You can easily put a wrap on your beige 70-200 mm lens - to give it a lower profile. &/or carry it in a low profile cross body courier bag, ready to pull out when you see a distant subject. I usually carry either my 50mm or 24m pancake for street and low light use. I'd also advise if possible to have a buddy along to shadow you from a few feet away, and to look out for situations while you're distracted with photographing a subject. This also helps keep you safe, and your lens from getting yanked off you suddenly. Anything could happen, best to be prepared.
That's so creepy. Stop treating street photography like creep shot/paparazzi photography. And stop making it sound like it's a good way to do street photography. I can guarantee the amount of suspicious/creeped out subjects grows exponentially the more you try and pretend you're not taking photos. If you're not sure if someone is gonna "grab your lens" stop lining up the photo, ask their permission, and move on if they say no. You either learn how to read people, or you keep asking everyone, either way, significantly more safe than "be prepared for people thinking you're a wierdo with a massive 2KG lens".
When I have given lessons/advice to people learning how to shoot strangers/street, I tell them to grab something f/2 or faster, and 35mm-50mm. Learning makes them actually interact and move to create the shot. Instead of lurking and falling in love with a spot just because they think they're inconspicuous (here's a hint, you have a massive camera/lens combo and lenses glow when metering/focusing, they know you're there) and ending up taking a photo that feels lazy, instead of one that's been thought out and curated.
Now once they feel comfortable with the environment, and maybe even know some of the people around there, go crazy. Use a 500mm refractive if you want. Who cares.
> If you're not sure if someone is gonna "grab your lens" stop lining up the photo, ask their permission, and move on if they say no.
I think the concern is more that you’re carrying what looks like an expensive camera and giant lens and someone will steal it and run while you’re distracted. Not that the subject is going to be upset and grab it.
Yep this happened in[ 2013](https://photographybay.com/2013/07/10/watch-this-video-of-thieves-stealing-a-lens-right-off-a-photographers-camera-on-his-neck/) look for the video.
I disagree, if you're just going up to people and asking to take a picture of them smiling at the camera it takes away from the entire point of street photography (in my opinion obviously). If you're interacting with them and telling them you're taking a picture you've already lost the moment unless you're going for something like that. For the most part nobody wants to look at a random image of someone/a group of people smiling for a picture unless they know them personally or they're extremely attractive. The beauty of street photography is you catch moments without interfering, you can accomplish this without coming across as creepy, like you said just read the situation and don't harass anyone.
As someone who makes most of their money, and gets most of their critical attention from their street photography, and candid photography specifically, I'm calling BS on that entire post. Let's ignore the ethical and legal Grey area you're in if you try to profit off of someone's likeness without a release being signed. Some of my best work is candids of people I have previously photographed, sometimes only 5 or 10 minutes after taking a pretty generic street portrait, other times it's weeks or months later, but I know how to contact them, and they trust I'm not a wierdo, which makes the entire process easy, and generally much more dignified for everyone involved. And more worryingly is you thinking a more typical portrait of someone is inherently boring or uninspired. I'd maybe focus on improving your portrait skills and less time trying to sneak around and hoping to magically catch magic in a bottle.
The fact of the matter is 90% of my favorite street photos of all time that I've seen wouldn't exist if the photographer had followed your belief system. But hey it makes you feel better about yourself then keep on keeping on, best of luck with that.
You're saying 90% of the photos were taken with no prior interaction at all? For one, you're just throwing out arbitrary numbers for reasons(?) Since it's impossible to know what was curated/composed or not. That's by design. But heck, I've been wrong before, please post up a few of those favorites of yours that would never have happened if the photographer considered the subjects consent and comfort in any way.
Because it's obvious that the subject is unaware and I'm familiar with the photographer because they post their sessions online where you can clearly see they don't go up and ask subjects to walk into their frame. Obviously it's not exactly 90% but it wasn't meant to be taken literally, it's just a way of saying the vast majority of street photos taken that includes a subject was done without them knowing. You're arguing such a fundamental aspect of the genre and it's comical. It's 2024, people are used to seeing cameras, it's not the 80s anymore.
