Amateur Photography Thread

[WHORG]

I adore fixed length lenses - - -

Most often - they will provide better edge-to-edge sharpness, greater contrast and saturation, and wider aperture settings. Fixed length (standard) lenses FORCE you to compose better photos by making you actually move closer to - or further away from your subject . . . the correlation becomes clearer in this manner. Zooms tend to be much heavier with their complex internal optics & motors too - - -

The high end Leica & Zeiss rangefinder lenses only come in standard configurations. I believe Leica made a 28-35-50 "clickable" zoomish styled lens decades ago - - - but most hated it . . .

Years ago - when you purchased a camera body: most "packages" came with a normal/standard 50mm/f 2.8 (or faster) lens . . . now most DSLR packages include a slow zoom "kit" lens . . . which is fairly usable given modern sensor technologies.

There are good zoom lenses though - "Hugues" (on the old PE) is a pro photographer in Montreal - - - and his right arm is longer than his left from lugging around a Nikon D700 (2.5 lbs w/battery) and the 70-200mm/f 2.8 zoom (3.5 pounds) - but his results are stellar, but that's a $4,000 rig too !!!

Photography is always a "trade-off" - - - what you gain in one area is a loss in another . . .

[Greg]

i did try this again with the flash but it didn't do anything. probably because i was about 10-12 feet away from the statue. new one at slightly different settings from the one above (24mm, 250, 1/400, F10, WB Auto, -0.7EV (bracketed))..

Attachment 2037

I don't know. It doesn't look to me like the flash did much. Did it fire? Did you have it set at a fractional power? What kind of flash is it (I can't remember if you posted what you got)? Was this a built-in flash? Or, flash gun on the hot shoe?

Also, how does this image compare to the on you shot at +/-0 EV?

what's the difference between using a 35mm fixed length lens and setting an 18-200mm to 35mm? with the number of focal lengths available with a 200mm lens, why get a whole other lens that only has one focal length available?

Depending on the lenses you are comparing, there may not be much noticeable difference at all, or there it may be huge.

For consumer grade lenses (i.e., those less than ~US$200) you will have a difference in the widest aperture available at that focal length, and some difference in the quality of the light transmitted to the film plane. Josef put it well:

[Prime Lenses...]
Most often - they will provide better edge-to-edge sharpness, greater contrast and saturation, and wider aperture settings.

Although, at the consumer lens level, these differences in quality will probably not be easily noticed.

The bigger advantage to having a fixed focal length lens at this price point would be the larger aperture at the widest setting.

...what if you need to use focal lengths less than or greater than 35? buy 2 new lenses? could get expensive eventually and would greatly increase the amount of hardware you have to lug around.

It can get extremely expensive.

Depending on the subject and project, many professionals prefer prime lenses (fixed focal lengths) for the reasons that Josef explained. In portraiture, moving the camera closer and farther in relation to the subject is pretty much "standard practise". But, the mechanics of the lenses (such as the number of aperture blades, more exotic glass, and more precise lens groupings) produce a crisper and better saturated image than many zoom lenses can.

Also, many prime lenses have macro focusing capabilities which make them dual purpose. Zooms that have macro focusing are far less precise.

<generalization follows> Purists use fixed focal length lenses, hobyists use zooms.

Actually, I don't agree, here. There are many professional grade exotic glass lenses that are used in the industry for a wide variety of situations. But, they have their place, just as prime lenses do.

There are good zoom lenses though - "Hugues" (on the old PE) is a pro photographer in Montreal - - - and his right arm is longer than his left from lugging around a Nikon D700 (2.5 lbs w/battery) and the 70-200mm/f 2.8 zoom (3.5 pounds) - but his results are stellar, but that's a $4,000 rig too !!!

Exactly.

I own these two exotic glass zooms, both are Canon lenses:

canon-ef-17-35mm-f28-usm-l.jpg canon_2_24702.8_main_1.jpg

The first is a 17-35mm f2.8L that cost $1,900, and the second is a 70-200mm f2.8L IS II, that retails at $2,500. They are heavy, bulky, have 72mm filter diameters making the filters larger, heavier and more expensive, but the exotic glass provides incomparable edge-to-edge sharpness with minimal edge distortion, exceptional saturation and contrast, focus and zoom are both internal, and the f2.8 aperture is constant through the focal range.

"Exotic" glass actually means that several of the internal lens elements are made of non-silica substances like fluorine, sodium, etc. Although I don't know what Canon actually puts into their "glass".

