[beaumont]

I don't get it.



This does remind me a little of another thread which I found somewhat intresting where someone took the time to post what were percieved to be the best apertures for the various lenses. Interesting concept, but again probably too many variables to be conclusive?...

[Lowell Goudge]

I would tend to agree with Richard and Marc. and also didn't vote

I use every thing for everything.

very often I am much less concerned about which lens is optically superior at some point than another. I frame the photos based upon the composition I want, set the apature for the DOF I want, and shoot.

I usually don't carry all 14 of my lenses, (typically 4 at most) hence I have already made some decisions before I even go out to take photos. As a result, for me the only answer to the first question (which lens) is what ever is on my camera at the time, and the answer to the second question (what distance) is what ever I think gives the best shot (for birds usually closest for scenes or people the framing I want)

[tomtor]

I would tend to agree with Richard and Marc. and also didn't vote

very often I am much less concerned about which lens is optically superior at some point than another. I frame the photos based upon the composition I want, set the apature for the DOF I want, and shoot.

Exactly!

I pick a lens anticipating the expected shooting distance, light condition (low or plenty), perhaps need for artistic shallow DOF, etc.

The outcome is a lens which will probably render nice images. So I DO take a distance in account, but only so that the subject will fill the frame in a nice manner, NOT related to maximal IQ. Maximal IQ simply does not exist because there are too many factors and the weighting depends on the kind of result one wants to achieve.

[Lowell Goudge]

Exactly!

I pick a lens anticipating the expected shooting distance, light condition (low or plenty), perhaps need for artistic shallow DOF, etc.

The outcome is a lens which will probably render nice images. So I DO take a distance in account, but only so that the subject will fill the frame in a nice manner,

you mean

Image size = subject size / distance * focal length ?

NOT related to maximal IQ. Maximal IQ simply does not exist because there are too many factors and the weighting depends on the kind of result one wants to achieve.

I would agree totally, and in fact many times a lens can be selected for artistic reasons specifically NOT to have the best IQ.

[tomtor]

you mean

Image size = subject size / distance * focal length ?

Yes, I guess so. If I'm visiting an outdoor event I'll estimate the distance from the podium and if I'll want full body, upper body or portraits shots (or a few of all: meaning zoom).

If I would be visiting eg a steam train event I would obviously need less tele than when shooting models, so yes:

subject size / distance * focal length is more or less a constant.

This will result in one or two specific zooms or primes to pack in the sling bag. The FA77 will get in if the event extends in the evening hours, etc, etc. You'll get the idea. Ofcourse the actual situation is often different than anticipated, so I like the 18-250 very much, allthough its IQ is obviously no match for eg the FA77.

In general I'd prefer a bit too much tele over a lens too short for events. One can always selects interesting details with a tele, all wide angle shots of eg a podium will very soon get boring.

[Marc Sabatella]

However... you and others have spent a lot of time and effort explaining why this won't work and I have to ask, why bother? If somebody doesn't think this is worth doing, swell, don't do it, but why go to such lengths to criticize and undermine the process?

That's a fair question, and I'm going to answer it as directly as I can. I suspect you won't *like* the answer I'm about the give, but I might as well lay my cards on the table - no sense in people judging me based on potentially incorrect assumptions regarding my motives. I actually thought pretty hard about whetehr to even post my previous response, as I certainly could have sat back and waited for more data to come in. But something inside made me post anyhow, and that's what I'm going to try to explain, for what it's worth.

Here's the deal: when you first posted your question, the wording - in which you made direct reference to things like calculations of DOF - really made it seem like you were expecting there to be a single answer. It seemed you are thinking there would be a foolproof formula to give a relationship between subject distance and IQ, just as there is for DOF, but like "pushing an ice cube" - the formula was eluding you for some reason.

So my initial response in that thread was a poorly worded (as I will absolutely agree in hindsight) attempt to clear up that misunderstanding. As I think you will agree if you think about my post on various topics, I for some reason have a tendency to go around trying to clear up confusion when I see it. Some might think I do that because I want to show off, others think I do it to be argumentative. I would say it's simply because I like to help people by explaining to them things that might have been confusing. Of course, I wouldn't do it if I didn't think I was pretty *good* at it. Again, not because I am trying show off or be argumentative, but because being *good* at explaining things is kind of a prerequisite in order for the explanations to actually be helpful.

So, anyhow, we actually *are* in agreement that there is meaningful data to be collected here. But - and I'm sorry if I'm wrong about this, but it's how it seems to me - I truly believe that you are not being realistic about the significance of the data that would be collected. I think you are still assuming the effect is going to be far more significant than it actually is. I really think we are talking about minutiae here. Potentially measurable and perhaps even interesting minutiae, but minutiae nonetheless.

If I thought you truly appreciated how *tiny* the effect the you are trying to measure is likely to be, I wouldn't have said another word. But the wording of your initial post, *combined* with the fact you are still suggesting actually changing your perspective and composition just to take advantage of this distance/IQ effect - that suggests to me that you are probably off by several orders of magnitude here in your assumptions about how significant this effect is. I mean, I am thinking the actual *degree* to which IQ is affected by distance might be around 1/100 as great as you may be thinking.

So, in steps the guy who makes it his business to try to clear up confusion. To help them be better photographers, or whatever. And make no mistake - I think making the sort of changes you are suggesting making in your shooting because of the tiny IQ differences we are likely to be talking about would be a huge detriment to your photography.

And as long as I've gone this far, I might as well go a little further.

