On New Year's Eve, I decided to analyze the focal lengths that I use and how fully I use the photo technique that I have.
2013 Results
I analyzed the EXIF data of my photos for 2013 and related exclusively to the genre of wedding photography. I have a folder on my computer where all processed photos are stored, which, ultimately got my clients as a final result... In reality, when shooting a wedding, much more raw material is 'shot'.
To carry out the analysis, I used the file manager Total Commander for Windows (you can find the trial version). Each wedding I shot is located in its own separate daddy directory, in which there may be several more subdirectories. To immediately get a list of all the photos available in folders and subdirectories, in Total Caomander, just press the key combination 'CTRL + B'or use the command'View -> Show all files without subdirectories'. The constructed list will only include the names of all files, but will not show EXIF shooting data. To access EXIF data, it is enough to use the function 'View-> Custom Column Set-> Photos'. After that, information about shutter speed, aperture, focal length and much more will be added to the list. Due to the huge amount of photos, this operation took about 20 minutes on my computer. After that, just click on the 'Focus' field (meaning the focal length, program translators are just very lazy :)) to sort all photos by focal length from larger to smaller. By holding down the 'Shift' key and pressing the 'up / down' arrows, you can select all files with a certain focal length, and their total number will be shown in the lower right corner of the program window.
This is how the panel looks like with extended data about all files lying in one directory:
This is what sorting in the program looks like
As a result, I spent another 20 minutes and got just such a plate with the distribution of the focal length to the number of photos taken at this focal length. Green indicates the focal lengths that account for the most photographs.
| Focal mm |
Number of photos |
| 12 | 326 |
| 13 | 6 |
| 14 | 17 |
| 15 | 16 |
| 16 | 17 |
| 17 | 104 |
| 18 | 62 |
| 19 | 26 |
| 20 | 41 |
| 21 | 1 |
| 22 | 30 |
| 24 | 393 |
| 26 | 43 |
| 28 | 6670 |
| 29 | 17 |
| 30 | 4 |
| 31 | 313 |
| 32 | 297 |
| 34 | 344 |
| 35 | 280 |
| 36 | 8 |
| 38 | 636 |
| 40 | 272 |
| 42 | 25 |
| 44 | 240 |
| 45 | 7 |
| 46 | 292 |
| 48 | 277 |
| 50 | 578 |
| 52 | 247 |
| 55 | 272 |
| 56 | 132 |
| 58 | 7 |
| 60 | 234 |
| 62 | 292 |
| 65 | 13 |
| 66 | 293 |
| 68 | 8 |
| 70 | 590 |
| 72 | 7 |
| 75 | 210 |
| 78 | 328 |
| 80 | 182 |
| 82 | 55 |
| 85 | 1881 |
| 90 | 257 |
| 92 | 161 |
| 95 | 82 |
| 98 | 132 |
| 102 | 39 |
| 105 | 1342 |
| 110 | 56 |
| 116 | 78 |
| 125 | 90 |
| 135 | 97 |
| 145 | 63 |
| 155 | 92 |
| 165 | 116 |
| 180 | 56 |
| 190 | 66 |
| 210 | 503 |
| unknown | 1816 |
Many photos do not have in EXIF information about the focal length, this is most likely due to various manipulations on the photo when processing them.
I mainly shoot on a full-format camera Nikon D700, in fact, I have two of them, and 90% of all pictures fall on them. I also sometimes shoot in the studio in cropped Nikon D80 and a cropped Fuji S5 Pro, which is a standard tool for my partner. I rarely go to the studio with weddings. For 2013 my wedding lenses were Nikon 28-105mm 1: 3.5-4.5D AF Nikkor, Nikon 70-210 1: 4 AF Nikkor, Nikon 50mm 1: 1.8G AF-S Nikkor, Nikon 50mm 1: 1.4G Nikkor and Nikon 85mm 1: 1.8D AF Nikkor. I shot a couple of times with Tokina 12-24 / 4, Nikon 24-120mm 1: 3.5-5.6D AF Nikkor, Tamron 28-75mm 1: 2.8 AF - maybe with a couple more lenses. For the last two months of 2013, I have a Nikon 180mm 1: 2.8 AF Nikkor in my service, but I have shot very little with it, since all the work has moved indoors. In fact, the lion's share of shooting at an ordinary Kiev wedding falls on the reportage orientation, in which my 28-105 “complete” with my assistant are simply irreplaceable;) -85/70.
