BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Answers

Lens

Yet another question but before I start thanks to everyone who makes this site so very very helpful to someone who is fairly new to photography. I have just been looking at my photos from the Tour of Britain and wondered what is the longest lens you can hold before you need a tripod. Reason being is when the Tour de France comes over I want to get some good close shot but won't be able to get as close as I would like due to crowds etc. I have been told up to 300 is this correct? Cheers

To love this question, log in above
September 16, 2006

In practice, this varies of course based on a lot of factors including your own skill at holding a camera steady, what you're standing on (like a vibrating bridge) what you're supporting yourself on like a railing or someones head, etc, and how much magnification you put into the finished prints. Camera shake sometimes doesn't rear its ugly head until larger enlargements, say above 8x10.

You can also get a fair amount of support yet portability either using your tripod as a monopod or simply just getting a monopod. My own preference is a Gitzo. ;>)
Okie dokie?
Take it light.
Mark

To love this comment, log in above
September 16, 2006

To love this comment, log in above
September 16, 2006

Hopefully I can clear up a misconception about those focal length factors.
First of all, in no way does it actually multiply or increase the focal length of a lens. The lens is going to produce the same size image circle on a sensor as it does a full frame 35mm.
The difference is, that because the frame is smaller, you are actually getting a smaller chunk of that circle.
Someone else on here wrote that it's like taking a 5x7 print and sticking it in a 4x6 frame. So what the manufactureres are trying to say is, an image captured on the smaller sensor is 'like' having a longer focal length lens on a full frame. An image shot with a 160mm lens will yield a full frame shot of subject X. But because of the smaller sensor your camera can yield a full frame shot of subject X with only a 100mm lens. So consequently a 100mm on your camera will give the same framing results as a 160mm lens on a full frame model. Hence the 1.6x factor.
Therefore, you would still treat a 300mm lens, like a 300mm lens. It's not going to have a different focal length or magnification just because it's on a camera with a smaller sensor.
This is how P&S cameras can advertise effective focal lengths of 400mm. It's not that the lens is 400mm. But the sensors are so small that to fill a 35mm with a like subject at the same distance would take a lot longer lens.
So, regardless of your sensor size, go by Marks shutter speed rule. The reciporcal of the focal length for a shutter speed as a guideline only. As he also pointed out, another big factor is ones ability to hold a camera steadily. Some people can shoot with a lens that size at slower shutter speeds and some people might just as well put it on a tripod and use a remote.

To love this comment, log in above
September 16, 2006

To love this comment, log in above
September 16, 2006

To add to the already good advice:

The reciprocity rule is certainly a great guideline; however, sharpness of image will also be determined by f/ stop, moreso with a 300mm lens.
Tour de France photos I am sure you will want sharp?

Lenses have what many call the "sweet spot" This is the f/ stop that produces the best possible sharpness.
It is rarely if ever at it's widest aperture; this sweet spot is usually at or around f/11.

This for many begs the question; "If I shoot at f/11, my shutter speed is too slow." What a quandry huh? LOL

Better to up the ISO a little than risk "soft" or blurry shots.
Just a thought.

All the best,

Pete

To love this comment, log in above
September 16, 2006

To love this comment, log in above
September 16, 2006

To love this comment, log in above
September 16, 2006

To love this comment, log in above
September 17, 2006

To love this comment, log in above
September 17, 2006

To love this comment, log in above
September 17, 2006