806 Report

Quoted By:

>>2613391

What's a beight?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jun 2015 13:11:33 No.2614327 Report

Quoted By:

55mm and 105mm on crop sensor
mostly shoot portrait.

and 28mm as a walkaround lens, but i totally suck at walkaround photography

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jun 2015 15:36:42 No.2615447 Report

Quoted By:

>>2612880
>using UV filter
>kek

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jun 2015 16:36:48 No.2615465 Report

Quoted By: >>2615466

>>2611189
MOOOOOOOODS

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jun 2015 16:37:24 No.2615466 Report

Quoted By: >>2615477

>>2615465
fucking idiot go back to /b/

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jun 2015 17:00:01 No.2615477 Report

Quoted By: >>2615535 >>2615559

>>2615466

its a very pedo image. coworker asked me why am i seeing lewd 8yo gril photos, now what

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jun 2015 18:16:36 No.2615535 Report

Quoted By:

>>2615477
you have to say nothing because you are a certified fag.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jun 2015 19:01:51 No.2615559 Report

Quoted By: >>2615560

>>2615477
he probably meant "why are you staring at that photo of a little girl with your hand in your pants"
Just because you imbue sexuality into a completely innocuous photo doesn't mean the photo is lewd.

I realize you're trolling, but as a photographer, I feel like it's something that should be said.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jun 2015 19:03:26 No.2615560 Report

Quoted By: >>2615562 >>2615603

>>2615559

The photo is literally captioned to be lewd, you idiot. I have no idea why the mods haven't taken it down.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jun 2015 19:05:55 No.2615562 Report

Quoted By: >>2615570

>>2615560
Is it? because I looked at it and thought the caption over the last frame was because you couldn't see the stairs anymore. Not because you're too busy jerking off to remember what you're doing.

She's a fully clothed pre-pubescent girl doing literally nothing. There is LITERALLY nothing sexual about the photo, at all.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jun 2015 19:11:59 No.2615570 Report

Quoted By: >>2615580

>>2615562

>I looked at it and thought the caption over the last frame was because you couldn't see the stairs anymore

.. are you serious?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jun 2015 19:16:38 No.2615580 Report

Quoted By: >>2615585 >>2615612

>>2615570
Yes, I'm serious. Why does the idea of a little girl looking at you instantly make you forget what you're doing, and think about sex? Are you really trying to suggest that I'm the strange one here?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jun 2015 19:24:02 No.2615585 Report

Quoted By:

>>2615580

>Why does the idea of a little girl looking at you instantly make you forget what you're doing, and think about sex?

It doesn't. That's the plain-as-day implication of the image, though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jun 2015 19:49:19 No.2615603 Report

Quoted By: >>2615612

>>2615560
That's because you browse too much /b/ and it's also because you get aroused just by an innocent toddler looking at you.
What a disgrace you are for your family, fucking neckbeard

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jun 2015 20:08:31 No.2615612 Report

Quoted By: >>2615615

>>2615603
>>2615580

/tv/ paedophiles pls go

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jun 2015 20:12:28 No.2615615 Report

Quoted By:

>>2615612
did you even read what we said? fucking idiot

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jun 2015 10:44:27 No.2615992 Report

Quoted By:

>>2611189

I photograph girls much like in your OP.

Usually with a 50mm, but sometimes a 14-45mm, 40-150mm, or 70-210mm if they are involved in activities that don't allow me to pose them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jun 2015 11:19:19 No.2616002 Report

Quoted By:

I like 35 and 70.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

Subject and Focal length