In contrast, today's consumer grade lenses usually contain several optical quality plastic lens elements (which degrade clarity), have larger numbers of elements in various groupings (which degrades contrast and colour saturation), and employ rotating and extending barrels to facilitate zoom and focus. The latter makes a constant aperture impossible, which is why you see aperture ratings of "f3.5-5.6" on consumer zooms. The aperture is effectively changed by the extension of the barrel at longer focal lengths.

[UnephenStephen]

"I don't know. It doesn't look to me like the flash did much. Did it fire? Did you have it set at a fractional power? What kind of flash is it (I can't remember if you posted what you got)? Was this a built-in flash? Or, flash gun on the hot shoe?"

that last one i posted i didn't use flash but it's built-in in any case. here's the flash one..
unprocessed, 24mm, 250, 1/200, F10, 0.0EV
Statue2_ 016_1900.jpg

looks no different than the others taken without the flash and with the sun hidden.

"Also, how does this image compare to the on you shot at +/-0 EV?"

unprocessed, 24mm, 250, 1/250, F10, 0.0EV
Statue2_ 007_1900.jpg

[Greg]

that last one i posted i didn't use flash but it's built-in in any case. here's the flash one..
unprocessed, 24mm, 250, 1/200, F10, 0.0EV
Statue2_ 016_1900.jpg

looks no different than the others taken without the flash and with the sun hidden.

I was wondering if you had used the flash for the shots with the bright sun. But, this even image looks as though the flash didn't reach the statue. Either the camera determined it really wasn't necessary, or the fill it provided wasn't strong enough to cover the 12 feet distance to make any difference.

The overall exposure on this "overcast" shot is decent, but since the subject has no highlight the image looks muddy and dark.

"Also, how does this image compare to the on you shot at +/-0 EV?"

unprocessed, 24mm, 250, 1/250, F10, 0.0EV
Statue2_ 007_1900.jpg

This one, also, looks like there is no fill flash.

From the exposure data you've posted, I'm going to guess you set the camera at

ISO250, 1/250 & F10

And, that the camera automatically adjusted that with your bracketing selection at -0.7EV to 1/400.

Is that correct?

The 1/400 & f10 exposure is certainly better for the overall image, but it underexposes the subject which is better at 1/250.

If you tried to use the fill flash on that sunny one at 1/400 (-0.7 EV), then your camera's internal flash may not be powerful enough for this kind of shot. If you turned off the flash because the sun was out, then you inadvertently underexposed the subject; you should try the same type of shot, under the same sunny conditions and exposure, with the flash on.

In general, if you set the camera at 1/250 & f10, and purposefully set exposure compensation to -0.7, +/-0, and +0.7, and ended up with the best exposure at -0.7, then you are on the right track. Unfortunately, I can't mentally follow the process you took with the images and exposure you've posted to know exactly what steps you took.

You also seem to be attracted to subjects that have a wide variability in overall light across the frame, which is always going to pose a problem for good exposure with no external help like fill flash and reflectors (although, the town houses are much too big a subject for either of those to work).

[WHORG]

Heading up to the Adirondacks for our summer exodus: Aug 9-19th . . . back just in time for the start of school - and (of course) Progday.

Seriously thinking about renting a DSLR for that timeframe - with a few lenses, we will see.

We have a few hikes planned - perhaps a quick trip into Montreal for a day - then a stop in NJ on the way back - - - lots of photo opportunities for sure.

[Duncan Glenday]

Seriously thinking about renting a DSLR for that timeframe - with a few lenses, we will see.

Josef, do you have a place to rent from?

[WHORG]

Borrowlenses.com has served me well in the past ... Plus we get an academic discount from them. The university has gear too that i must investigate.

Jk

[Duncan Glenday]

'K

Thx

[UnephenStephen]

"And, that the camera automatically adjusted that with your bracketing selection at -0.7EV to 1/400.
Is that correct?"

yes. i set the aperture myself in Aperture Priority and turned bracketing on. statue2_007 was the first of the 3 bracketed shots (0.0EV). statue2_008 was the second. no flash in either.

"I can't mentally follow the process you took with the images and exposure you've posted to know exactly what steps you took."

first, i'll explain how my bracketing works. i set the release mode to continuous and turn on bracketing with the wanted EV (in this case 0.7). no flash. when i press the shutter, the camera automatically takes 3 shots all at once. conversely, when i have bracketing on and try to use the flash, it only takes one picture at a time instead of 3 regardless of the release mode. so in other words to use the flash with bracketing on, i have to take 3 separate exposures 1 at a time. i used flash on one 3 exposure set only.

anyway, i took 19 pics overall - all but the last were bracketed. first 3 in Manual, next 9 in AP, next 3 in SP w/flash (one at a time), last 4 in Manual.
in comparison to 007, statue2_016 was also bracketed but was different in 2 ways: i used Shutter Priority and flash.