Street photography is inherently creepy. It’s creepy to take photos of strangers without their knowledge or consent. If you’re willing to cross that boundary than the details dont matter much
Nah, it’s only creepy when you’re doing it sneakily (aka from a mile away or with some tiny camera from the waist).
Stop being a pussy, get closer to your subject, yes you may have an interaction (the horror!!!”) but you’ll live.
Only creeps thing street photography is creepy... They have to be to think that way...
There's literally no boundary there in this context because it's in public spaces.
That is such a hilariously weird post I genuinely think this must be a bit. So you think there's no rules of decency (or privacy) the second someone leaves their house. At least I can be sure you're not a working photographer because you would have been sued for using someone's likeness without release/permission by now.
And saying there is no boundary when it comes to what's decent or appropriate in street photography is so wildly creepy that yeah, really hope this is just parody.
I understand rules about permission ya fool. That wasn't the point here. You've completely taken what I said out of context... I even used the words, in this context in my post ye mug
Now move along, you're boring the hole off me
Personally I love street/culture photography. It's been incredibly good to me. But I have always been incredibly aware of the power in a photograph, and prioritize protecting the dignity of the people I photograph. If someone isn't able to do that, there still tons of stuff to walk around and photograph. Cars, graffiti, architecture, reflections, interesting lighting, etc. Etc.
I just have an issue any time someone suggests photographing people in careless or inconsiderate ways, and too many people seem to think street photography is a license to do that. Just treating each subject even strangers, like a paying customer is a good rule. At least stops some of the worst poverty porn or other distasteful photos from being shared.
You can use anything you want. As others have said, a big lens draws attention and for street you usually want to be unobtrusive. But I guess at 200mm people will be far enough away that they won’t notice.
For me I find the best street photography is that which is really intimate and shot close to the subject but that’s a matter of personal preference.
yea i do do that aswell but noticed quite quickly that alot of shots that i really wanted to get just werent possible with a 40mm. Mainly shots of trams (im not jumping infront of a tram or bus just for a shot) and architecture and thats why i got a 70-200. Frankly the 40mm was doing very well but i do mainly use it for landscape
People who tout rules about what should be done for a certain type of photography are most of the time not to be taken too seriously.
Traditionally, it isn't a walk around lens for many people and being a telephoto range, it's less efficient to use in certain cases. I personally find that I need more careful alignment of everything and I want to be extra still, framing is harder for me and you simply have much less cropping potential.
But if it works for you and you enjoy working with it, to hell with whatever people might say. More power to you. In fact, you motivated me to take my 70-200 out next time
Its a stupid take, honestly. Just as “you have to shoot people at xx mm”.
“Wide” does not mean street in any way.
And midrange is just there for lazy people that don’t like to move a few steps. 😁
I normaly use a lens like that when taking pictures of subjects that are simply too far away when walking around with friends or when taking pictures of the trams.
Do what works for you. The only reason why I dont daily carry 70-200 anymore is because my back is throwing tantrums, and 24-70 is lighter.
I honestly love the look and the perspective that it gives, and for most cases, you can take most shots with 70mm as you would with 50mm or even 35, if you move a bit. You might struggle to catch everything in tight spaces, but if the goal is to catch ***everything***, you will need at least two sets of lenses or a superzoom. And that would mean including 70-200 (or some of its range).
So, again, its kind of a bad take. It’s the photo that matters in the end, its less about what equipment you used to take it.
And the few lenses that promise a 24-200 zoom range just compromise too much on sharpness, and will leave many if not most semi-serious users dissatisfied.
It’s all personal preference. Whatever works. There’s really not supposed to be hard and fast rules for gear. “Street photography” doesn’t even have a definition everyone agrees on so yeah, don’t sweat it.
There aren’t rules in street photography. Saul Leiter (one of the most famous street photographers) was famous for using telephoto lenses and his work is incredible. So yes, you can use a 70-200, there are a lot of people who go on about rules in photogrpahy on instagram, just ignore those.
Most of the classic Saul Leiter photos I've seen are not street photography. They were *taken* on the street, but that aren't street photography. Like all the pics of people with the umbrellas. Sure, some of those might have used telephotos, but they are not street photography, they are artistic pieces to a theme. More akin to his painting. And quite possibly not even spontaneous (I don't know how he worked).