After I made such a plate, it immediately became clear that I had to perform a lot of reportage shooting, using the widest possible angle of the standard zoom. This gives me a reason to buy a real reportage lens of the 17-35 / 2.8 type, so as not to constantly rest against the 28 mm limitation of my Nikon 28-105mm. And also very often the maximum range is used - 105 mm, when you need to reach the desired object as quickly and simply as possible, which pushes you to buy 24-120 / 4. Also, I analyzed the values of the aperture at which the shooting takes place. Due to the fact that I almost always shoot with an assistant who helps me with light, reportage shooting takes place at closed apertures from F / 6.3 to F / 9.0, and staged from F / 1.8 to F / 5.6.
Who cares, do a similar experiment to analyze the most commonly used focal lengths with your pictures, and be sure to unsubscribe in the comments.
The most important conclusion for me was the fact that I take a lot of photos on the extreme values of zoom lenses, turning the zoom on a dipolar lens which has only two extreme positions :) Therefore, maybe it makes sense for me to switch to fixes and win in image quality, while not losing much in convenience, especially if you shoot on two cameras.
I congratulate all readers of Radozhiva on the upcoming New Year and wish them many great ideas, successful staff and error-free operation of photo equipment :)
For myself, having long been tearing the bows, I want the Sony 70-400 mm F4-5.6 G SSM (SAL70400G.AE)
At the sports report, ideally weigh :)
Mutually!!! Happy New Year to you too !!!
Happy New Year!
Yes ... About the work of photographic equipment, this is an urgent wish for me - a flash under repair :) Happy New Year, Arkady. I wish you patient clients, professional growth (although much more so), higher puzomers and good ranking in the PS. To make your blog useful to even more people.
Hello Arkady, with the Upcoming You, I have such a question for you, I want to purchase a canon 70-200 4.0 l usm lens, without a stub, is it too dark for staged photos in nature? or an external flash will save the situation (I didn’t shoot with the flash before). And is there a big difference in the blur between apertures 2.8 and 4, is it worth taking an older version Thanks in advance.
For the street F / 4.0 is not a problem, there will be enough light. The question is that by closing the aperture at 70-200 / 2.8 to 4.0, the image will be at least no worse. The blur intensity on the body range can not always be distinguished by 2.8 and 4, but if you practice a lot, then of course the difference will be visible.
Analysis is a very useful thing. The results often come as a surprise :).
The only wish for the next year is to analyze the ratings of the images. Those. not just the number of photos taken at a particular focal length, but the ratio of the number of cool, high-quality, artistic, really like you yourself frames to the total number and to the number of pictures taken at a specific focal length or a specific lens.
And, of course, it would be interesting to know the dynamics of changes in recent years - the evolution of your views.
Judging by the scatter of the focal lengths and the apparent slack in the number of photos in the region of 50 mm, I would leave 17-35 2.8 and 70-200 2.8, and the rest would be sold out. So you lose the artistic portraiture (85), but the wedding in the end is a report. Yes, you yourself said somehow that often people do not look at the artistic component at all, but at a godfather with jelly or something like that. True, there is a feeling that even by selling your entire fleet of lenses you won’t get these 2)))
The photographer, unfortunately, must not only spend all his earned money on equipment, but also live with it :)
Yes, I did not call)) it is something like a blue dream. The author of this post, as they say, put a lot of personal into it))
A couple of words in defense of 50 millimeters. Nothing needs to be sold! Of course, this is not advice to Arkady, but only my opinion. Arkady is not a computer and everything can change next year. Fifty is holy. Border line. You can shoot a report and landscape, and portrait, and much more. There is fifty dollars, there is everything).
Yeah, only for a close report on the crop it is narrow, for a distant one - a little short, for a landscape - definitely narrow, for a waist-shoulder portrait it still has a noticeable distortion compared to the 85-135 range, although you can shoot tall ones quite well. and for a wedding - you have to run a lot to shove everything into fifty dollars.
So everything is all, but all is somehow wrong. )))
To all the shortcomings, you forgot to add a subject here. Also, you can't use it as a telephoto lens.)) Poor, poor fifty dollars. Why has he been a staff member for 6 decades on a huge number of cameras of different systems. And I will answer you - why. that 50mm and so is a universal FR. In it, as you put it, you can “cram” all of the above, the main thing is that there is a thinking head on the shoulders, not panicking in front of “short and narrow” and sometimes giving the command to the legs to move forward or backward because you have to look for a plot, not a plot for you)). 50mm rules)) ……. Happy New Year!
