Elderly Photographer using longer focal lengths as I age

[Bill_1856]

As a youngster I wanted to get "everything" into the picture and used WA's a lot. As I get older (now into 63 years of LF photography) I find myself using longer lenses more, seldom use anything less than the "standard" focal length. In fact I can't remember the last time I shot with something shorter than a 135 on 4x5, but mostly use a 203 Ektar, (other most used lenses are 162 Raptar and 8.25 Dagor). I also tend to crop more than ever in printing -- a LOT more, (Cartier-Bresson, I'm not)!
Can anyone relate to this, or am I "different?"

[Kirk Gittings]

I'm the exact opposite.......:)

[BrianShaw]

I can relate. I've been doing similar with LF, MF and 35mm. I never suspected that it was age-related though.

[BrianShaw]

Oh... and I've been using a tripod more often too!

[Dan Fromm]

Bill, have the situations you're shooting in changed?

I ask because when I shot a lot of 35 mm still my most used lens was 105 mm (2.5 x normal for the format) with my most used lenses with 2x3 are normal and shorter. I shot macro and people on 35 mm, on 2x3 I shoot mainly landscapes in tight situations. O think that largely explains why I now use relatively shorter lenses.

[jp]

Perhaps your eyesight is not well suited to wide vistas?

Otherwise I don't think it's because you're elderly. I'm in my 30's and like the longer focal lengths too. It's a conscious style choice for me. For outdoors too wide captures too much, things that really shouldn't be in the photo. I'm interested in specific things and scenes rather than wide vistas. Intimate landscapes. Longer lenses give you more choices for backgrounds in photos as well. The longer lenses are also handier than wide lenses for people photos too. I'm going to credit part of it to smaller-sensor dslrs too. I keep a 50mm on my d300 most of the time which is the equiv of a 75mm on 35mm film. It's very versatile if you're willing to make the most out of slightly longer lenses.

[Ken Lee]

Can anyone relate to this ?

I can.

On 4x5 I shoot 200mm and up (on 5x7 it's 300 and up). I only use normal lenses for close-ups of flowers. I don't own any wide angle lenses.

It's not related to age: I'm only 12 years old, but I've been shooting this way for decades :cool:

[Jim Galli]

Bill, you were born in 1856?? Whoa!

My problem as I'm getting older, is remembering why I need to take any pictures in the first place.

[Bill_1856]

Bill, you were born in 1856?? Whoa!

Jim, there ARE days I think you might be right. (Today was one of them.)

[Nathan Potter]

Maybe this is a matter of maturing vision. I think it is with me. I find that I have become gradually more compelled to isolate and simplify the compositions I see. I gradually have come to abhor distractions even to the point of obsessiveness unless they are integral to the statement I'm trying to make. Lenses 2X and longer help immensely with this. I use 360, 500 and 700 mm for 4X5 more than ever for landscape related work and even for urban stuff where distractions abound. But fully half of my 4X5 images are still wide angle using 110, 90 and 75 mm but I need to work really hard to minimize the extraneous intruders. Overall the percentage of 2X and up FLs has increased. This holds for 35mm format also where primes of 135, 200 and 300 mm is more in use than ever along with my two beloved, ultra sharp 75 to 150 Nikkor zooms, used more than any other primes including the wides.

Nate Potter. Austin TX.

[Frank Petronio]

I think it's sloth, it is harder to frame and do a good wide angle shot, that's why you rarely see any but a handful. But I can point to thousands of long-lens portraits that are just perfect, same for details and close-ups and all the usual predictable subjects. Slap a long lens on and everything looks like art.

Except it's just like a lot of other people's art because so many do this. First zoom all those DSLR users run out to get is the good olde 80-200 so they can be "pro".

Wides are just as bad when used unimaginatively, but at least you have the potential of getting something unique and special. But isolating some detail with a longer lens to "see the unseen" sounds pretty trite to me.

That said, get eye exams and take your Preservision so you don't start getting tunnel vision like the lenses!