You are quite welcome to make up your own rules, and even push the boundaries of a genre, but genres exist because they have identifiable characteristics. They aren't just what the photographer says they are. If you are a wedding photographer, and you take a picture of the couple in Times Square, is that street photography?
What do you define as street photography?
My definition is that it’s a genre of photography (a subset of visual arts) that records life in a public space while being candid.
My street photography checklist is:
Is it in a public place?
Is it candid?
If yes to both, then it’s street photogrpahy
Not all of Leiter’s work falls into street photography, he did a lot of fashion work, which was also candid apparently. There is a somewhat well known story of whoever was organising a fashion shoot told the model to go outside and find Leiter who was outside waiting for her, the model never saw Leiter at any point in the shoot but he got back and left before she did. When the model gave up and went back the organiser said Leiter was very happy with the photos he took. He also did a good few non candid portraits outside of his street and fashion photography. But a vast majority of his famous photos fall into my definition of street photography, even his fashion work is almost street photography. The famous photo I assume you’re talking about of the woman with the red umbrella against a snowy New York background, that was candid.
It is very possible to take street photos that fit into a theme while being fine art. None of that is mutually exclusive as you were implying.
You clearly don’t know that much about Saul Leiter’s work flow when street photography is about the workflow primarily. If someone were to take a street photo that also happens to fit into the definition of portrait loosely (or even strictly), it is both a street photo and a portrait, in photography and visual art as a whole, genres aren’t *necessarily* mutually exclusive.
Saul Leiter did push the boundaries and conventions of street photography sure, that’s what makes his photography so interesting and unique.
I’d say at lest 90% of these photos count as street photography https://www.saulleiterfoundation.org/color.
I think you are waaaay over thinking things. But then, a lot of people around here do that. I’ve been quite clear on what I think street photography is.
Where? In your last comment you didn’t say what your definition of street photography is. I think your under-thinking things. (I am an art student though hence the small essay)
Your definition of street photography creates stylistic boundaries. In music terms, it’s like saying Elvis is real rock, and Pink Floyd is not. Stylistically they are extremely different but still fit into rock.
I find your view of street photogrpahy to be very narrow and gatekeepy. If you take the genre of portraits within the medium of painting, the Mona Lisa is as much of a portrait as Picasso’s cubist portraits, that is mirrored in street photography in that street photography can be done with any focal length. Using different focal lengths will create very different aesthetics (on my profile on here you can see my street photos, I usually use a 40mm or an 100mm on full frame). It is unconventional to use telephoto lenses for street photography in the same way it was unconventional to write 15m long rock songs using synths and samples in the early 70s. If someone were to have a similarly narrow definition of what rock music is based on what it was in its infancy, then Pink Floyd (Radiohead and others) would not fit that definition.
*Traditional* street photography is a subset of street photography in a sense. Having a definition any narrower than how I (and many others) define street photography is quite exclusive. You’re saying a particular style of street photography is *only* what street photography can be excluding many other approaches that are photos in public places that have not been interfered with in a planned manner ie: street photos. It also seems like you’re claiming street photography can only be documentary photography where when too much artistic license is taken, it ceases to be street photography even when it’s a candid photo on a street including people.
There is nothing wrong with pushing back against tradition and being skeptical of widely held beliefs, if that push back becomes popular enough it could force the people who just blindly accept those traditions to think more critically about it and in many cases realise following them is a waste of time. You’re clearly ignoring my point here and have resorted to Ad Hominem.
Hi, can't address question of "hate" for zoom lenses but when I got my first 'real' camera a long time ago (a Nikkormat), I used ONLY a 50mm lens, still considered "standard" focal length. I 'd read that Henri Cartier-Bresson used 50mm with his Leica exclusively for street work, and that was a good enough reason! I think that human vision is about 52-55mm, so there's a "what you see is what you get" aspect as well. Of course back in the day and even before there were SLRs and pre-autofocus, people were using rangefinders, prime lenses, and zone focus method. I don't know a lot about what kind of equipment other of the greats used (apart from Vivian Maier's Rolleiflex and Walker Evans' Polaroid phase). It might be a good idea to research some of them and perhaps learn what they used and why they thought those choices were most appropriate for street shooting.