Think about the fact that modern cameras are equipped with standard 18-55 class lenses (why and why) and draw an analogy with fifty dollars. And yes, indeed, you can rent anything, but running from Thursday to Sunday in the real conditions of the wedding, of course, I want something more convenient :)
Thought, thought, and decided, probably, to replace 3 or more lenses with one)). Drawing an analogy with fifty dollars, I found that the fix 50mm is sharper than the zoom, faster, lighter, more compact, more durable))). When the running starts, the art ends. is needed when reporting from a fire and from the Maidan. "The service of the muses does not tolerate fuss." How long have the 18-55 zooms become staff? The shooting was certainly unhurried, I see that you, unlike the Lynx, managed to "cram" both portraits, and landscapes, and many other things into 50mm. I defend to the last drop of blood))) Arkady, thank you for your work. Happy New Year!
I am not insured that in a day or two I will also get sick with the disease “fifty dollars is our everything” :)
But what, all the same, idea, a)))) Thank you, Arkady, as always ...
For detailed statistics, I want to recommend the free ExposurePlot program, which I have been using for many years - it allows you to compile statistics on shutter speeds, apertures, focal lengths, iso, etc. in a matter of seconds. - automatically and with more possibilities than the Total Commander! Thanks for the work Arkady !! Happy Holidays everyone!
I downloaded the program you proposed, it has one significant drawback - it does not show statistics on RAW files, and when shooting, I only have RAW, in jpeg I save only the ones that have already been processed.
Arkady, so which 50th one do you use more often, 1.4 or 1.8? Is it necessary for the wedding 1.4?
1.4G, recently I completely abandoned the idea of shooting a fifty dollars.
why did they refuse? is he really so uncomfortable in everyday filming?
I just want to buy a fifty-kopeck piece the other day, and then suddenly such a statement from the pros ... do you really need to take 35mm?
Yes, fifty dollars for work turned out to be very often just a useless lens. For example, take weddings, which this statistic applies to. It’s damn inconvenient to shoot the reportage at fifty dollars, even when taking into account the full-size camera. If you use fifty dollars for some kind of staging work, walks, etc., then any 85-tka gives a picture much (!) More interesting. For a portrait on a full-length (half-length, shoulder) fifty kopeck piece, it is inconvenient to shoot, as you simply rest against the front lens in the portrayed ones. When I filmed the crop, it was a different matter, for then fifty dollars was really used by me for artistic purposes. I rarely needed a fifty-fifty aperture, maybe 2-3 times when there was a wedding at the wedding (and still, I shot something else). We add here the fact that the Nikon 50mm 1: 1.4G Nikkor AF-S (which is like the flagship of the fifty kopecks Nikkor) focuses very slowly, for this reason I sold it, and for shooting a couple of times I took Nikon 50mm 1: 1.8G of my partner. Of course, this is my experience, which may change in half a year :)
In defense of fifty dollars, I can add that it can serve as the only lens for shooting, which will create photos of excellent quality when used on full-format cameras. Now you can find a lot of advice for beginning photographers that a full frame with a cheap fifty dollars will be much better than any cropped camera, even with an expensive lens. I also regret that I sold a penny 50 1.8D, I loved taking it on hikes, vacation and did not regret it under any conditions.
They say that for Nikon it is better to take half a toss 1.4 from Sigma, like he is the best of all half a tos ... and faster than the flagship nikor, and the picture is better, etc.
I have not tried it myself, there is half a 1.8D for D700, sometimes I use it at a wedding and at a fire show, but I do not have enough aperture ...
Yes, may be. Interestingly, Nikon does not put its gold ring on any fifty dollars, you might think that Nikon does not have a “professional” fifty dollars, or does not classify this lens as a professional one due to the fact that it is / was considered a common kit for many cameras.
Happy holidays, Arkady!
In Ukraine, the same long New Year's weekend as in Russia?
If so, then with non-germanium I will wait for new reviews / photo reports from the festivities!
Happy New Year, everyone!
I’m just an amateur, I had 4 lenses, of which 2 fixes were 50 and 85, since about half a year somewhere, there were 2 left, and left whale 18-105 and fix 50, and sold 70-200 and 85. As practice has shown, this is enough for me.
And many thanks to Arkady for the site, I learned a lot about photos and various tricks.
hmmm, just like that, you look at the statistics of a pro before buying a fifty dollar and somehow doubts creep in ...
Do not hesitate;) Fortunately, the cost of G is such that you can buy, try, sell without strong losses in case of dissatisfaction with the result
this is if the d- version .. and G is more worth it.
In fact, fifty dollars on the FF is quite a rule for itself, but on the crop it is a very budget option “for portraits and blurred backgrounds”, more from 35 you have to understand what you want to shoot, and 85 is noticeably expensive.
on a crop fifty kopecks this is exactly 85.