[Greg]

"I can't mentally follow the process you took with the images and exposure you've posted to know exactly what steps you took."

first, i'll explain how my bracketing works. i set the release mode to continuous and turn on bracketing with the wanted EV (in this case 0.7). no flash. when i press the shutter, the camera automatically takes 3 shots all at once. conversely, when i have bracketing on and try to use the flash, it only takes one picture at a time instead of 3 regardless of the release mode. so in other words to use the flash with bracketing on, i have to take 3 separate exposures 1 at a time. i used flash on one 3 exposure set only.

Okay, you are going about the bracketing correctly. It was difficult for me to understand what you had been doing with the non-sequential way you were posting the images and the exposure data. I'm guessing you were only posting the shots you felt good about

Don't rely so heavily on the camera's rapid-fire auto sequence unless you are taking shots of a moving/changing subject. It only fosters impatience, and photography requires quite a bit of patience.

Also, when you have a subject, or general point of focus in the image, and it is dimly lit against a dark background, don't be afraid to use the flash to fill in the highlights and make the focal point of the shot stand out. If you have to manually fire three rounds with the flash (and this most likely due to the flash's cycling time), then get into that habit. It's a good habit to get into.

There are some people that look at me strangely when I'm taking shots in public and using a flash gun on the camera in bright sunlight. But, the reality is that a lot of the shots benefit greatly from fill flash even on sunny days. And, the flash gun is easier to manage than an assistant or three with a variety of 48" reflectors (although, reflectors can fill in light in ways that flash guns cannot).

anyway, i took 19 pics overall - all but the last were bracketed. first 3 in Manual, next 9 in AP, next 3 in SP w/flash
in comparison to 007, statue2_016 was also bracketed but was different in 2 ways: i used Shutter Priority and flash.

For landscapes, AP mode is usually appropriate, as depth of field is more important to a landscape than "stop-action". But, it's good that you're toying around with both. Just try to cover all the options in the AP, SP, and M modes so that you don't miss a possibly perfect exposure/flash setting in one of the other modes. Remember: you're not losing anything but a little time by shooting hundreds of images on digital media.

Was statue2_008_1900 one of the ones you shot using the flash? Or, is that without flash? (I'm still confused). If that was without flash, I think it would have benefited from it. If you used the flash, I'm wondering if you or the camera had something set so that it didn't fire when the shot was taken--or, it fired too weakly to illuminate the statue.

[UnephenStephen]

"Was statue2_008_1900 one of the ones you shot using the flash? Or, is that without flash? (I'm still confused). If that was without flash, I think it would have benefited from it. If you used the flash, I'm wondering if you or the camera had something set so that it didn't fire when the shot was taken--or, it fired too weakly to illuminate the statue."

as i mentioned 007 and 008 were part of the same bracketing set with no flash used. 016 was the only one i used flash on and was part of the only set in which i used flash (the 3 in SP mode).

my main goal was to blur the background so that the statue stood out even if the lighting was poor but of course it didn't work. i took one set in AP mode at F5 but the background looked the same as the F10 shots. maybe F5 wasn't a big enough opening? as i mentioned i was 10-12 feet from the statue and still only have the 18-55mm kit lens.

[Greg]

as i mentioned 007 and 008 were part of the same bracketing set with no flash used. 016 was the only one i used flash on and was part of the only set in which i used flash (the 3 in SP mode).

Ah, okay. Did you post image 016? I can't find it, now. What result did you get with flash, and what was the exposure?

[UnephenStephen]

Ah, okay. Did you post image 016? I can't find it, now. What result did you get with flash, and what was the exposure?

post 303

[UnephenStephen]

getting back to lenses, what focal lengths/apertures would you recommend for the following categories..

Landscape
Portrait
Macro

also, when you see a description like this..

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II Zoom Lens

what does f/3.5-5.6 actually mean? yes i know it refers to aperture but in what way.