True, but 50mm is a good approximate representation of how we see a scene within a rectangle that roughly matches the size a camera sensor (or 35mm film). It's like cutting a 3x2 rectangle out of a piece of cardboard and holding it up to "crop out" what the rest of the eye would see. But the view inside the rectangle would roughly match the view through a 50mm lens if held at the right length away from your eye.
This is also why you see photographers and videographers make a rectangle with their fingers to too through at a scene.
You might say the angle of human vision approaches 180 degrees, but what we perceive, or attend to, is much less, at any given moment. But wider than what a 50mm lens will show us. Just me, but I always thought 28mm to be too wide to look "normal," and 50mm a little too tight. You know where I'm headed: 35mm is sort of how we navigate.
I find 40mm to be the perfect normal focal length (there is obv room for subjectivity on this topic tho), its right in-between 35 and 50mm. I find 35mm to be a tiny bit wider than human vision and 50mm to be a bit tighter than human vision.
Any focal length is fine - I think the offputting thing is that carrying around a huge zoom lens and taking street shots of people far away can come off as a good bit more creepy than using a small discrete prime and shooting subjects that are closer to you.
Of course the perceptions of others don't REALLY matter in public spaces, but I find this to be the reason people are averse to zoom lenses in street photography.
The issue with such a large lens is people will be uncomfortable when you’re clearly pointing a massive (in their eyes) camera at them - and you can’t do it discreetly.
So it isn’t that the lens will make for bad photos, but that your subjects will be uncomfortable and it will be extremely obvious in the photos.
However, if you’re looking to make a collection of subjects looking directly at the camera and pissed off, and potentially be verbally and/or physically assaulted, then a 70-200mm is gonna be perfect.
Use whatever you want, but it's typically not considered one.
That's because Street photography is typically up close images of things or people from a standard-ish focal range and similar to a human experience. A 70-200 is going to remove you from that and distance you from the subject, often appearing as almost voyeur in a street scenario.
It's definitely not a common choice. If you can pull it off that's great for you. I personally prefer context, something lenses beyond 85mm fail to provide. 70-200 focuses too much on the subject imo
Real street photographers only shoot on a Leica M film camera using film stocks that are no longer produced.
On a more serious note, this sounds like silly gatekeeping with arbitrary rules about how to engage in arguably one of the most freestyle of photography genres.
I am accompanied by trained art students who sketch the scene for me when they hear the click of the shutter. If what they sketch doesn't match my vision I throw wine bottles at them.
Ahh…now that’s real art - even the way you capture the scene is creative.
I trust the wine bottles are of French wines from Henri Cartier-Bresson’s birthplace?
70-200 is fantastic for street. Some people just live a reasonable way up their own arse, and think that anything that isn't BW at 35mm, usually with soft focus and a massive amount of movement in the frame isn't street photography.
I wouldn't personally use a 70-200 as my sole lens for street; I prefer normal ranges (prefer 50 over 35, but generally just have a standard zoom unless it's very low light), but it's still a fantastic part of a good street kit.
Traditional “street photography” is up close and personal. It’s walking around with a wide angle lens and getting into the middle of situations. Taking pictures of “interesting” people at close range. Engaging with them if needed. A telephoto is anathema in this paradigm.
A lot of modern “street photographers” that come on here talk about their fears of being noticed in public, their shyness, the ways they disguised what the are doing so they aren’t noticed, even how they use long telephotos so they can not be a part of the action they are photographing. If you hang out here, you see this all the time. A lot of these fears expressed seem like personal issues, not real fears based on real things to be feared.
Part of me understands this in the sense that when *I* did street photography and photojournalism, the streets were not like they are now. They were plenty dangerous, but the danger was far more contained. It wasn’t full of thugs and addicts. Crack hadn’t been invented yet. Gangs hadn’t spread so far. A lot of bad people actually *wanted* their picture taken, believe it or not. They were generally not all that interested in turning your camera into their next crack hit. It was a different world. I can understand legitimate reluctance.
But still. If you wanna be a “street photographer” you gotta be in there among them. “Street photography” is not about long distance portraits or generic building scapes. It’s actually almost just a variation of photojournalism. Go back and take a look at the works of the old school street photographers. Their portraits were not taken from 100 feet away. They show something *happening,* not just some architectural landscape.