[John Bowen]

Hi Bill,
Hope you are well.
The second lens I purchased for my 4x5 was a 120. I've had it for 25 years and haven't had it on the camera 25 times. Likewise I purchased a 240 for 8x10 about 6 years ago. Same thing, it hasn't been on the camera 6 times. My favorite lenses are 210 for 4x5 and 450 for 8x10/7x17. I occasionally use a 355 or 305 on the 8x10/7x17, but seldom encounter an image that requires the 240. As you know, my primary subject matter is landscape.

Happy image making,

[vinny]

Everyone here is elderly. Except me and two other guys.

[Struan Gray]

I have always 'seen' in 2/3 normal and 3/2 normal. The photographs I have made which still hold my attention as photographs tend to be the mild telephotos. This hasn't changed much with the years.

Most people seem to move to wider angles as they shift to larger formats. I'm the opposite. I rarely take a small-format image longer than normal, and I very rarely take a 4x5 photo with a lens shorter than 240 mm, often longer. The main reason I've not tried 8x10 is that my arms are too short :-)

[Noah A]

I'm one of the two non-elderly folks Vinny mentioned. But when I was in college I shot everything with a 20mm lens on 35mm. Now for 35mm I prefer a 35mm lens and for 4x5 I really prefer nothing wider than a 115/120. So who knows, by the time I am elderly maybe I'll shoot everything with a 300...

[turtle]

These things come in slow cycles If you live long enough you may end up using super-wides.

PS I am the other young guy. So thats the two of us accounted for now.

[Vaughn]

Long lenses are for old people who are too lazy to walk closer to their subject...:rolleyes:

Now where did I put my 24" RD...

Vaughn

But sometimes, wide it is:

My Three Boys, Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park
Platinum/palladium print
6.25" (159mm) on 8x10
f45 at 30 seconds on FP4+

[Sal Santamaura]

In the 63 years since you began photographing, the extent of "human pollution" in the environment (as well as the detritus of humanity, e.g. buildings, vehicles and actual trash) has increased radically. It makes sense that, faced with all that clutter, you'd use longer lenses to isolate something worth shooting from the general crap. :D

[Brian Ellis]

I'm the exact opposite.......:)

Me too. For years and years I owned a 90, then an 80mm, lens but almost never used them. A 210 was by far my most frequently used lens, followed by a 150 and a 300. Then as the years went by I started using more and more wide angle. Today I seldom use anything longer than a 150mm equivalent. But I'm not sure it's a matter of age. I think we just evolve in how we see things as time goes on.

[Noah A]

In the 63 years since you began photographing, the extent of "human pollution" in the environment (as well as the detritus of humanity, e.g. buildings, vehicles and actual trash) has increased radically. It makes sense that, faced with all that clutter, you'd use longer lenses to isolate something worth shooting from the general crap. :D

Or you could just photograph the general crap! The problem is if you shoot with a 75mm lens, the crap in the foreground looks much bigger than the crap in the background:eek:.

I think that extreme focal lengths in either direction tend to make things easier for the photographer. Wides tend to provide instant drama, long lenses can isolate the subject and make it easier to make things 'perfect' as Frank said. Of course this is a gross and unfair generalization. There are times when both types of lenses are necessary.

Personally I like the lenses just on either side of normal. My favorite is the 115/120 focal length. It can fit a lot into the frame without overly exaggerating the size relationships of elements within the frame. Likewise a 210 is a bit longer than normal and can work when you just can't get close enough to shoot with the wider lens, but it's not so long that it drastically compresses elements within a scene, and it still can include a lot of context.

The more I shoot 4x5, the more I lean towards selling off all of my extra junk and just sticking to the 115/210 combo.

[Frank Petronio]

Or you could just photograph the general crap! The problem is if you shoot with a 75mm lens, the crap in the foreground looks much bigger than the crap in the background:eek:.

I think that extreme focal lengths in either direction tend to make things easier for the photographer. Wides tend to provide instant drama, long lenses can isolate the subject and make it easier to make things 'perfect' as Frank said. Of course this is a gross and unfair generalization. There are times when both types of lenses are necessary.

