Question about Primes

[RichTbiscuit]

I'm a bit confused about which Prime lens I'm actually after. I would like the equivalent of the old 35mm that Henri cartier-Bresson and the likes used. However I see most people carry a 50mm lens as their only prime. But surely on a x1.5 or 1.6 this would give ±75mm lens. So do I need to step down to a 30 or 35mm lens to get what I'm after?

I've found a few for the Sony fit that i need.

A Sigma 30mm 1.8 - £389.99

http://www.1stcameras.com/pd-sigma-30mm-f18-ex-dg-...

A Sigma 30mm 1.4 - £393.36

http://www.parkcameras.com/9572/Sigma-30mm-f-1-4-E...

A Sony 28mm 2.8 - £180.99

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-sony-28mm-f2-8...

I'm also rather confused as to why some lenses in around this length are labelled macro and some arn't?

[Simpo Two]

RichTbiscuit said:

So do I need to step down to a 30 or 35mm lens to get what I'm after?

The magic phrase is 'field of view' - and yes, you're about right.

RichTbiscuit said:

I'm also rather confused as to why some lenses in around this length are labelled macro and some arn't?

I doubt they're true macro (1:1 magnification). All too often it's used by marketing departments to indicate 1:2 or 1:4 magnification. Unless you want to shoot flies, I wouldn't worry about it.

[Chicken Pox]

RichTbiscuit said:

I'm a bit confused about which Prime lens I'm actually after. I would like the equivalent of the old 35mm that Henri cartier-Bresson and the likes used. However I see most people carry a 50mm lens as their only prime. But surely on a x1.5 or 1.6 this would give ±75mm lens. So do I need to step down to a 30 or 35mm lens to get what I'm after?

I've found a few for the Sony fit that i need.

A Sigma 30mm 1.8 - £389.99

http://www.1stcameras.com/pd-sigma-30mm-f18-ex-dg-...

A Sigma 30mm 1.4 - £393.36

http://www.parkcameras.com/9572/Sigma-30mm-f-1-4-E...

A Sony 28mm 2.8 - £180.99

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-sony-28mm-f2-8...

I'm also rather confused as to why some lenses in around this length are labelled macro and some arn't?

I'm ashamed to say I had no idea who he was, so was a bit confused by you referring to 35mm and then wanting a 30mmx1.5/1.6=45mm/48mm

Wiki said:

Cartier-Bresson exclusively used Leica 35 mm rangefinder cameras equipped with normal 50 mm lenses or occasionally a wide-angle for landscapes

certainly intrigued by

Wiki said:

He never photographed with flash, a practice he saw as "[i]mpolite...like coming to a concert with a pistol in your hand."[6] He believed in composing his photographs in the viewfinder, not in the darkroom. He showcased this belief by having nearly all his photographs printed only at full-frame and completely free of any cropping or other darkroom manipulation. Indeed, he emphasized that his prints were not cropped by insisting they include the first millimetre or so of the unexposed clear negative around the image area resulting, after printing, in a black border around the positive image.

Any books you would recommend as looks like an interesting man/style?

[flat-planedCrank]

RichTbiscuit said:

I'm a bit confused about which Prime lens I'm actually after. I would like the equivalent of the old 35mm that Henri cartier-Bresson and the likes used. However I see most people carry a 50mm lens as their only prime. But surely on a x1.5 or 1.6 this would give ±75mm lens. So do I need to step down to a 30 or 35mm lens to get what I'm after?

I've found a few for the Sony fit that i need.

A Sigma 30mm 1.8 - £389.99

http://www.1stcameras.com/pd-sigma-30mm-f18-ex-dg-...

A Sigma 30mm 1.4 - £393.36

http://www.parkcameras.com/9572/Sigma-30mm-f-1-4-E...

A Sony 28mm 2.8 - £180.99

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-sony-28mm-f2-8...

I'm also rather confused as to why some lenses in around this length are labelled macro and some arn't?

