![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.danijel.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/DSC05995-2-scaled.jpg\")
<\/a>FE 100-400mm f\/4.5-5.6 GM<\/p><\/div>\n
This was taken with a 100-400mm telephoto zoom. The subject is sharp and defined, while the background falls off rapidly and is completely blurred. I use it for shooting at longer distances, where the subject is a bird or a butterfly that would be spooked and fly off if I came any closer. You can’t make this shot with a shorter lens, unless the butterfly is half dead and doesn’t really respond, which actually does happen.<\/p>\n
<\/a>FE 100-400mm f\/4.5-5.6 GM<\/p><\/div>\n
This, however, is an example of something that is definitely not dead, asleep or comatose – it’s a hummingbird moth in flight, and it’s all over the place. You need a long lens, and you need it to be reasonably fast in order to be able to freeze motion, while keeping the ISO values reasonable. Wide apertures also help to blur the background, but here the focal length and the fact that I’m as close as possible do most of the work.<\/p>\n
<\/a>FE 135mm f\/1.8 GM<\/p><\/div>\n
This is different subject matter entirely; dew drops on the cobweb suspended on a pine branch in the dawn fog. In order to cut the depth of field at that distance, you need both longer focal length and aperture. A fast 135mm lens does the trick very nicely.<\/p>\n
<\/a>FE 135mm f\/1.8 GM<\/p><\/div>\n
Similarly, in order to freeze two butterflies in flight, at the same time, you need both longer focal length and aperture; you’re working at telephoto distances, but you need almost-macro outcomes. This requires both aperture and focal length.<\/p>\n
However, sometimes you need to get much closer, and magnify a (mostly) static subject. That’s what a macro lens is for.<\/p>\n
<\/a>FE 90mm f\/2.8 G macro<\/p><\/div>\n
But let’s say you want to put your camera into a bush and get the 3d impression of the whole thing, while still cutting the depth of field. That’s where a fast 35mm lens becomes useful.<\/p>\n
<\/a>FE 35mm f\/1.4 GM<\/p><\/div>\n
You are getting a slice of the environment, where you see enough, but intimacy of the narrow depth of field is still preserved.<\/p>\n
And then, of course, you have lenses whose purpose is to get everything sharp, like the 24mm or even wider, but they are not what we are interested in right now.<\/p>\n
One can now ask whether, for instance, something could be shot with a slower but longer zoom, instead of a fast but shorter prime. Yes it could, because there are overlapping scenarios where multiple optics would work equally well. On the other hand, when things get outside the scenario where a certain lens still works, for instance it gets dark, the other lens is still within its optimal functioning parameters.<\/p>\n
<\/a>FE 135mm f\/1.8 GM<\/p><\/div>\n
You see, fast lenses not only reduce the depth of field; they also see in the dark.<\/p>\n
There are also intermediary scenarios – the space between 135mm and 35mm that were used as examples is pretty large, and can be filled with either 85mm or 50mm primes, or a mid-range zoom. A zoom would have a more versatile focal length, but a prime would have more versatile aperture, being able to work in light conditions where you can see the stars in the sky when shooting hand-held.<\/p>\n
In essence, you can improvise a lot, using lenses for scenarios they weren’t designed for, but where they still work just fine, but you do want to have as many tools in your toolbox as the finances allow. \ud83d\ude42<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I know it must be confusing to people when I talk about lenses; for instance, I want to have the subject sharp and background blurred, and I use all kinds of lenses to achieve that. Can’t it be done with … Continue reading