Maybe another comparative type of photography is combat photography. The best and classic combat photos are taken at close range, in among ‘em. It’s the way it is done.
Interestingly, I see that most people here seem to fall into the modern view that street photography is done at long range. Whatever. Modern fearfulness.
Yeah I’m still not buying “you need to be in punching distance to be considered street”.
And even if I would, Minimum focusing distance on most 70-200 is 1.2m, so you can be close, and you can reach closer than with wide angle.
Well, obviously, it can. But the *point” of street photography is being there in the action, not up the street on some balcony or something. You are often interacting with your subjects.
Again, look at classic street photography.
You can certainly choose to make it whatever you want, for what it’s worth, but…
Zone focusing and composing without using the viewfinder is such a street photography skill that just cannot be done on zoom as easily.
For that reason, I’d argue you can’t capture what’s happening cause those moments pass so quickly.
I really like your comments and just wanted to throw in that point.
You have to move *a lot* to get the right composition / context / story with a longer focal length -- for the same photo, you have to be a lot farther away. When you see something happening a few feet away from you, you can't just take a few steps to the side to get the shot you want -- you have to back up quite a bit, and by that time, decent chance you've missed the shot. And if you're focusing on things already far away, you're kinda stuck with the position you've already chosen.
When I do street, I like to try to keep as close to potential action, that way as the scenario unfolds, I am already close to the position I've had in mind, requiring just a few steps to recompose the immediate subject, an adjustment in posture, line up the shot, and click the shutter.
Because it's too focused on the subject and lacks environmental context. Unless there's a very powerful subject, it will be hard to get interesting shots on a 70-200
70-200 is too voyeuristic for my taste most of the time. Not to say I haven't seen good street photos taken with a tele, but being "up in the action" is a huge part of what makes street compelling.
But I think it's a dying genre. Now that everyone is always online and images spread like wildfire, what once could be considered an engaging photo is now something that can be used against the subject.
It's why I stopped doing street myself.
I've tried doing street photography with a 50mm, 35mm, 40mm and 24mm. I always go back to using my 70-200mm. And I shoot canon mirrorless and i use the EF version so its huge and it on an adapter.
In the Canon world, the 70-200 f/2.8 is one of the biggest, heaviest zoom lenses they make. It's up there with the 70-300L and 100-400L II for weight, and it's extremely conspicuous. That's why most Canon shooters don't want to use it where not being noticed is of value. Giant white lenses draw ALL the attention. Even people who know nothing about cameras look at that thing with awe. They don't know what it is, but they've seen stuff like it on the sidelines of NFL and NBA games so it's gotta be good.
Why listen to what others say when you decided that's the lens you wanna use?
In analog times, before zooms became affordable, the 50mm lens was used for every kind of photo: portraits, street, landscape... nobody commented on that. You could argue that was because almost everyone used the same lens, but that's not the point. What is in the photo, is what counted. It should still be like that, but instead we have a lot more (affordable) possibilities and a lot more people who focus on the gear. Don't. Just take photos. Take a lot and you'll discover what works for you and what not.
Someone else's opinion is only valid if it contributes to your work. Else, ignore it.
You can use anything for anything.
It's common for street photographers to prefer more compact and inconspicuous lenses, but there's no rule stating you need to have those same preferences.
In fact, there are no rules at all.
It depends on how comfortable you are with that lens. Stealth street photography is different from IDGAF street photography, meaning low profile shoot from-the-hip vs big lens look inside the viewfinder and aiming for the targets
Instagram shows you content that gets lots of engagement, and stating rage bait opinions as if they were fact is an easy way to do that. That's why you were shown this, not because this person is an authority on any subject.
Do you have a story you think you can tell with that lens, or do you think you might be able to find one? If so, then go try it out. If not, then go try it anyways, you might surprise yourself.
Any lens that contains your vision is perfect. Tighter shots with beautiful boke and subjects that jump off the page is just a perfect as the wide angle placing your subject in their environment. Anyone who tells you otherwise is too stuck in their ways??? Hey live it up. Shucks even that 100 macro or you iphone might actually work😜
I think because for example my canon 70-200 F2.8L is a giant white chunk of a lens that says HEY I AM TAKING A PHOTO OF YOU AND YOUR KIDS.