Just to echo much of what Simpo has said, you do indeed want around 30-35mm on crop camera to get the 'old' 50mm fov (that or buy a full-frame camera body )

I'd guess the popularity of the 50mm prime for crop cameras is partly down to pricing, 50mm primes don't tend to be massively expensive (especially for Canon). Plus that 75-80mm 'effect' is good for portraits, etc..

Macro does indeed seem to be a bit of a lax term, it's probably best though of as 'focuses pretty close' unless you are looking at a proper macro lens. Best to check reviews to see how individual lenses are regarded. Unless you plan on doing a lot of macro work then I'd personally go for a non-macro prime - they tend to have a wider aperture.

I'm not much of a macro person, but I'd always imagined that 50mm would be a bit short for macro work? I dare say some insect-snappers will be along shortly to correct me


Hope this helps.



Cheers.

[flat-planedCrank]

Chicken Pox said:

certainly intrigued by

Wiki said:

He never photographed with flash, a practice he saw as "[i]mpolite...like coming to a concert with a pistol in your hand."[6] He believed in composing his photographs in the viewfinder, not in the darkroom. He showcased this belief by having nearly all his photographs printed only at full-frame and completely free of any cropping or other darkroom manipulation. Indeed, he emphasized that his prints were not cropped by insisting they include the first millimetre or so of the unexposed clear negative around the image area resulting, after printing, in a black border around the positive image.

Any books you would recommend as looks like an interesting man/style?

Fair to say he is regarded as a legend. Just do a search on amazon for Cartier Bresson - I'd guess his Scrapbook is probably the most famous?

Not specific to him, but if you want some history of photography then the book accompanying the tv series 'The Genius Of Photography' has examples from many of the greats.



Cheers.

[Chicken Pox]

flat-planedCrank said:

Chicken Pox said:

certainly intrigued by

Wiki said:

He never photographed with flash, a practice he saw as "[i]mpolite...like coming to a concert with a pistol in your hand."[6] He believed in composing his photographs in the viewfinder, not in the darkroom. He showcased this belief by having nearly all his photographs printed only at full-frame and completely free of any cropping or other darkroom manipulation. Indeed, he emphasized that his prints were not cropped by insisting they include the first millimetre or so of the unexposed clear negative around the image area resulting, after printing, in a black border around the positive image.

Any books you would recommend as looks like an interesting man/style?

Fair to say he is regarded as a legend. Just do a search on amazon for Cartier Bresson - I'd guess his Scrapbook is probably the most famous?

Not specific to him, but if you want some history of photography then the book accompanying the tv series 'The Genius Of Photography' has examples from many of the greats.



Cheers.

Thanks , just been hung up on getting the camera to work over the last 3 years, time to have a look/play with some styles,that looks like a good start.

Much obliged

Pox

[RichTbiscuit]

Cartier-Bresson's work is amazing. An inspiration for us all as he kept things basic. Same camera and pretty much the same lens throughout his career. So, to answer my first question, 30-35mm is definately what I'm looking for. Second, I managed to find a well reviewed lens pretty cheap. Just seems strange it's £150 cheaper than a lot of the others i've found. Any particular reason anyone could think of?

Sigma 30mm, f/1.4 and only £258 which is well within budget.

http://panamoz.com/index.php/sigma-30mm-f-1-4-ex-d...

vs

Same lens for £393!!

http://www.parkcameras.com/9572/Sigma-30mm-f-1-4-E...

edit: on further inspection, especially at the buyers reviews it seems that the first company is unreliable and not even worth the chance.

Edited by RichTbiscuit on Tuesday 2nd February 22:39

[-Pete-]

Yes, you want a 30-35mm lens, and f1.4 would be nice. It seems to get good reviews.

One of the good things about Sigma is they operate a world-wide warranty scheme, whereas Canon, for example, only provide a warranty in the region where they were purchased.