[WHORG]

Landscapes - 24 or 28 mm, (or even lower) aperture is usually not as important as you're generally outside with lots of light - and you typically desire tremendous depth of field

General street photography, normal perspectives = 35 or 50mm, useful and desirable

Portraits = 80-105mm (usually with low aperture numbers to blur background) - you can typically shoot from a moderate distance from your subject (8 ft ++)

Macro = these can vary, but my macro was at the 105mm focal length - but they can run from 60 - 180mm - - - it's all how their designed to get really "close up" images like they do.

f/3.5 - 5.6 refers to maximum apertures in a zoom lens, at the widest angle setting (where the lens is usually "shortest") - the lens will typically let in more light = f3.5. When zoomed out all the way (and the lens physically "longer") - the lens will let in less light = f/5.6. Most consumer level zooms suffer from this condition, and while modern sensors are forgiving - losing these stops of light can create problems - especially if capturing concerts or dimly lit indoor images with no flash - - - this will introduce noise/grain into your images on smaller sensor rigs.

High quality zooms will retain aperture at all focal lengths - this is very expensive to design. The lens on my Leica D2 can both stay at f/2.0 for it's entire zoom range, but also not "grow" or physically get longer in that same process too (called "internally" zooming lenses). I think the thing has 13 different "sub" lenses grouped in 10 different areas within the lens - fucking amazing German engineering with incredible glass. Nikon, Canon and others have created these same marvels too - - - Zeiss, Contax and others too - - -

JK

[UnephenStephen]

thx for the info. but if you were to buy a single lens specifically for each of the above categories, what focal length/aperture values would that lens have? according to this site there seems to be a lot of overlap..

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pro...09109099-tab-1


"f/3.5 - 5.6 refers to maximum apertures in a zoom lens, at the widest angle setting (where the lens is usually "shortest") - the lens will typically let in more light = f3.5. When zoomed out all the way (and the lens physically "longer") - the lens will let in less light = f/5.6. Most consumer level zooms suffer from this condition, and while modern sensors are forgiving - losing these stops of light can create problems - especially if capturing concerts or dimly lit indoor images with no flash - - - this will introduce noise/grain into your images on smaller sensor rigs."

this confuses me. my 18-55mm is described the same way (f/3.5-5.6) but i know that the possible aperture stops go all the way up to f32.

[WHORG]

Those specs on zoom lenses refer to the lower aperture settings - at which point the lens (aperture blades) allows the MOST light to enter through the barrel and eventually onto the sensor . . . the highest aperture setting (f/22) are where it allows the least and remains the same regardless of focal length (zoom setting). Consumer zoom lenses are more forgiving at their widest angle settings (18mm in your case above) - and allows more light (f/3.5) into the lens . . . but when zoomed out to 55mm (and probably physically longer) - it allows less light to make it's way through the lens - and the widest given aperture it can muster is f/5.6 - - - so you will either need (1) more light or (2) longer shutter speed to capture that shot.

Hope it makes sense.

I'm talking equivalents below as they compare to 35mm film - the given standard:

28mm equivalent wide angle - not too "barrely" with image quality - f/2.8 is a good starting aperture. This lens will be used for landscapes and large groups of things, buildings, ets . . . and indoor shots where you need to capture the entire room or large group of people. 24mm is a bit wider and you might want to consider that too.

50mm is the "normal perspective" focal length - as seen by the human eye. A very useful lens for everyday shooting, street photography - some portraiture, pretty much anything. This focal length (in particular) can be made very fast in aperture terms - - - and I would go for an f/1.4 for speed. You will be able to capture many hand-held, non-flash shots with this lens . . . and it's a solid, life long performer in your arsenal of glass.

I will explain portrait lenses and macro's later in the day - - - gotta run out right now.

later . . .

[Greg]

post 303

Ah. yeah... and I actually commented that I thought the flash looked to have not gone off in that one.

getting back to lenses, what focal lengths/apertures would you recommend for the following categories..
Landscape
Portrait
Macro

also, when you see a description like this..
Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II Zoom Lens
what does f/3.5-5.6 actually mean? yes i know it refers to aperture but in what way.

I see that my earlier explanation may have been a bit too "high-level". Sorry. Joseph is doing a better job at making that information accessible, but I'll add just a bit.

I'll start with the specific lens spec, above, just to help you read the spec listed with the lenses. NOTE: These are Nikon-specific codes. If you look at a Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, or other lens brand, they will not be the same.

--------

AF-S = Nikon's "Silent wave" auto focus motor. which is more quite than their standard AF motor.

DX = Cropped sensor compatible only (Cameras that have less than "full frame" CCD/CMOS/etc. photo sensors). Not compatible with film cameras or full frame sensor bodies.