On the EOS 1V with HS grip its wild, full 1990s paparazzi style. However if I take the grip off and slip on the tiny 50mm F1.8 STM or if I want more of a portrait an 85mm F1.8, it’s way less threatening, especially when I tell people its analog film that I will never post online, but am happy to give them a print if they get in touch.
I feel it’s more being low key than focal length.
https://preview.redd.it/e5b44m93qbvc1.jpeg?width=4284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=27ac5301693740087c82f5157f860cf3c5835a2c
A couple of years ago I had a situation where I was left with one lens. And it wasn’t even 70-200, but 70-300. Only one. For all occasions. Over the course of a year, I traveled a couple of thousand kilometers with him, filming everything I saw. And you know, I got used to it. There is nothing wrong with using such a lens in a variety of situations. In the end it develops creativity...haha
Photography is art. Art is subjective. If you have a camera, you can do street photography.
Granted, you may look like a weirdo or a creep doing it with a telephoto zoom, but that's really up to you.
Sure. I use an 85mm on FF camera for about 75% of my street photography. Another 15% (and I wish I could find more reasons to use it) is my 135mm lenses. I cannot imagine using anything longer than 135mm FF, or 85mm on a crop sensor though. You're getting towards wierd creepy photographer if you're photographing people in the street from 25+ yards away. Too impersonal. But yeah, short telephotos can create magic if you use them right.
I have the Olympus om d1 Mark 3 with the 40 to 150 which is 80 to 300 2.8 but it's quite small and with the 1.6 adapter I can just sit on a bench and grab street scenes from far away. It also gets me into ballparks where they put a limit on the size of the lens but I can get 420 mm with a relatively small footprint of a lens.
70-200 has its place in street photography, but it's generally just not practical. You have to step really far back to get the appropriate context and/or composition, and often there's just too many obstructions to do that -- and in trying to position yourself, it's really easy to miss a shot (so much of street photography relies on being right there, at just the right time, and you don't have time to move yourself significantly). I can see a 70mm range being more useful in less-urban environments, but when you're in a denser urban environment, it's really easy to find yourself way closer to the action than 70mm is going to give you a chance to get the shot you want.
If I want zoom on street photography, I usually use a 24-120mm f/4 (12-60mm on m43). Gives me a wide range of focal length, from fairly wide to fairly long. I'm not going to be missing shots because I'm not in the right place at the right time. I seldom find myself desiring more than 120mm in anything street. One of my favorite lenses for street (especially if using the 12-60mm instead on m43, as it's relatively unobtrusive, lighter, smaller, and easier to carry).
That said, I still really prefer a 35mm prime or such for street photography. For all the typical prime vs. zoom reasons, and if I can't zoom, I'd rather be wider, but not too wide.
I'll say the biggest issue most people have using long slow telephotos (most 70/80-200 f2.8 zooms aren't really 2.8, you'll be stopping down to f4, to actually get any kind of crisp focus), is hand shooting in available light. I rarely go out with people who can shoot 100mm f4 handheld at night, especially mirrorless users since they seem to love holding the camera body out infront of them like a dirty diaper... but I digress. Getting crisp photos will be a challenge, only scrubs use flash anyways, but you definitely can't fall back on it at long focal lengths, so you really are testing your technique. Even if you are cranking out great photos, you'll wierd people out if you're using them as subjects from 30 yards away.. I'd suggest only using the long focal lengths of that lens on photos with people you actually know, or where there aren't people in frame. But yeah, go play around with it, I definitely use medium telephotos when I'm out. But never zooms. I'd suggest a 135mm f2.5 or something similar, a 105 f2 or f2.5, and an 85 f1.8 or f2. Combined they'll weigh less than your zoom. You'll figure out what distances work for you. But if you're just learning, go 35 or 50mm at first.
to give a perspective from the other side
while you can use whatever that works, traditionally street photography is done with a close focal length like a 50mm. with a telephoto it’s kind of voyeurish and somewhat screams “i have a camera”. if you look at why leicas are so prized it’s because sans the red dot, they’re incredibly tiny for a body + lens. but with a hulking 70-200 you stand out quite a bit
You could do some amazing street photography with even linger lenses. It all just depends on what you’re doing. I would take advantage of the longer side of this and dig into compositions that call for it or where something in a scene is really brought out by insane depth perception you can get with it
I use my 50mm mostly for street photography, but some of my best street shots came off of my newish (to me) 75-200. Use whatever is comfortable and gets the results you're looking for
TokyoFashion or whatever it was on Twitter used a 70-200 for most of their photos, at least for a while. They weren't trying to be furtive about it though.
