60, 80 or 150?

[clayne]

I agree. But 20 mm is far too short, far too unreal for that sort of stuff. I doesn't convey, i think, involvement or immersion, but a "look at my neat lens and the trickery it can do, and so yes, i'm a photographer here to take photos, not giving a hoot for what they are doing, but do want you to notice i'm not afraid to get in other people's faces" kind of thingy.

35 mm would do nicely though.

Longer lenses too, because people stand back from what they are doing too. The photographer should join them and do likewise.

I have to politely disagree with you here. 20mm is not all about "whoa dude, check out the wiiiiiiiiideee angle." There are ways to frame such that distortion is less of an issue and involvement is a higher concern.

 

[2F/2F]

And yet have you posted a single photograph anywhere to see, Lebowski?

I do not "post" photographs unless it is part of one of the postcard exchanges. (Hyuk hyuk.) It is an utter waste of time. I can barely find time to develop and proof half what I shoot, and I am supposed to waste money and time digitizing them for the peanut gallery on an analog photo Website so that one fellow named Clayne can have the opinion that my opinion is allowed to exist? Yeah? Well, you know, that's just, like, uh, your opinion, man. I do plenty with my pix...but not online. I do not view online forums as a worthwhile venue for the sharing of my imagery, since I have a fine group of flesh-and-blood people around me to fulfill this purpose. We all come here for different reasons. You may come here to look at and share photographs, but others do not.

...and what you said has nothing to do with what we are talking about. What I am talking about is:

Why the need for mottoes and rules to govern ones photographic choices? Why the need to state them as fact? Why not just talk about how lens choice affects photographs, and how this, in turn, affects what is done by the photographs upon their viewing. Flatly dismissing photographs shot with certain types of lenses is almost the height of uselessness in the discussion of photography.

Yes. It is harder to discuss things a bit more objectively and fairly. However, it is not useless – unlike rules, mottoes, and opinions stated as facts. One can state a very strong opinion without needing to rely on generalizations and aphorisms.

...but then again, I guess if you scan pictures and put them online, you are allowed to do so after all.....

Maybe my attempt at stating this humorously fell on deaf ears.......but lighten up, mang!

 

[clayne]

Maybe my attempt at stating this humorously fell on deaf ears.......but lighten up, mang!

It's cool. We're good (relatively).

 

[maarten m]

Here's my motto: The longer the focal length, the more boring the photographs.

i like this one

 

[wclark5179]

I use the 150 for portraits. I can get the camera in far enough distance so as the client is not so nervous.

Also I can have the persons eyes tack sharp whilst the background is a blur.

The 150 is wonderful for head & shoulders and three quarter shots.

For full length portraits and groups I wil usually use the 80mm.

I don't use the 60 mm very much for people photography other than environmental photographs with the people in the scene.

Just what I do.

Hope this helps you.

My wife and I spent a few days here:

http://maps.google.com/maps?client=...code_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCQQ8gEwAA

Beautiful city and nice people.

 

[Pumalite]

I have no 'mottos'. I use the 80 and 50 most. Actually I carry them always together.

 

[maarten m]

My wife and I spent a few days here: ... Beautiful city and nice people.

i was born there and spent almost half my recent life there.
moved to ghent about 18 years ago and haven't regretted it yet.
though bruges is "beautiful", it's fake and quite dead at night, compared to ghent.

maarten.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have no 'mottos'. I use the 80 and 50 most. Actually I carry them always together.

Ditto. In order of use 80mm, 50mm, 250mm, 38mm [SWC], and then 150mm. I do not do portraits often any more. If I am travelling and there are either narrow streets or tram lines, then I will tend towards wide angle more. Mostly I use the focal length for image cropping [read: compostion] more often then for perspective choice.

Steve

 

[Katie]

Great read. Still doesn't help me decide ... looking at a 50 or 120 to replace an 80. Probably the 50, to be followed by the 150.

How close do these focus, by the way. Does anyone like the 120 macro?

 

[Q.G.]

The close limit of the 50 mm is 50 cm, minimum field of view 36.8 cm.
That of the 150 mm is 140 cm, minimum field of view 40.2 cm.
Of the 120 mm it is 95 cm, minimum field of view 32.8 cm.

"Does anyone like the 120 mm?"
You're kidding... Does anyone not like the 120 mm? The answer to that will be "no".

 

[Katie]

Thanks QG! you are most helpful! I am still learning and you have all the info I need. Just posted the same question on another thread - you can disregard.

 

[maarten m]

hey katie,

i don't think neither 50 or 120 can replace your 80. reading my own thread, maybe they can if used together.
in your case, i'd get the cheaper one (so you can get started) and wait for an 80 to come along.
i tend to do my "closer" stuff with an extensiontube, since neither 80 nor 150 focus close enough.
even works for close portraits on the 150.

maarten.

 

[Ian David]

Obviously impossible to advise someone else. But (if I really had to) I would get rid of my Blad lenses in the following order: 50 first, 150, 80 last.

Ian