Clix Pix said:
Thanks, HH, for clarifying this even further. It's an important point that I think we were overlooking. Also, as I found when reading further down in the thread after having made my response, the OP is interested in doing things such as shooting cars at a car show, and wants to get closer to the subjects and yet have a wider view, so this is exactly the explanation he needs.
No problem. My concern for the OP is the same one I have, which is "how to get an affordable W---I---D---E angle lens with a 1.5x (or 1.6x) "crop" dSLR? My wife is going to simply kill me when I tell her that I need to go buy
yet another lens (particularly since I just picked up an EOS 3).
Absolutely it's not imperative to have a straight continuous spectrum of focal lengths. Right now, with the exception of the 18-200mm VR, I have a gap in my lenses, jumping from the 17-55 f/2.8 up to the 70-200 f/2.8.
A perfect lead in! My standard carry is a WA zoom (19-35mm) and a Telephoto zoom (was 75-300 IS, now 70-200 f/2.8 IS), so I have a similar "chasm" between 35mm to 70mm.
Interestingly, its not that I don't have the middle covered (I have the Canon 28-135mm IS), but rather, I don't feel it to generally be worth carrying along that extra weight.
... there is indeed nothing wrong with good old "foot zoom!"
Absolutely. And the 35-70mm range is one that's fairly easy to walk to recompose.
In fact, I think it is important for all photographers to learn to zoom with their feet, put a prime lens on the camera and experiment with it. This is how you can learn to approach a subject from different angles, get different perspectives on it, etc. I think too often it's all too easy to become dependent upon a zoom and the easy focusing/composition that can be done with one.
Not only their feet, but also with their ... hips.
A generic rule of thumb in underwater photography is "Shoot Up", which is an admonishment to make the background be non-distracting bluewater instead of dark, cluttery bottom. I've found that this also applies to land photography, even simple portraits.
Here's an example, taken with a simple P&S. The models are my parents...Mom's first trip to Paris, and Dad's second (his first was in 1945):
Notice the small green fence behind them, and how the rear fencepost is "lower" than the front one because of perspective: this means that the camera's "eye level" was lower than this fence. The result was that the change in angles allowed even the top of the Eiffel Tower to be captured in frame.
A lot of compositions can be improved simply by changing your height: IE, don't be afraid to squat to get the shot.
-hh