can you guess the focal length?

erkindemir · Jul 28, 2014

hello guys. I'm a fashion photographer and i have 24,50 and 85 1.8 primes on my d800. the thing is i like to show the background with my objects so i find my nikon 50mm 1.8g very ''narrow'' and 24 too ''wide''. so im planning to get a sigma 35mm 1.4 (which i heard great things). so heres my question these two pictures seems to taken by a focal length around 35. whats your guesses??

View attachment 80585 View attachment 80586

sscarmack · Jul 28, 2014

I'd say you 35 is a good guess. But I'm horrible at guessing focals.

I'm guessing since you can see the whole body of the subject and a lot of background, then that equals I wider lens.

A large lens usually compresses the background.

So yes, I'd say your right with that assumption and would go around 35.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Derrel · Jul 28, 2014

Judging by the deep depth of field in the night shot, I would say that the camera format apepars "smallish"...the lens has quite deep depth of field in that frame. The distant alleyway features are very recognizable: that is the hallmark of a small-format camera's capture.

Discussing lens length without also relating to camera capture size is for lack of a better expression, a fool's errand; on 120 rollfilm, a 37mm lens is an ULTRA-ULTRA wide-angle lens. Hasselblad made its model, the Superwide C, with a 38mm Biogon lens, which was the widest angle medium format camera lens for many years. I believe Mamiya made a 37mm prime for their 6x7 cameras.

On 24x36mm digital or film that same 35,36,37,38mm range focal length is a semi-wide-angle lens. On Micro 4/3, a 35 to 37mm focal length is a telephoto lens.

I personally LOVE the 35mm f/2 Nikkor lens on FF Nikon; it shows the subject, and also shows the background, with just a small amount of a feeling of increased "space" or "distance" behind the subject. You are right; 50mm is tight, whereas 24mm is pretty wide-angle-ish, and the distance drops off very rapidly with the 24mm on there. 28mm is better in that regard, but there is a very valid reason why 35mm primes have been around for over 60 years. I think for environmental shots, and especially for "talls", the 35mm prime lens on full-frame Nikon is a wonderful lens; I carry mine all the time, and LOVE it for 10 to 25 feet away. The new Sigma is very critcally sharp, but I think the background rendering of it is harsh on plants or repeating pattern things, but it has a LOT less CA than the high-speed Nikkor 1.4 does. I am using the old 35/2 AF-D Nikkor, which is just an average lens, nothing really to write home about, but I like its small size and light weight. It has a lot of distortion; when you click the Lens Profile box, the frames in Lightroom go POP! You can almost hear the frames bending! lol

erkindemir · Jul 28, 2014

thanks for the answers. you're right Derrel, its silly of me to consider that they were taken by a full frame dslr. the first one must be phase one iq180 and the second one is from Helmut Newton, so god knows which format he used lol.

but i like to guess the focal lengths and realize that i cant get that feeling with my 24mm or 50mm. so 35 will be the right choice for me. the sigma appeals me with the CA and its sharpness for a good price (comparing with canon and nikon equivalents) my other options are nikon 35mm f/1,8 FX and 35mm f/2 Nikkor. im gonna think of the background rendering that you mentioned. thx for your informative reply.

Derrel · Jul 28, 2014

Yeah, the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART offers a lot of good stuff for the price compared to Canon or Nikon!!! And you are right, 100%; 24,28,35,50mm are EACH very,very different lenses on full-frame, with the 24 and 28 being wides, and the 35mm being that gloriously useful semi-wide-angle look. I used to own the very old, pre-Ai version 35/1.4 Nikkor, then had a newer one later for a short while. I've owned the 35/2 O.C. Nikkor, and the 35/2.8 pre-Ai Nikkor, and the 35/2 Ai-S...I really,really,really find that the 35mm prime length is versatile.

For me, 35mm on FX is good for indoor events, and you can use it for fashion/portrait type stuff as well. Sue Bryce LOVES her Canon 35mm f/1.4-L for single-person glamour portraiture...but of course, at closer ranges she mentions that she needs to warp the upper arm areas on many shots because it does tend to enlarge body parts when shot from her typically fairly close ranges. I looked at the 35/1.4 Sigma ART and gave it a long, hard look, and then trial-shot a few frames with the Nikon 35/1.4. Ehhhh...the Nikon has a LOT of color fringing at wide f/stops...a LOT more than I wanted to see on a $1700 lens. I do not like that longitudinal CA on the Nikon 35/1.4....reminds me of the Canon 85/1.2-L...very STRONG green-fringed outlines around objects that are out of focus in the foreground, then magenta fringed objects that are out of focus in the background...I do not like that look, not at all. I think the Sigma is probably the sharpest of ALL the 35mm lenses, if pure, utter sharpness is the criteria, then it is #3 overall according to DxO Mark, out of 72 or so lens models tested on the D800, the Sigma 35 ART tested out and ranked at #3 in terms of overall total sharpness, behind the 84 1.4 then 85mm 1.8 AF-S G Nikkor lenses, so there is no doubt the Sigma 35 ART is a bitingly sharp lens.

erkindemir · Jul 28, 2014

yeah head portraits can be unpleasant with 35mm but im planning to use it with the full body portraits with some visible enviroment at the background. i think the CA plays an important role for dxomark, and if its in the same level (in terms of optical quality) with 85mm 1.8 AF-S G. its gonna be more than enough for me lol.