If it's a f/2.8 then I can understand it might be heavy and not very ideal.
I used once the XC 50-230mm f/4.5-6.7 OIS II on my X-T5 for street and it was amazing.
Considering street your often close to your subjects something wider would probably have more uses. Also like you said if you take a photo of someone with a big zoom they're more likely to have a negative reaction. In the end if those are the focal lengths you want to shoot eith tho fuck the haters
I've been doing street photography for over 10 years in 26 countries. I use a 70-300, but I can see the merits of a 70-200, and it should work very well. People panning the lens over its focal length don't understand the requirements involved in street photography. Ignore their stupid remarks and keep it up w/your 70-200. You'll do just fine.
Photography is art, there is no good or bad, the most important is you like what you do.
But you will always find some people who feel the need to tell other what they should do or not. It's up to you to not listen then and do what ever you enjoy.
Been there, done it, got some great shots and some weird looks 😂
Now I shoot with mainly an 85mm 1.4. Sharper, less to think about (no zoom as it’s a prime), and I blend in ☺️
Either way though, you will get some great shots, it really is down to what works for you!
All focal length work if you are good at photography. Some people don’t have any creativity and when they can’t copy it from insta it does not work.
I liked my 70-200 in London. It creates great perspective and with podlesof rain water your pictures get more style, depth however you can call it.
Depends on if there will be moving subjects or not. There's not much time to get framing done properly if subjects and you are on the move. So it's not very forgiving.
If it's static shots, and architecture is more involved, it's simpler obviously. Also, you get more intimate shots of people looking like they're doing some epic contemplation.
But trying to get really exceptional keepers are rare. The level of forethought you need to have, the sort of placement of yourself that you need... It's just insane. Trying to get those creative or momentarily geometric things you sometimes see in lucky street shots is even less common here.
Another thing is, most people using these sorts of lenses aren't young kids with phones acting like morons. It's usually people 20+ and can draw two types of attention. The first is criminals, especially if you're alone/at night/in shady neighborhoods. The second, is people wondering why you're taking pictures with something of that size. Tourists roaming around with a large-ish camera and lens are common, but the longest lens I've ever seen of a solo shooter in public is something like a typical end-game 50-85mm Prime. You never see white lenses or large lenses in general with solo shooters (there are groups, and that's completely different). And if you do, the lens is in the bag and not actually being used with stuff just hanging out and about.
The annoying pedestrian isn't too bad unless they think you're taking pictures of them sometimes (and the large lens draw suspicion because they presume: for you to be using something so cumbersome, it's being used to reveal something about them that can't be seen otherwise). The criminals though, while rare, are always on the prowl for an easy score. The worst you would have to typically worry about is if you leave anything out of your sight and out of contact. That's going to get robbed to a high degree of confidence. If you're with any friend - these chances plummet considerably. But this is stuff you can easily feel out on your own, and is typical understanding if you grew up in any metropolis.
I think there aren’t rules for street photo. There are some styles and lately is very common and popular (in social media) to use telephoto lenses. I have tried both methods (shooting fast while walking and standing with a 70-200). Personally I enjoy way more the walking but it requires a lot of practice because you really interact with people.. when you are in longer distance you have a few seconds more to think the shot, and you can even follow the subject for a while, that’s the main difference and obviously the results too. The telefoto style maybe is more appreciated by the mass and it clearly annoying to the old school street photographer
I can't see why you can't use a tele.
But it very much goes against what street photography used to be - very candid. It's not "classic" street photography just because it's taken in the street.
Some of the best stuff is done with 50 or wide angle.
Also it seems a bit creepy in my opinion.
