24mm 35mm 70mm FoV

[mirekti]

I own 35L and I love it. Recently I've started thinking about getting a 24-70 zoom , but I'm not sure it will give me results as my precious ;-)
If I wanted to simulate 24mm or 70mm with 35L (excluding possible compression or distortion @ 70 and 24mm respectively) how much should I step back or forward to get mentioned 24 and 70 mm focal lenghts' FoV?

[LostArk]

I own 35L and I love it. Recently I've started thinking about getting a 24-70 zoom , but I'm not sure it will give me results as my precious ;-)
If I wanted to simulate 24mm or 70mm with 35L (excluding possible compression or distortion @ 70 and 24mm respectively) how much should I step back or forward to get those focal lenghts' FoV?

One focal length can't simulate another because each focal length has a different perspective. Be careful not to confuse perspective with FoV. You can step back to get more in the frame, but that's not the same as using a wide angle lens. Ditto for taking a step forward. If you own a 35L, the 24-70 is superfluous. You'd be much better served by getting an 85 1.8 and a wide angle zoom, if you really even need the latter.

Edit:

I didn't even look at your signature. You definitely don't need a 24-70.

[neuroanatomist]

Agree with LostArk as to using one lens vs. another.

But it sounds like you're just trying to get an idea of the different FoVs, framing regardless of perspective, similar to how I often recommend setting a zoom lens to specific focal lengths to help choose the right prime for your needs, but obviously the reverse doesn't work.

This FoV calculator may help: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/field_of_view.html

[Axilrod]

Here is Canon's focal length simulator : http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/EFLenses101/focal_length.html

I have absolutely no idea why they don't have a common focal length like 24mm on there, but they do have 28mm and 20mm, so you may be able to get a decent idea from that.  24mm is a good bit wider than 35mm.  Honestly if you got a 24-70 II I don't think you would miss the performance of the 35L one bit.

[mirekti]

Honestly if you got a 24-70 II I don't think you would miss the performance of the 35L one bit.

Thanks for the link.

I would change 35L for anything at the moment. I simply love this lens.
24-70 should have been a complement to it. I thought a bit in the meantime, and if I got one I couldn't have both on camera at the same moment so one would spend most of the time in the bag so I gave up.

[preppyak]

Yeah, based on your signature, you'd probably be better served by a 24L or 50L than the 24-70; and if you already love the 35, chances are you wouldn't use the 24-70 much at all.

[Scarpz13]

I don't think this is considered "field of view", but I have a similar inquiry.
I am finding my 50mm is too close to my 40mm & 85mm... plus it is the hardest to use wide open (lowest keeper rate) so I may get rid of it.
What are the "zoom ratios" if that makes sense of these primes? IE, to get the same framing on my 40mm do I basically have to be 1/2 as close to the subject as with the 85mm?
I am trying to figure out what 3 or 4 fast primes might be of use to start collecting, to complement my F4 zooms (probably getting used 70-200mm F4 soon as well)
I was thinking 35-85-135 or something to that extent... no sure how much foot room/running back and forth that would require.

cheers,

[rs]

According to your signature you've got a Sigma 12-24 and a Canon 70-200. Try out those two lenses set to 24mm and 70mm to get a feel for what each end of the 24-70's zoom range lets you see.

[agierke]

i have both the 35L and the 24-70 2.8L and i use both often. it really depends on the type of shoot i am doing which dictates which lens gets used.

if i am working in tight spaces or have to react fast i use the 24-70. if i am trying to get the look that only shooting wide open gives you i use the 35. sometimes i will have both mounted to two separate cameras. they are not superfluous to each other.

if you are a hobby shooter then i would say you probably don't need it. if you have professional needs, then i would say yes definitely get it.

