street photo lens - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

04/04/2007 10:11:09 PM · #2

Bump... I'm curious too.

also I currently have(just got yesterday) the 85mm f/1.8 prime and was thinking of using it for street photography, how well will this lens perform for this and where in the f-stop range would be best, I know it's a bit soft wide open....

PhantomEWO

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

04/04/2007 10:50:23 PM · #3

For me a great Street photo lens is a 70-200 f/2.8 or similar. Street photography for me is best when it's more candid. I do ask permission but the candid shot is the one that's so much more natural and unposed. For me a 24mm lens means you are in their face and it becomes a posed photo in a natural setting instead of a spur of the moment one time shot. Y ajust need to go out and have fun with different lenses an dsee what fits.

jdannels

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM for Nikon

04/04/2007 10:59:03 PM · #4

ONe of the next lenses I want to get is this one. Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon. Although I haven't tried it, I have the Tamron 28-75 2.8 and like it alot but wish it was wider. This would let you get in as close as you want and still give you the range up to 50 mm of what you had before, and it is just as fast as the Nikon 24 2.8 for lowlight. The downside is the Tamron is about $150 dollars more. Something to consider.
Joe

doc_gonzo

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

04/04/2007 11:28:27 PM · #5

any in put sticking with prime lenses?... I think paredes was looking to go prime and I know I only own the 1 prime lens for now and am really looking to stick with prime for a while, my next being the 50mm f/1.8

Message edited by author 2007-04-04 23:29:25.

MadMan2k

Sony Alpha a6400

Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 Di III VXD

04/04/2007 11:34:54 PM · #6

Cartier-Bresson used a 50mm as far as I know. Winogrand used a 28 and put it up in everyone's face. You'll look very conspicuos shooting street with a huge zoom telephoto, and you won't feel like part of the scene.

The 24 would be a good choice, it's wide enough to scale focus and not wide enough to distort their faces too much.

For the type of street I shoot, 35mm is a great focal length, if a little long. It's a good starting point at least, and 24mm on digital is close to that.

jaysonmc

Nikon D200

Nikon MF 105mm f/2.5 AIS

04/04/2007 11:35:57 PM · #7

35mm in film is often considered the "Photo Journalist"/"Candid" focal length for its versatility. This equates to around a 24mm on APS-C.

Right now I only use primes as I can't afford the zoom I would want to get. My lens of choice for Street Photography is the 35mm prime (fov 50mm in film) because I just like having a little more reach. But I always have my 20mm prime in my bag if I want to try some different shots.

However, everyone has a style they like and no lens fits everyone. Good luck and good shooting.

04/04/2007 11:44:43 PM · #8

IMO primes are rough to use but many would argue otherwise.

I shoot people and my 70-200mm 2.8 is my favorite. I think for my style a 24mm would be way too wide and I don't like running back and forth to crop with my feet...so I prefer zooms. I also use a 24-70mm 2.8 that works well.

Many classic old time street shooters did use a 50mm but with a 1.5x crop factor that makes for a 75mm which isn't very wide. I can't do it, though some can.

I myself plan on getting an 18-200mm VR. It's not fast glass but it covers a lot of ground.

jdannels

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM for Nikon

04/04/2007 11:49:25 PM · #9

Originally posted by pawdrix:

Many classic old time street shooters did use a 50mm but with a 1.5x crop factor that makes for a 75mm which isn't very wide. I can't do it, though some can.

Steve you have it backwards. If a film camera is 50mm then you divide by 1.5. (film 50 mm)/1.5= Digital 33.33 mm lens :)

Message edited by author 2007-04-04 23:49:40.

petrakka

04/04/2007 11:51:33 PM · #10

I carry my 50 on my camera all the time (for play, not work) , but the 24 is what I'll eventually get.

With the crop factor, I'm not sure if there would be a better lens for street photography. That's my opinion ... but it's more for capturing scenes.
You won't get much portraiture type stuff, nor can you shoot as graphically b/c as a wide it will have some distortion. Those what I love about my 50, but you can't grab a scene as much with it.

So, I would say get it.