[RobDickinson]

RichTbiscuit said:

I'm a bit confused about which Prime lens I'm actually after. I would like the equivalent of the old 35mm that Henri cartier-Bresson and the likes used. However I see most people carry a 50mm lens as their only prime. But surely on a x1.5 or 1.6 this would give ±75mm lens. So do I need to step down to a 30 or 35mm lens to get what I'm after?

I've found a few for the Sony fit that i need.

A Sigma 30mm 1.8 - £389.99

http://www.1stcameras.com/pd-sigma-30mm-f18-ex-dg-...

A Sigma 30mm 1.4 - £393.36

http://www.parkcameras.com/9572/Sigma-30mm-f-1-4-E...

A Sony 28mm 2.8 - £180.99

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-sony-28mm-f2-8...

I'm also rather confused as to why some lenses in around this length are labelled macro and some arn't?

HCB used a 35mm reangefinder with a 50mm lens so you aer after a 30-35mm lens for a crop body.

Sigma 30/1.8 is a full frame lens, dont know a lot about it.

Sigma 30/1.4 is a crop only lens (ok if you never upgrade) IMO ideal for HCB like shots, its sharpish in the center wide open , doesnt get any sharper realy, corners never get sharp.

Dunno bout the sony should be ok I gues, not fast for a prime.

[Fordo]

Chicken Pox said:

certainly intrigued by

Wiki said:

He never photographed with flash, a practice he saw as "[i]mpolite...like coming to a concert with a pistol in your hand."[6] He believed in composing his photographs in the viewfinder, not in the darkroom. He showcased this belief by having nearly all his photographs printed only at full-frame and completely free of any cropping or other darkroom manipulation. Indeed, he emphasized that his prints were not cropped by insisting they include the first millimetre or so of the unexposed clear negative around the image area resulting, after printing, in a black border around the positive image.

Any books you would recommend as looks like an interesting man/style?

i like his style. the quote 'like coming to a concert with a pistol in your hand' is brilliant

[Nick M]

I'm going to be a PITA here and throw in another variable for you to consider

The 'field of view' or 'sensor crop' factor comes from the fact that the APS-C sized sensor is smaller than a 35mm film negative - the lens covers a bigger area than the sensor, hence it's like an automatic cropping effect.

BUT, if you were to use a different focal length lens to give the same field of view (35mm lens on the APS-C camera, 50mm on the 'full-frame' one) then the optics of those lenses work in different ways and give different perspectives.

It's why you don't, generally, use a wide angle lens for portraits but stick to the generally accepted focal lengths between 85mm and 135mm, because the perspective those lenses give is pleasing to the eye (don't make ears and noses stick out and look weird, for example).

And it's why longer focal lengths give a foreshortening effect and can close up the perspective slightly.

So..... If you're trying to mimic someone using a 50mm lens, possibly the simplest option would be to use a 50mm lens but take a few steps back to give the same field of view as you'd get if that lens was on a full-frame camera (although it won't be perfect because even that will affect perspective slightly as you're observing from a different point of view....).

Fun, isn't it

[RichTbiscuit]

Why.. you... :shakes fist:

I'm trying to build my shopping order for my first DSLR and I think i've spent about 3 weeks now deciding on camera body, lenses, debating choices, filters... My head is absolutely pickled.

[Simpo Two]

I would say carry on with Plan A. Perspective and DOF are slightly different but FOV is more important IMHO. And HCB was probably more interested in composition and content than anything else.

(Apologies for the TLAs!)

[Nick M]

Simpo Two said:

I would say carry on with Plan A. Perspective and DOF are slightly different but FOV is more important IMHO. And HCB was probably more interested in composition and content than anything else.

(Apologies for the TLAs!)

In fairness that's probably true, given the sort of subject matter, such as street scenes, where DOF and perspective will matter less than the sense of the overall scene you're trying to capture.

[AJB]

Nick M said:

BUT, if you were to use a different focal length lens to give the same field of view (35mm lens on the APS-C camera, 50mm on the 'full-frame' one) then the optics of those lenses work in different ways and give different perspectives.