No doubt about it. Arkady exclusively by his own experience established the characteristic set of his style, the set of necessary equipment for him. Only by experience can you understand what is really needed for your work. Arkady showed this using wedding photography as an example. And if you are engaged in advertising, studio photography, newspaper reporting, landscapes, etc.? And if the style of your wedding photo is different from Arcadia? Whereas? Yes, experiments in our business cost money, and often considerable. But there is no other way than practical. Try to try everything, and then you will understand what to refuse. In Soviet times, professionals and amateurs often made friends and helped each other out, giving them the opportunity to work with different equipment. Look for friends in colleagues!
Arkady, hello!
With all my heart I wish you Happy New Year!
This year, as always, you worked out 400% (deserves respect). There were many articles and many were interesting to read thanks to your laid-back style of story. Even I’m unlikely to have to try these lenses, but it’s interesting to read! :)
In the New Year, I wish you and your project Radozhiva all prosperity!
Thank you :)
For such statistics, there is a good program ExposurePlot.
It is enough to specify the folder with photos and get detailed graphs for the necessary parameters - focal length, shutter speed, ISO and aperture.)
Already the second dozen comments are coming, but no one has written conclusions based on their data, I'm also interested :)
Arkady, hello. Thanks for the idea with the analysis, really statistics are a big deal. For a year I get about 80% of the photos at 35mm on the crop, this is with ordinary walks and indoors. But on trips to nature and to various tourist places they rule 18 and 105 mm approximately 30% and 60% of all photos. Apertures are mainly 4 and 5,6, sometimes 8 (in fine weather). I was glad to see that the recent purchase of 35mm 1,8 was not superfluous, especially since sometimes it was too lazy to carry a flash with you. But I thought that it’s probably worth selling 18-105 and taking 18-200. In general, many thanks for your work.
Happy New Year!
I carried out such statistics 2 years ago, it is necessary to repeat;)
Here, for example, my statistics D90 c whale 18-55 and 55-200:
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/8902/01if.png
PS: For the last few months I have been playing with manual Soviet glasses (in particular, Helios), and of course there is no data in EXIF.)
Arkady, but you don't use manuals for work, at all? And if you analyze the frames "for yourself" incl. and for the blog, it will be full of fifty dollars. or I'm wrong? Good luck!
In this article, I clearly described that the analysis of photographs at weddings, which is the main type of shooting for a living, and in this genre I do not use manual lenses at all, have not grown to such a level :) If you analyze everything that I shot for a year, then probably 50 mm will have much more on its account.
In 2013, I have a Tamron 90mm, a lot of portraits on it, and the second for using 50mm and a part from a 150-500 telephoto lens (Birds) is a lot ... ..
An interesting article)), coincided with my similar summaries of (wedding) results of a technical nature (analysis of focal and exposure lenses for various conditions and lenses). Some practical conclusions on the lenses I use:
- the same fifty-dollar Nikkor 50 mm f / 1,4 G - in many respects the situation is similar to that of Arkady, I use less and less on the shooting of weddings, one might say in isolated cases. Distorts the geometry of the face in close-up, bust and half-length portraits. The lens is not “sharpened” for specifics, although you can shoot everything, you can even shoot a reportage of a wedding banquet event in full (60-70% are confident in the output of pictures “in focus”). The values of apertures and shutter speeds are mostly (90%) f / 2,8-4 and S: 1 / 125-1 / 250 ″, somewhere “in this area” this fifty has a golden mean. For myself, I concluded that this is not a wedding lens, not a wedding one ((... In terms of replacing it with a Nikkor 85 mm f / 1,4 G (omnipotent glass starting from f / 1,4G).
- The Nikkor 18-105 lens is very suitable for most wedding tasks, I'm not even going to part with it or put it on the shelf. After analyzing tens of thousands of frames made with it, I found for myself the optimal f / 5,6 and S-1/80 expo-pair, at these values (90%) I shoot a reportage, and dances, and much more. The Nikkor 18-105's focusing speed is sufficient for most wedding photography tasks, and it focuses confidently enough even on low-contrast objects and in “low” lighting conditions.