04/04/2007 11:51:56 PM · #11

my camera has a 1.5x crop factor which would make a 50mm lens....?

doc_gonzo

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

04/05/2007 12:04:37 AM · #12

looks like that 50mm f/1.8 is def gonna be my next purchase, the 85mm might be just a tad too tight. From playing with the 85mm, it does seem like it will be handy for a less 'in your face' street style though, we'll see....

jdannels

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM for Nikon

04/05/2007 12:50:19 AM · #13

Originally posted by pawdrix:

my camera has a 1.5x crop factor which would make a 50mm lens....?

Ok so you have a 50mm on your d70s=75 mm on your 35 mm camera,
broken down more (digital camera focal length)*((crop factor)1.5)=35 mm focal length i.e 50mm*1.5=75 mm

to get close to 50 mm on a D70s you could use a 35 mm which is 52.5 mm on film, or a 28 mm which is 42 mm on film

Hope this makes sense, i almost confused myself lol

Flash

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

04/05/2007 08:36:45 AM · #14

Nikkor's 17-35 f/2.8 is a real nice photo journalist lens (aka street photography).

Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 [from the home page, on the left side click on lenses, scroll down the lens page and click on zooms 12-400, then scroll to 17-35 and click to read review.]

"This is an awesome lens developed with an eye to the digital D1 camera. Click here to see a test shot made with it. Compared to the 20-35 AF, this lens is slightly heavier and balances nicely on all modern Nikon bodies. Its IF construction makes for very fast AF action on the F5 and D1/D1X/D1H cameras. It is a two-ring design with a truly far-out optical formula, including aspherical and ED elements and a front that actually bulges inwards (!) in the centre. The sunshade is fairly anonymous as wide-angle zooms go, too. Filter size at 77 mm follows the new Nikon standard, and there isn't a rotating front. The exterior barrel has a smoother finish than the 20-35, although a hammered surface still is used.
Quick shooting with it on an F5 left me with an impression of extreme optical quality. I also checked the lens on a D1 and drew similar conclusions there. Sharpness, contrast, and colour saturation all are superb across the entire focal range. Vignetting in the frame corners is moderate at f/2.8@17 mm and largely disappears at f/4. On the D1/D1X, there is no perceivable fall-off at all at the wide end. At the opposite focal end, negligible fall-off is seen even at f/2.8@35 mm on the F5, and none on D1/D1X. There is some barrel distortion in the wide-angle settings, which however is kept under good control even at 17 mm. By contrast, set at 35 mm the lens exhibits a slight degree of pincushion distortion.

Virtually gone is the colour fringing that haunts the AF 20-35 lens. This gives the 17-35 Nikkor a significant advantage over all other similar lenses on the market (all exhibit plentiful of lateral colour aberration towards their shorter end, even the expensive Canon 17-35/2.8 L). This by the way was an improvement necessitated by the D1, which would not have taken the colour fringing of the 20-35 in its stride. The vestiges of colour fringing that may occur is outside the coverage of the lens when mounted on the D1. To put this into perspective for use of the lens on a full-frame 35 mm camera, I had to scrutinise my test shots at 40X magnification to detect the minute traces of residual lateral colour. For all practical and ordinary purposes, this lens is devoid of colour flaws. However, if you shoot close-ups, there will be observable (but slight) blue fringing towards the corners of the image.

The 17-35 performs extremely well when shooting into bright light, in fact its performance in this respects surpasses most prime lenses. Flare and ghosting evidently are strictly controlled. I've never used a zoom with this degree of superior flare and ghosting control before. Likely the fancy optical formula and the bizarre front element pay dividends in this respect, too. However, an early report by "Moose" Peterson claims this lens flares easily. His sample may differ from mine, or test conditions may be quite different. Leaving a UV filter on will make the ghosting much more visible so any filter should be removed before shooting into the sun.

Curvature of field for the 17-35 was very low, so it is eminently suitable for shooting flat as well as 3D subjects. It is quite uncommon for a wide zoom to perform in this way.

A full test of the 17-35 is given here. This review now includes news about production variability of the 17-35.

Added after having used this lens professionally for nearly 3 years: A heavily used lens will get more dusty in its innards and accordingly, be more prone to flare and ghosting. I've seen this occuring with my own sample, so be warned. On a more positive note, my 17-35 has taken a lot of beating without any other ill effects. The surface finish seems to stand well up to wear, too.

IR performance: No hot-spots seen with any camera tested so far.

The AFS 17-35 Nikkor is rapidly becoming one of the Nikon legends. You cannot go wrong with this lens."