NIKKOR = Just Nikon's standard lens "brand". If the lens is not spec'd as Nikkor, then it's a cheaper/consumer Nikon lens line.

18-200mm = Obviously, the focal length range of the lens.

f/3.5-5.6 = The widest possible aperture setting available across the range of focal lengths. The smallest apertures are never listed in the lens spec. If it's only one aperture (i.e., f/2.8) then that aperture is constant at all focal lengths. When you see two aperture values, it means that at the widest aperture setting, the aperture actually closes down as you zoom out to longer focal lengths due to the length of the lens barrel.

G = ("gelded") Usually "cheaper" lenses that have had the aperture ring removed. Some newer higher grade lenses are now offered as G lenses. These lenses are only compatible with bodies that do not need the aperture ring (which is most of the new cameras). It does save a bit of weight. Always listed on Nikon lenses as part of the aperture range spec.

ED = Extra low dispersion glass that helps eliminate chromatic aberration (unwanted changes in the colour of the light as it passes through the lens). This is a good thing.

VR II = Second generation Nikon "vibration reduction". This is the Nikon lens-internal image stabiliser.

--------

For the lens types, I'll just list my preferences in lens specs as Josepf has the technical stuff under way, already.

Landscape: 17-35mm lens range. Not necessarily zoom. Any lens capable of f/8 through f/22 (which is almost all of them).

Portrait: 60-105mm prime (fixed focal length) with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 or even f/1.8.

Macro: Can be the same lens as the portrait lens if that lens has macro focus capability. If you do macro photography, you will want as much light coming through the lens as possible, so the lens should have at the least an aperture of f/2.8. Even wider is better, if you can afford it: f/1.2 would be wonderful, but it's expensive.

As an example, This is the kit I've ended up with over the years. It covers the ranges that I need with the maximum apertures that I want. Unfortunately, these lenses were NOT cheap. I list the price so you have an idea of what this spec can cost..

Canon 17-35mm f/2.8L ($1,900) -- Landscapes, wide indoor shots, cityscapes, anything needing wide coverage.

Canon 60mm f/2.8 macro ($600) -- General purpose, portraits and all macro.

Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II ($2,500) -- some portraits (at the 70-110mm range), distance landscapes where I need only a small area of the view, wildlife, and anything else at a reasonable distance.

I don't recommend going for lenses in this price range unless you have the money and are absolutely serious about your photography. If I had to buy gear now, I would not be able to afford my kit.

[WHORG]

Another great thing is to rent the lenses you are perhaps interested in eventually purchasing. I'm not into macro myself - but rented a lens (long ago) just to wet my whistle - and although a great form of photography - it was "not" for me at the time. It's very easy to get "glass erection" syndrome - collecting all these lenses over time, and just using a small handful. Exotic lenses have their place - but will you really use this glass "all the time" ??? - rent glass for those special occasions - but purchase the glass you will use a lot year after year.

I rented a fish-eye for a concert ages ago - the thing was fucking massive and weighed a ton - - - and although it provided amazing results, it did not work for me.

Each photography "activity" brings a different set of demands to the table: consider what you might be doing in the long run - and purchase your initial glass based from those parameters - that way you won't empty your wallet (as quickly) !!!

It's all fun - but having a DSLR body can offer you multiple lens configurations moving forward into the hobby - and this is really cool/fun/experimental - - -

JK

[Duncan Glenday]

Portrait : 105 (I agree with Joseph).

(The Nikon 105 has been a favorite of portrait photographers for decades.)

Landscapes - I'm inclined to go a bit longer than Greg and Joseph. My old 28-90 F2.8 zoom was my all-time favorite landscape lens. (I used the longer focal lengths quite often.)

[WHORG]

The fixed lens on my D2 is a 28-90mm f/2.0

I tell you, the lens I used most on my previous film body (Nikon F3) was the 50mm f/1.4 . . . It was their last manually focusing system I believe. That lens stayed on that body 2/3 of the time. Loved it.

[UnephenStephen]

"Landscape: 17-35mm lens range. Not necessarily zoom. Any lens capable of f/8 through f/22 (which is almost all of them).
Portrait: 60-105mm prime (fixed focal length) with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 or even f/1.8."

"The fixed lens on my D2 is a 28-90mm f/2.0"

ok, first.. how can a lens with range of focal lengths be considered fixed as opposed to zoom? fixed length to me means a single focal length. ie: prime lens.

