February 23, 2009
-
Lens zoom range theory 101…
Over the years, zoom lenses have evolved into certain “useful” focal lengths. 28-80, 35-70, 28-70, 24-70, 28-105, 24-120…
Basically the theory is, it’s GOOD to have a mid-range lens that can cover both wide angles AND telephoto at the same time.
This may be great for photojournalism, and I’m sure that many pros are totally happy with their 24-70 2.8… (At least Nikon pros are LOVING theirs. Resolves perfectly even on 24 megapixels, unlike a certain “L” 24-70…)
But I digress. Most generic event photographers like that focal range; that’s my point.
However, I shoot some pretty odd-ball types of photography, and let me tell you- sometimes, especially when you’re shooting from a fixed distance and can’t get any closer OR back up, …you just wish you could have different focal ranges. So I’m going to theorize…
(Just for simplicity’s sake, we’ll talk ONLY about pro-grade, f/2.8 zooms)
Instead of the progression on the wide end of mid-range zooms, what if we went back to 35mm and worked on the telephoto end? Would you buy a 35-120mm 2.8? It could go perfectly with a 17-35 2.8…
Or how about breaking away from the current telephoto standard of 70-200mm… Would you buy a (full-frame) 50-150 2.8? And then, moving backwards from there, what if you could buy a 20-50 2.8?
SO, different people have different shooting styles. Not to mention the different shooting conditions! Oh, and throw in different sensor sizes too, while you’re at it. This is largely what prompted me to wonder what it would be like to have these different range lenses- I work with DX, so I have an abundance of lenses to chose from in both camps- I can use the 17-55 if I want a 25-80mm equivalent, or I can use a 24-70 on DX and get about 35-105…
…And a lot of the time, yeah, I just love the “standard” focal ranges. But every now and then, both when shooting events AND portraits, …I find myself changing lenses way too often, wishing I had a mythical 35-120 2.8, or a 50-150… (in full-frame, that is…)
…O well. Just an idle ponder. I know that Nikon has FAR more work to do in their lens department before they even dream of doing something this crazy!
=Matt=
Comments (7)
I went from a 50mm 1.8 + 18-135 on my nikon d80 then got an 18-200 vr
much nicer glass than the 18-135 give or take the good zoom factor. I
sold my 50mm 1.8 for a 50mm 1.4 and then sold my d80 for a d300, in
which the 50mm 1.4 was great the 18-200 vr not so great i felt the lens
was holding me back.
Just recently spent the 1700 for the 70-200 vr 2.8 for sports and
portraits. Its really a great lens but heck of a price, and still held
on to my 18-200vr, but actually decided to ditch it for the 17-55 2.8
which i love now. I hope to go to fx in the future and use the 24-70.
but i’d probably keep both bodies =)
i like the 50mm but its so hard to work with in tight spaces if you got
room it makes a great lens.
i don’t find the 70-200 to be as useful as i want it to be
@soundz - On crop, or on full-frame? It’s quite a useful focal range, for many things, on full-frame… (50-135 on DX…)
=Matt=
@CameraTalk - I’m using crop .. I suspect I would find it on my camera more often if I had full-frame. I’m not saying it’s not an awesome lens, but I find myself in the 10 – 70mm range like 80% of the time. I feel like I should have made most of my investment in that range rather than sinking 1.8k into the 70-200 L lens.
@soundz - Well, thankfully you only really *sunk* a hundred bucks or two into the lens, so if you wanted you could sell it used for a 12-24 and 24-70, or a 17-55 and 50-150, etc. etc. There are many different options out there!
=Matt=
@CameraTalk - hahah what i meant by 1.8k = $1800 ! but i agree i can sell it and get a whole lot more lenses
Matt, I shoot with Sigma 70-200 every wedding, its really useful for the way I shoot. In fact I liked it so much that I wanted to get another one for my wife but I didn’t want to get same thing.
So I thought I would get the 50-150 since you like it so much and it would be much lighter for her to lug around i assume, unfortunately its not full frame so I ended up with another 70-200 instead.