Message edited by author 2007-04-05 08:47:22.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

04/05/2007 08:50:58 AM · #15

I got rid of most of my primes in order to buy the 24-70 2.8. I'm glad I did that, but I want another prime for street/candid stuff. They're smaller and lighter. The 24-70 is a freakin brick. Great for portraits, terrible for walking around with.

My tiny little Rebel XT with a 35/2 is almost as small as a point & shoot.

I'll most likely end up with canon's 28mm 2.8. It's only $160 so I won't be too annoyed with the fact that I'm buying a lens in a range that I already have covered :)

If you stick with a prime, it'll be Murphy's law - meaning if you get a 50, you'll wish you got a 24 ... if you get a 24, you'll wish you had a 50.

The main "purpose" of candid photography is NOT fussing over your equipment - but rather being ready to capture the moment. How you do that is up to you.

200
85
50
30-ish
wide-ish

Message edited by author 2007-04-05 08:58:01.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

04/05/2007 08:56:50 AM · #16

Originally posted by Flash:

oooh, oooh, oooooh....I think I need to get that lens.

My guess is 17mm end is plenty wide for almost anything I shoot and the 35mm end will give me a lot of play. I find that I back peddle like a madman with the 50mm...too often and I ain't that agile these days. Looks like a perfect solution to replace my 12-24 on the extreme super wide end.

digitalpins

Canon EOS-60D

04/05/2007 09:02:38 AM · #17

Originally posted by jdannels:

ONe of the next lenses I want to get is this one. Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon.

Originally posted by Flash:

Nikkor's 17-35 f/2.8 is a real nice photo journalist lens (aka street photography).

I would say either or thoses lens are great for street photography I have the Tamron 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 lens and I just love it, brought it from a fellow DPC'er here and its a great lens for street photography. Its my first and only tamron lens and it takes really nice crisp pictures it takes. I also shoot with my little 50mm lens for street photography.

petrakka

04/10/2007 06:18:15 PM · #18

I use the 17-35 all the time.

I would say it is not the best street photography lens.

It's heavy and fairly big.

I'll put it this way. If I'm working I use the 17-35, because it's not much compared the amount of stuff I usually have to carry (2 bodies, a wide and an 80-200 with a bag for other stuff batteries, strobe etc)

If I'm out on my own, whatever just walking around I will use the 50 b/c its that much smaller and lighter, and would rather sacrifice focal length for the weight of the 17-35.
That's why I think the 24 would be great ... wider and just as small.

And if you are going to stick with digital, get the 17-55.

option

Nikon D200

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

04/10/2007 06:27:14 PM · #19

I would put my money on a small, fast, normal prime. I tend to use my old, manual 50 1.7 because its so small; on full frame, it would be perfect but with the 1.5 crop its a little long. Ideally, I would want something in the 30-40mm range to give that "normal" perspective that a fifty used to give.

I would never consider using a big tele for street photography. You want to be candid, yes, but you also want to be right in there with the subject. Try looking inconspicuous with a bazooka of a lens on a dSLR...

virtuamike

Nikon D2X

Carl Zeiss 35mm ZF f/2.0 Distagon T

04/10/2007 07:49:36 PM · #20

I use a 20/2.8 AIS and a 35/1.4 AIS.

I agree - get close, get personal.

jackal9

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

04/10/2007 08:14:40 PM · #21

Originally posted by jdannels:

Originally posted by pawdrix:

Many classic old time street shooters did use a 50mm but with a 1.5x crop factor that makes for a 75mm which isn't very wide. I can't do it, though some can.

Steve you have it backwards. If a film camera is 50mm then you divide by 1.5. (film 50 mm)/1.5= Digital 33.33 mm lens :)

If it's a 50 on a 35mm it's 1 to 1 ratio, not wide or tele, on a DLSR it will act like a 1.5 power tele or 75mm. as MOST have a smaller "film" plane then a 35mm negative...

04/10/2007 09:50:04 PM · #22

I'm Not sure whether I have it right or wrong...or backwards but the minute B&H opens tomorrow I will be the styling owner of that 17-35mm 2.8, that I have coveted throughout the Passover break.

Thou shalt not covet another mans lens....as it says in the Bible.

So, ah'm gettin one of my own.

Amen!