Personally I like the lenses just on either side of normal. My favorite is the 115/120 focal length. It can fit a lot into the frame without overly exaggerating the size relationships of elements within the frame. Likewise a 210 is a bit longer than normal and can work when you just can't get close enough to shoot with the wider lens, but it's not so long that it drastically compresses elements within a scene, and it still can include a lot of context.

The more I shoot 4x5, the more I lean towards selling off all of my extra junk and just sticking to the 115/210 combo.

I like the notion of the 115-210 combo just like a 28/35 and 50 in 35mm are a good combo. Or streamline even more and go with one lens, a 135 or 150 (about like a 40 in 35mm).

I really dislike the distortion of space that the extreme lenses have, both long and wide. Especially ultra-wide. I think it looks a lot better to do two or three shots with the normal lens and stitch if you really want to describe a landscape or scene. The wides always foreshorten everything too much and usually the furthest away subject is the most interesting - but the wide makes it smaller.

The longer lenses flatten the subjects too much I think. It makes it easier to get depth of field related separation but you lose the sense of roundness and mass. I know that sounds like art bullshit but it's what I see.

So the closer to normal lenses feel more like the focal length and field of our eyes, the pictures have a sense of reality. But maybe if you packed 20 miles up a mountain trail to capture an alpine lake you want to distort it with a 75mm so you can get everything in the shot, and that's cool too, I understand.

[Noah A]

I like the notion of the 115-210 combo just like a 28/35 and 50 in 35mm are a good combo. Or streamline even more and go with one lens, a 135 or 150 (about like a 40 in 35mm). ...

The nice thing about this combo is that both lenses have all the image circle you will likely ever need for 4x5. I love the 135mm focal length and it would be my favorite, but none of the modern offerings in that focal length have enough coverage for my needs.


... The wides always foreshorten everything too much and usually the furthest away subject is the most interesting - but the wide makes it smaller....

I agree. Even the 90mm does this. I was recently shooting some hillside informal settlements in Mexico City. I wanted to capture the size of the settlements, but the shots with the 90mm really emphasized the homes in the foreground which was distracting. The 115, from the same spot, did much better even though it didn't technically include as much of the scene. And I was shooting from an elevated position which should have helped the situation.

[Daniel Stone]

Everyone here is elderly. Except me and two other guys.

Well I'm 24(just), so I guess I must be the toddler here ;). And I'm self-proclaimed "not an old guy" #3 thus far. I'm sure there's more people here under the age of 30...

-Dan

[vinny]

well, now that myself an the two other guys are accounted for..........

[Frank Petronio]

Yeah but mentally you're old for your years ;-p

[Adrian Pybus]

Doesn't it change with what you want to photograph? When I see that I am repeating myself I change the tools so I have to try to change my vision. I've been doing wide going wider and wider and now I'm going back to longer lenses ...

Adrian

P.S. I'm not one of the youngsters but there were cars when I grew up:D

[austin granger]

As I get older, I find myself using wide angles less as well. Actually, both my wide angles and my long lenses seem to be migrating toward the middle 'normal.' My lens ratio is all wrong-ha! Anyway, I think that this does have to do with isolating the subject, but also reflects a general desire to make myself more 'translucent,' if that makes any sense. I want to try and get out of the way of the subject. I mean, I do work on my pictures a lot, but I don't want this work to draw attention to itself. Though this is obviously a gross generalization, sometimes I think very wide angles (or over filtration, over saturation, texture screens, Holgas, etc) can end up turning "Look at this!" into "Look at me!" which is kind of insulting to the subject, if you think about it.

On a separate note, I was pretty young when I started frequenting the forum, but now, at forty-one, I'm not. It happens in a moment kids! :)

[Pete Suttner]

I'm old. The only thing getting wider on me is my middle, but lenses; I love all flavors!

[jp]

The other aspect of using longer lenses instead of wide angle is that when the sun is out, you can more easily avoid getting your own shadow in the photo.

[John Kasaian]

I find myself alternating between the 240/250mm lenses and the 19" on the 8x10. The wider lenses for up close and the longer for distance.
Of course I'm not even 60 (yet!)

[evan clarke]

I find that I have cycles of interest in subject matter and that usually dictates the equipment..