I like you. We've had some nice conversations. I feel bad about the way my initial response to your first query on the topic came off. I feel *worse*, though, about how some of the other posters are responding. I know it's no fun to feel ganged up on in this way. And I've tried "helping" here in two different ways. One, by trying to explain to the folks who clearly had no idea what you were talking about, well, just what I thought you *were* talking about. Because what you're trying to do isn't *stupid*, and they need to know that. But frankly, as I said before, I think it is *minutiae*, and I think *you* need to know that, or else I suspect you'll continue to see resistance and ridicule from others who are clearly getting a similar impression that I am: the impression that you are confused about just how significant the effect you are basically trying to measure is. I think if people felt that you appreciated that and weren't indicating that you were thinking of this as something that should actually cause you to change your perspective and composition just to get that extra 0.3% improvement in IQ, they'd be more inclined to play along.

Well, there it is. I suppose that all sounded condescending as hell, and I'm sorry again if so. I don't *feel* condescension - I feel the same thing I always feel when I see someone I believe to be confused about something, and also the same way I feel when I see someone being attacked unfairly. That is, I feel the desire to do what I can to help, even though I know full well my efforts don't always work and indeed sometimes backfire. Anyhow, I've tried my best to explain how I feel and why. I'm a firm believer in being honest, and that's what I'm trying to do here, for whatever it's worth.

you mean

Image size = subject size / distance * focal length ?



I would agree totally, and in fact many times a lens can be selected for artistic reasons specifically NOT to have the best IQ.

Yes, I guess so. If I'm visiting an outdoor event I'll estimate the distance from the podium and if I'll want full body, upper body or portraits shots (or a few of all: meaning zoom).

If I would be visiting eg a steam train event I would obviously need less tele than when shooting models, so yes:

subject size / distance * focal length is more or less a constant.

This will result in one or two specific zooms or primes to pack in the sling bag. The FA77 will get in if the event extends in the evening hours, etc, etc. You'll get the idea. Ofcourse the actual situation is often different than anticipated, so I like the 18-250 very much, allthough its IQ is obviously no match for eg the FA77.

In general I'd prefer a bit too much tele over a lens too short for events. One can always selects interesting details with a tele, all wide angle shots of eg a podium will very soon get boring.

Just wanted to interject here Lowell and Tom, it's a shame you two guys didn't get in on these threads from the beginning, might have saved some of the arguing.
Wouldn't you also agree that some of the best shots can also be produced with totally the wrong lens? Sometimes you have to shoot with whatever is on the camera regardless and the results can be surprising.

[tomtor]

Wouldn't you also agree that some of the best shots can also be produced with totally the wrong lens? Sometimes you have to shoot with whatever is on the camera regardless and the results can be surprising.

Yes, it is interesting that you say that and I think you're 100% right. My approach is more or less an engineering approach, and that might result on technical ok images, but not in artistic differing or special interesting views.

Being forced to shoot with a strange/non-standard focal length for the situation at hand might indeed result in the more interesting images. This shows that the purely technical approach to photography (of which this poll is an 100% example) is in certain ways dangerous for the artistic outcome.

You're right:

I'm going to promise myself that I'll take the 18-250 not out of the bag untill I have made some attempts with the lens currently on the camera :-)

[Lowell Goudge]

Just wanted to interject here Lowell and Tom, it's a shame you two guys didn't get in on these threads from the beginning, might have saved some of the arguing.
Wouldn't you also agree that some of the best shots can also be produced with totally the wrong lens? Sometimes you have to shoot with whatever is on the camera regardless and the results can be surprising.

Gary

I watched this for quite some time before stepping in, as I have occasionally really stepped in it

having said that i also agree with you the totally wrong lens sometimes makes for very interesting and surprising results.

Case in point, someone once asked about the "best" focal length wildlife lens. I have a shot which I have posted here of a hawk eating a mouse taken with an FA 28-105 F4-5.6 (power zoom), and another of a warbler with the same lens . Normally, I don't shoot birds with anything this short, but was able to get the shot with the only lens I had. Bottom line is the result.

edit note:
p.s. Gary, I also seem to have the impression that I am the last poster many times, I am not sure this is a good thing or not

[Lowell Goudge]

It is obvious from the responses that you all fully understand what the OP is trying to achieve - so that simply leaves this to be a hijacked thread.

we didn't say we dont under stand, we all do.
Come on people; stay on topic![/QUOTE] it is not a question of stay on topic, I think the concensus is that there is no value in the data he is trying to collect

[Tom S.]

Now that I think I understand the results that are being sought, I have to say the poll as it stands is pretty useless. Before jumping on me, let me state why.

If I vote for 50mm F1.4 and select 12 feet, the results shows a vote for the lens and a vote for the distance, but unless you look for me as the poster, you can't correlate the two together. If someone has an opinion on more than one lens, they can't supply more than info on one either. If they did, you wouldn't be able match up lens with distance at all.

It would require more work, but if you did separate polls for each lens, the results would be spot on, and people could supply info for each lens they have experience with. For example, do a poll on the 50mm F 1.4 with the various distances, and the results will be for that lens only.

[Nesster]

DA70, 1-3 feet, though 4-10 is good too.

[debbie]

I think you are confusing this with zoom lenses showing different IQ on different lenghts.
If you are for example wondering if you should get the da70 or the fa77 for a certain shoot, I bet the more expensive prime will be the better choice every time. No matter the distance.
And if contrast is one part of IQ, no lens will show maximum contrast on subjects very far away.
I am making sense??

[FHPhotographer]

DA70, 1-3 feet, though 4-10 is good too.

Thanks for the input,
Brian

[FHPhotographer]

I voted.

c[_]

Thanks,
Brian