[aslyfox]

some thing of interest from the LensRental.com blog:

Helping Determine the Correct Focal Length for Photography & Videography
By Lensrentals Published August 20, 2019

Here at Lensrentals.com, we get asked a common question on the daily, which is something to the regards of “I’m shooting X, what do you think the best focal length(s) would be?” By definition, this is an impossible question to answer completely and would need a multitude of variables before we could actually give a recommendation. But at the very least, we thought to ourselves, “Certainly, we could give people a visual representation, right?”

Lens Rentals | Blog

[stevebrot]

Thanks for sharing this. Looking at the examples, it should be readily apparent why bird and wildlife photography is so hard and why there is such a steep price of admission. Looking closer, I suspect that the model is fairly petite, say just under 5-foot tall and or their framing is a little on the wide side; I vote the latter. Even taking that into account, it should also become obvious why a 20mm f/2.0 or a 24mm f/1.4 (regardless of bokeh) is not practical for close-in portraits with a K-1 (working distance of about 10 inches or less). Also fairly obvious is why the 70mm to 135mm range is popular for portraiture. Shooting a concert? Better get closer than 150 feet unless you are packing a big gun lens!

Edit: Thank to @dave2k for suggesting a taller height for the model/manikin. The an estimate from the setup shot in the video for 10 feet looks indicates a height of about 6'. As such, the distance for the example photo might not be correct, either that or the focal length is wrong.


Steve

[dave2k]

I think this article is a great illustration of what to expect with various focal lengths. Not that this is important, but I suspect the model height is approaching 6 feet and pretty thin. I say this because I think it's hard to find a shorter or wider model given preferred fashion sizes. Since the model is on a platform, height is probably greater than 6 feet.

[photoptimist]

It's a nice article and yet is could be so much better!

It would be better to see the sample images laid out as a grid of focal lengths and distances with all the 16mm shots the top row, 24 mm shots in the second, etc. and all the 10 foot shots in the first column, 20 foot shots in the second, etc.

First, a grid would make it clear that all the shots of a given focal length have the identical skyline regardless of distance. That's a critical "focal length choice" issue for any photography that uses distant objects (landscape, city, astro) as a backdrop. If a photographer wants buildings X, Y and Z or mountains A, B & C filling the background, then the angular span of those objects determines the focal length.

Second, a grid would make it more obvious which combinations of focal length and distance cover nearly identical amounts of the subject (or the subject spans nearly identical fractions of the frame). Shots with a 200 mm at 20 feet frame the subject the same as a 500 mm at 50 feet, a 1500mm at 150 feet, etc.


P.S. There's at least two other problems in the series. First, the "10 foot shots" were taken from further than 10 feet (maybe 11 to 12) because all the shots at 20 feet and twice the focal length have a tighter view than the shots at 10 feet (but the shots at 50, 100, etc. seem right). Second, they did not use a 35 mm prime because the angle-of-view on the 35mm shots varies from sample to sample.

[aslyfox]

It's a nice article and yet is could be so much better!. . . .

I suggest that you send your suggestions/comments to the author of the blog

[stevebrot]

Since the model is on a platform, height is probably greater than 6 feet.

Reviewing the video, I see you are correct with an estimate of about six foot. I have corrected my comment. OTOH, I actually checked relative size with lens, camera, and tape for 24mm before posting and measure about 9 foot vertical FOV at 10 feet distance. Allowing for the 93% viewfinder coverage, that is pretty close to the 10 foot figure given by the FOV calculator at the linked page below:

Camera Field of View Calculator (FoV)

The model/manikin (pedestal included) occupies a little over 50% of the vertical dimension of the example for 24mm at 10 feet. That is what skewed my estimate of height to about 5 foot. I suspect that the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III used in the test might shoot a little wider than the nominal focal length. Either that or the photo was taken from further back than shown in the video.

Addendum: I am usually not this compulsive about things. It was just that the 24mm shots appeared far wider than my experience with the focal length.


Steve

[stevebrot]

P.S. There's at least two other problems in the series. First, the "10 foot shots" were taken from further than 10 feet (maybe 11 to 12) because all the shots at 20 feet and twice the focal length have a tighter view than the shots at 10 feet (but the shots at 50, 100, etc. seem right). Second, they did not use a 35 mm prime because the angle-of-view on the 35mm shots varies from sample to sample.

Yes, something is fishy.


Steve