That means that when you hook on a 105 mm lens, it remains what it is, a
105 mm lens. It doesn't become a 152 mm lens.


Honest to God, Harry, I'll never understand why you fixate so on the numeric
focal length of a lens. Do you actually approach a shot and pre-determine
that 105 mm is exactly the focal length that will be required to compose the
image you're looking to capture? Like approaching a green and
pre-determining that an 8 iron is just the ticket to get you there? Makes
sense in golf, but the logic escapes me when applied to photography.

I compose the shot for content and context, leaving a little extra content
for precise cropping in post-processing. I'm never even conscious of what
focal length the lens is reporting back to the camera. What matters to me
is capturing the material subject matter within context, and that is
determined by my mind's eye at the point of capture. The numeric focal
length of the lens is simply the variable means to the desired end. I've
never once had a consuming desire to shoot a 105mm photograph, but often try
hard to capture a moment that results in a visually appealing artistic
image, or tells a story. And not once has the story ever been about the
focal length of the lens. As I said before, your approach to an art form
seems a bit rigid to me.

RG wrote:
That means that when you hook on a 105 mm lens, it remains what it is, a
105 mm lens. It doesn't become a 152 mm lens.



Honest to God, Harry, I'll never understand why you fixate so on the numeric
focal length of a lens. Do you actually approach a shot and pre-determine
that 105 mm is exactly the focal length that will be required to compose the
image you're looking to capture? Like approaching a green and
pre-determining that an 8 iron is just the ticket to get you there? Makes
sense in golf, but the logic escapes me when applied to photography.

I compose the shot for content and context, leaving a little extra content
for precise cropping in post-processing. I'm never even conscious of what
focal length the lens is reporting back to the camera. What matters to me
is capturing the material subject matter within context, and that is
determined by my mind's eye at the point of capture. The numeric focal
length of the lens is simply the variable means to the desired end. I've
never once had a consuming desire to shoot a 105mm photograph, but often try
hard to capture a moment that results in a visually appealing artistic
image, or tells a story. And not once has the story ever been about the
focal length of the lens. As I said before, your approach to an art form
seems a bit rigid to me.


Common knowledge that the 105mm lens was the best for portraits on a
35mm SLR. Don't know about the digital version.

Certain lenses are perfect for certain kinds of photography. When I do a
portrait head shot for a publication, I prefer a 105 mm because with my
lighting gear, I can fill a frame nearly perfectly and have a large, crisp
image to work off of, without worrying about it falling apart on me.

Yes, I am used to setting myself up to work with certain focal lengths,
Well, there's two mentions of portrait photography, and the application of a
specific focal length lens certainly makes sense in that context. Since I
never shoot in any kind of a controlled setting such as a portrait studio or
an outdoor set, I guess I'm more used to composing on the fly with whatever
is presented to me. Which is why zooms work so well for me. And I do
understand that longer lenses will in fact compress the apparent depth of an
image, versus shorter lenses.

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 23:36:06 -0700, "RG" wrote:


Certain lenses are perfect for certain kinds of photography. When I do a
portrait head shot for a publication, I prefer a 105 mm because with my
lighting gear, I can fill a frame nearly perfectly and have a large, crisp
image to work off of, without worrying about it falling apart on me.

Yes, I am used to setting myself up to work with certain focal lengths,
Well, there's two mentions of portrait photography, and the application of a
specific focal length lens certainly makes sense in that context. Since I
never shoot in any kind of a controlled setting such as a portrait studio or
an outdoor set, I guess I'm more used to composing on the fly with whatever
is presented to me. Which is why zooms work so well for me. And I do
understand that longer lenses will in fact compress the apparent depth of an
image, versus shorter lenses.


I suppose my question would be, "Can't a 70-200mm zoom shoot at 105mm?"
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******