"Portrait : 105 (I agree with Joseph)."

i have a friend who has her own photography business. she specializes in portraits. i least i think - she takes pictures of babies, families, individuals mostly outside. she has 2 prime lenses - 35mm and 50mm both with an aperture of 1.8. from the suggestions here, they seem more like landscape lenses than portrait lenses but she doesn't do landscapes (she blurs her backgrounds). is this just a case of this overlap i mentioned where 1 particular focal length could be appropriate for more than one type of photography?

[WHORG]

A fixed lens can also mean one that is permanently attached to the camera: cannot be removed and replaced with a different lens. In addition - it can mean a non-zoom lens too - - - sorry for this confusion.

Portrait lenses usually keep you a comfortable distance from your subject (8'-12') - not too close and making them uncomfortable in their "personal space" - - - but a 50mm lens would suffice for portraits if you could get super close to the subject (IE: girlfriend, wife, family, pets) - - -

To be honest - a good photographer uses their camera as a tool only - remember that great pictures first start in your head: framing and composition should be the very first building blocks when taking a photograph - - - exposure (aperture, shutter speed and film/sensor sensitivity) being the second building block. That being said: I believe that most great photographers have a very small arsenal of lenses that they are intimately familiar with and "know" how they behave given their situation & lighting conditions -

That's why I loved the 50mm - it takes photos in the exact same (normal) perspective as your own eye - and provides you with the same linear/dimensional connection that you imagine and actually can see/observe.

I had this absolutely gorgeous girlfriend in college - and at the time had only a simple, fully manual film camera with one lens (the 50) - - - and she loved being in front of the camera. Learned so much in those times - and pretty much stick with human subjects to this day (but most are clothed now).

I tell you right now - many of my most cherished shots are pure accidents - by framing/exposure . . . don't underestimate an error right away - give it time to sink in: I can provide some examples if you want - - -

[Greg]

"Landscape: 17-35mm lens range. Not necessarily zoom. Any lens capable of f/8 through f/22 (which is almost all of them).
Portrait: 60-105mm prime (fixed focal length) with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 or even f/1.8."

"The fixed lens on my D2 is a 28-90mm f/2.0"

ok, first.. how can a lens with range of focal lengths be considered fixed as opposed to zoom? fixed length to me means a single focal length. ie: prime lens.

I guess I need to clarify, as well.

What I meant by "60-105mm prime" was any fixed focal length in that range: 60mm, 70mm, 80mm, 90mm, 100mm, 105mm. You could use a zoom that covers that range if you want, as long it gives you a constant wide open aperture at all focal lengths. But, a prime/fixed focal length lens will be less expensive.

It all depends on your primary purpose for the lens.

I don't do as many portraits, so I don't need a fixed 105mm lens as much, and my 70-200m covers that focal length for me if I need it.

The 60mm f/2.8 macro I have suffices for most of my portraiture, and gives me the macro focusing that I use more often.

"Portrait : 105 (I agree with Joseph)."

i have a friend who has her own photography business. she specializes in portraits. i least i think - she takes pictures of babies, families, individuals mostly outside. she has 2 prime lenses - 35mm and 50mm both with an aperture of 1.8. from the suggestions here, they seem more like landscape lenses than portrait lenses but she doesn't do landscapes (she blurs her backgrounds). is this just a case of this overlap i mentioned where 1 particular focal length could be appropriate for more than one type of photography?

The truth is is that you can use wny focal length for portraits that you want. There are professionals that use 28mm/35mm lenses for portraits and like the effect it gives.

This may be beyond where you've gotten, but it's useful information to have:

The reason for using a longer lens is that it "compresses" the image from front to back--basically pulling the background closer to the subject--making the portrait subject look more "normal".

Shorter lenses (less than 50mm/60mm), create a "deeper" look to the image; objects in the distance look more like they are "in the distance". With portraits, the effects this has on a person's facial features, in comparison to the distance from tip of nose to back of head, can look a bit awkward and distorted depending on your subjects angle in the image. The longer focal lengths ()with 105mm being "almost perfect" for it) eliminate that sense of elongation of the facial features.

This long lens compression effect has a artistic use in landscapes, as well. Sometime bringing a distant background closer to the foreground makes the image flow better to the eye. Our eyes compensate for the depth in real-time, but not as much in a photograph. So, some landscape views benefit from using a long lens to give the eye less work to do when viewing the final photograph.

But, the "general rule" for lens types to purpose is typically what we've listed, above. There are always exceptions. Photograpy is an art, so it's really up to the artist's desire, in the end.

[UnephenStephen]

Farm_ 008_2000.jpg