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I don't think this is considered "field of view", but I have a similar inquiry.
I am finding my 50mm is too close to my 40mm & 85mm... plus it is the hardest to use wide open (lowest keeper rate) so I may get rid of it.
What are the "zoom ratios" if that makes sense of these primes? IE, to get the same framing on my 40mm do I basically have to be 1/2 as close to the subject as with the 85mm?
I am trying to figure out what 3 or 4 fast primes might be of use to start collecting, to complement my F4 zooms (probably getting used 70-200mm F4 soon as well)
I was thinking 35-85-135 or something to that extent... no sure how much foot room/running back and forth that would require.

cheers,

I have used quite a few 50mm lenses over time in both classic and modern equivalents.  I found that my 50mm f/1.4 was the least used lens in my bag despite it being, for many, their first choice.  The 40mm f/2.8 pancake served that purpose just fine for me, and I prefer primes in the longer focal lengths (I own 85mm, 100mm, and 135mm primes).  I do still have the classic 35mm and 50mm focal lengths covered both by a set of classic Takumar primes (low investment but big payoff if used properly) along with the excellent Tamron 24-70mm VC.  I recommend the latter for those looking for a fast zoom in the normal range for a couple of reasons

1)  Vibration Control - it works very well on the Tamron.  I shot this shot handheld in obviously very cold temperatures, 40mm, and 1/10th of a second shutter speed.  Even at 100% it is very sharp.

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

The second reason is that I find for a zoom lens it provides a "fade to cream" bokeh transition that is more like prime than a zoom.  Many people have talked about "onion bokeh", which I have seen twice in months of ownership and thousands of shots.  But the bokeh in 99% of scenarios is actually excellent:

[perperub]

The second reason is that I find for a zoom lens it provides a "fade to cream" bokeh transition that is more like prime than a zoom.  Many people have talked about "onion bokeh", which I have seen twice in months of ownership and thousands of shots.  But the bokeh in 99% of scenarios is actually excellent:

Nice bokeh! Very interesting post I must say. I've been thinking of buying a Canon EOS 6D as my first FF (have an old 40D + 17-55/2.8 IS right now), but I have been second guessing the loss of the brilliant 17-55/2.8. Now you show what I find excellent results with the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC. Maybe it's the perfect replacement for the 17-55 and a better choice over 24-105/4L?

Sorry for borrowing the thread, if you'd like, I can proceed via PM.

/Pär

[TrumpetPower!]

What you want is one of these:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/61607-REG/Visual_Departures_V35_35mm_Visualizer.html

No clue where you'd go to get one today, though...but, the good news is that you can make one yourself. Just get some cardboard. Cut out a rectangle the same size as your camera's sensor. Get a metric tape measure and attach it to the cardboard. You might want to scale the whole thing up, though....

Cheers,

b&

[LostArk]

I don't think this is considered "field of view", but I have a similar inquiry.
I am finding my 50mm is too close to my 40mm & 85mm... plus it is the hardest to use wide open (lowest keeper rate) so I may get rid of it.
What are the "zoom ratios" if that makes sense of these primes? IE, to get the same framing on my 40mm do I basically have to be 1/2 as close to the subject as with the 85mm?
I am trying to figure out what 3 or 4 fast primes might be of use to start collecting, to complement my F4 zooms (probably getting used 70-200mm F4 soon as well)
I was thinking 35-85-135 or something to that extent... no sure how much foot room/running back and forth that would require.

cheers,

The way primes work: Say you have taken a photo with a 35mm lens in landscape orientation. You then crop the sides of the photo to make it portrait orientation. The resulting cropped image will be the same as if you had put a 50mm lens on the camera and taken the original photo in portrait orientation. Another way to visualize the difference in framing is to imagine three equally spaced horizontal and vertical lines through the frame. The outermost "box" they create is the approximate framing of the next prime up. These tips generally apply to this sequence of primes:

24 35 50 85 135 200

Notice each prime in the sequence is approx. 1.41x (a magic number all photographers should recognize) the focal length of the previous. This is not an accident! If you take the actual normal focal length of the 35mm format (43mm) and multiply it by 0.75x, you still end up with something close to 35mm. Multiply it (43mm) by 1.41x(2) and you get 85mm. Multiply 50mm by 1.41x and you get 70mm.  So all the focal lengths used on lenses, both primes and zooms, aren't at all arbitrary, but designed to be as useful as possible in relation to "normal." Actually, 50mm is the most arbitrary / oddball focal length if you do the math!

[dave]

I had the 35L and sold it not long after I got the 24-70 ii. Just wasn't using the prime anymore.

At f/2.8 I found the zoom outperformed the 35L significantly. I didn't like the IQ of the 35L below f/2.8 anyway so I couldn't justify keeping both. You may love it in that range.

Why don't you rent the lens and test it out? It really is the only way to know if it is going to meet your needs...or purchase from somewhere with a reliable returns policy.