It's why you don't, generally, use a wide angle lens for portraits but stick to the generally accepted focal lengths between 85mm and 135mm, because the perspective those lenses give is pleasing to the eye (don't make ears and noses stick out and look weird, for example).

I'm very new to all this, so am probably wrong, but are you sure about that? To my mind, the perspective type effects (eg nose sticking out) are all to do with the fact that the nose is closer to the camera than the eyes, so the nose looks bigger. And I'd have thought it was all a percentage thing (eg the nose is 1% closer to the camera than the eyes, so looks x% bigger). If the camera is really close to the subject, then the nose is lots closer than the eyes and looks a lot bigger. If the camera moves a long way away from the subject, then the nose and eyes end up at pretty much the same distance and the nose doesn't look bigger. I think that's completely regardless of the focal length. What the focal length does is decide how big the subject will appear in the image when the camera is a given distance away.

So, I'd have thought that a 30-35 mm lens on a 1.5 or 1.6 crop camera would give exactly the same perspective as a 50mm lens on a full frame camera, as you'll end up the same distance away from the subject for the same framing, and so all the relative distances will be the same.

One reason people like 50mm primes on crop cameras (and the reason I've got one!) is that the equivalent 80mm focal length means that to fill the frame with someone's head and shoulders puts you a good distance away from them to get a flattering perspective. I think that the result is the same as an 80mm prime on a full frame camera.

The prime also has a big aperture which gives a shallow depth of field that can't be achieved with a zoom lens convering the same range, and so can make for much better portrait.

I could be completely wrong though! Please correct me if I am.

[Simpo Two]

AJB said:

I'm very new to all this, so am probably wrong, but are you sure about that? To my mind, the perspective type effects (eg nose sticking out) are all to do with the fact that the nose is closer to the camera than the eyes, so the nose looks bigger. And I'd have thought it was all a percentage thing (eg the nose is 1% closer to the camera than the eyes, so looks x% bigger). If the camera is really close to the subject, then the nose is lots closer than the eyes and looks a lot bigger. If the camera moves a long way away from the subject, then the nose and eyes end up at pretty much the same distance and the nose doesn't look bigger. I think that's completely regardless of the focal length. What the focal length does is decide how big the subject will appear in the image when the camera is a given distance away.

All true, but the factor you're missing out is framing. If you fill the frame with somebody's head at 10mm you'll be right on their nose, but if you do it with a 200mm lens you'll be on the other side of the room. Hence the perspective effect you described

[AJB]

Simpo Two said:

All true, but the factor you're missing out is framing. If you fill the frame with somebody's head at 10mm you'll be right on their nose, but if you do it with a 200mm lens you'll be on the other side of the room. Hence the perspective effect you described

Yes, but that's exactly my point. If you had a tiny sensor, so that with a 10mm lens you filled the frame from the other side of the room, then you'd be standing on the other side of the room to take the shot and you'd get exactly the same perspective as with a 200mm lens on a camera with a large sensor. So I'd still have thought that a 30-35mm prime on a crop camera would give exactly the same perspective and framing as a 50mm prime on a full frame. I may well still have missed something though!

[Simpo Two]

AJB said:

So I'd still have thought that a 30-35mm prime on a crop camera would give exactly the same perspective and framing as a 50mm prime on a full frame. I may well still have missed something though!

DOF.

Gotcha!

[AJB]

Simpo Two said:

AJB said:

So I'd still have thought that a 30-35mm prime on a crop camera would give exactly the same perspective and framing as a 50mm prime on a full frame. I may well still have missed something though!

DOF.

Gotcha!

OK - I'll give you that! Although you could always use a slightly bigger aperture on the crop camera to get the same DOF, and then a slightly faster shutter to give the same exposure. And you're not allowed to say that motion blur would then be different!!!

[Major Bloodnok]

Regarding Cartier-Bresson, if you haven't already, you might want to have a look at Jacques-Henri Lartigue, Eugene Atget, August Sander, Man Ray, Walker Evans...