- Nikkor 70-200 f / 2,8 VRII gives an infinite number of "degrees of freedom" to the photographer, requires getting used to, not everything works out with it at once. I take the vast majority (99%) of my shots at f / 2,8-4. Sharpness becomes noticeably higher after closing the aperture to 3,2. The shutter speeds have to be used in a fairly large range, but not less than 1/80 (when shooting handheld, at least). Sometimes it focuses prohibitively precisely, allowing at f / 2,8 to highlight the eyes of a briskly dancing person in a wedding (and not only) reportage. And sometimes, when focusing on low-contrast objects, or in low light, he does not want to determine the position of the DOF :)). Good and convenient for dynamic shooting from approximately 3 to 12 meters to the subject. If I didn't have to shoot scenes of the wedding in limited places, I would not shoot this lens from the camera at all. Focusing capabilities in Live View mode are greatly enhanced - it turns out to be very “subtle” to highlight the eyes (eyelashes) of the subject. I try to use this lens for reportage and just portraits, I feel that in this direction it is “very fun”. What I would especially like to note is the very, very (!) Low power consumption of the camera battery when taking photos with this lens.
I use all these lenses on the Nikon D7000.
Recently, I’ve been trying to use reflectors (white-silver and light), they reveal even more, in particular, the capabilities of any lens, and distinguish the wedding photo from the pictures taken in more primitive conditions :)).
Happy New Year, everyone!
Health and success!
—
I have the statistics for 2013 as follows:
33% - 85mm
12% - 180mm
10% - 105mm
7% - 40mm
4% - 24, 50, 60, 70, 135, 300mm
The remaining focal lengths in the amount of 14% fall on a wide range from 18 to 300 mm with a percentage of use of each focal length not exceeding 0,5 to 2%.
But this was when using the crop camera, next year there will be new statistics when using the FF camera, I myself wonder what will happen)
And the statistics indicated by me show that I don’t even use focal lengths of 50 and 35 mm on zoom lenses, and fixes with focal lengths of 35 and 50 mm have been lying with me for more than 3 years and have successfully found a new owner :-) If anyone has a question whether to buy 50mm is a matter of taste and I would advise you to buy such a lens, and if you don't like it, sell it, but you definitely have to try!
All a good holiday, less quarrels and more positive!
Hello, I'm a lobster.
I shoot sports60%, macro10%, reportage portrait20%, miscellaneous10%. Landscapes excluded. Only "events" analyzed.
meku lenses Nikkor: 18-200 3,5-5,6; 35 1,8G; 50 1,4G.
Analysis of 1000 photos:
200mm - 15% (150pcs) -macro, reportage portrait, sports (in descending order)
180mm - 20% (200pcs) -port, reportage portrait
110mm - 28% (280pcs) -sport
80mm - 12% (120pcs) -sport, portrait
50mm - 5% (50pcs)-miscellaneous, sports (2 pictures)
35mm - 7% (70pcs) - miscellaneous, sports.
24mm - 10% (100pcs) -port.
Miscellaneous - 3% (3pcs)
The most frequently used focal lengths by me are from 100 and above, although shooting with high-aperture fixes is a pleasure, but those ethers with which I have these fixes are practically not in demand. Nikon7100 device. I tried to use 35 as a staff (taking into account the crop, it seems to fit), but then I refused and put 18-200 back on.
Happy New Year to everybody!!!
Most reporting is mainly at the conference. I shoot with two crop cameras, on one it costs 20-35 2.8, on the other 100 2.8. For myself, I found that such a tandem is very convenient to work with.
This site is a very useful resource. Thanks. Together with photo.ru, they allowed me to make the right choice and collect what is most needed and in demand in my work. I shoot with D700 + Nikkor 24-85 / 2,8-4; Tokina 16-28 / 2,8; Sigma APO 70-200 / 2,8. The percentage between them is about the same. There are plans to finish off the set with fifty dollars from Sigma (1,4)
make friends with vіd robots Tokіini on d700
Dear friends. The statistics are very interesting, I think everyone. Please indicate the goals and genres of shooting for your statistics.
Hello. Help determine whether there is 35/2 kenon, 50 / 1.4 kenon and 85 / 1.4 samyang. I take portraits and face and body and waist mainly in the room, the carcass sprinkled. 50 does not soap with 2.8 and the focal one is not particularly suitable, 85 the problem is just above all praise, the model just gets tired of waiting and the focal one is not for rooms, the last one took 35 - it wasn’t soap either with 2.8 but not a hint of artistry and is rather narrow in some cases. Is it worth it to change 85 to kenon and 35 to 28 / 1.8. Carcass 450. Thank you in advance. All with the upcoming.
Hello everyone with the upcoming New Year, all health and good luck success. I was interested in conducting this analysis and this is what turned out mainly 18mm-54photo, 35mm-102photo and 55mm-148photo aperture mainly 5.6-112photo, 1.8 and 2.0 in half 50photo and 40photo at 8.0,10 and 11.Is in most cases 200. The D3100 camera has an 18-55 kit and there is still a 35mm 1.8G.