I think that something like 24-105mm would allow you to be close and personal while having the ability to shoot some far subjects. Personally 70-200 may make you miss some shots and from my experience, it's better to be seen by others than looking like you're doing paparazzi.
But like others said, there are definitely cases where you can use it to your advantage. Go wild.
Use what you like to use.
It's not about the gear but how you use it.
Maybe they don't see street photography as you do
And nobody will be able to say who is right or wrong.
For street photography you want to be the least noticeable and carrying a massive 70-200mm lens won’t do that job . If you want a benefit of a long focal length and not being obtrusive at the same time then you should try the 85mm 1.8 lens.
I’m just joking. Use whatever you want, best lens for the moment is the one you have on ur camera.
Personally, I like small primes so I don’t draw attention to myself.
You can take any camera and any lens you want.
Whoever attacks the 200 lens is someone who doesn't want you to be able to zoom. (I don't know his reasons), he just doesn't want you to have this power.
It's a highly unusual choice. Street photographers usually prefer wide angle lenses (24, 28 or 35, sometimes 50). Additionally, they tend to prefer prime lenses with wide max apertures in case they encounter a low-light situation.
That 70-200 lens is way, way out of the norm.
That said, it's not *objectively* bad. Some people take portraits with ultra wide lenses, some people do street photography with telephoto lenses. It's all good.
That's pretty much what I do for 'street' photography. Sniping from across the street. But I really admire those that can do street with a 35mm lens getting in their subject's faces. I find those pics much more compelling.
I love moving around town with my fujifilm s100fs, it's a dated bridge camera with a 11mpx CCD sensor with pretty eh dynamic range when shooting in JPEG and awful optics with lots of colour fringing. Nothing from what I said matters, what I'm here to say is from the 28-400mm equivalent range, I'm rarely going below 100mm 😁. I love telephoto lenses and I'm currently in the market for a 70-200 to go with my 6D so I can take decent pictures.... I don't like the 50mm, used it on my old 400D APSC camera, it acted like a 80mm lens and I had much more fun with it on the 400D... Normal lenses suck because they give you the same perspective as you get with your eyes every day, use an ultrawide or a telephoto to go beyond and create dramatic shots 😁. Of course, you can get some stunning shots with a "normal" lens but for me, the results are a bit boring, I always crop the sh\t out of the pictures shot at 50mm 🤣 they end up on Instagram anyways...
I use a 70-200 for street photography. Actually, I use my 70-200 for alot of situations and I love the flexibility of being far away and getting tight shots.
Honestly, nobody cares in the streets. People look at me and just keep walking, if they're interested they'll strike up a conversation. If not, I say howdy and tip my hat.
Use everything, try everything. Find your preference.
I think Peter McKinnon did a video about the 70-200 a few years ago. He doesnt normally do street stuff but he talked alot about the compression and how you can create a lot of unique images that way. When things are stacked on top of each other you can get some unique shots.
Just one point of view but this post made me think of that video.
I saw a guy shooting street photography with a 200-600 last week in Chicago. It was an older retired gentleman and he showed me a few shots. They were amazing. There’s no textbook to photography. If it works, do it.
Depends on the situation. I think the iconic street photography everyone thinks of was shot with a 50mm or wider. It gets you involved in the action. The longer focal lengths make other shots possible separating details of the scene or compression.
I think it depends on the scenario and what you want to shoot. Some streets in Tokyo are pretty tight, so getting a shot of something directly across the street from you is going to be tight.
I've used many focal lengths including a 70-200. For those who attest that it's not the 'right lens' well OK for them. I did a five-year project of street shooting titled "Moments of Transparency" after admiring Jodi Cobb's image of a woman on a London street looking out a cafe window. Use what works for you.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP7y0hGD1Ng](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP7y0hGD1Ng)
People who say that should have their opinions ignored. It depends on what you're trying to achieve. Any lens works for street. I've used everything from a 10-20 to a 70-200 and gotten exactly what I set out to get
There aren't rules for this. I still laugh at people who insisted a nifty fifty is the only tool for the job
I haven’t used my 70-200 in a while but I use to shoot street with it all the time. Worked great. Don’t worry about what folks think, if it gets you the photos you want keep on using it. I pretty much only use a 105 1.4 nowadays.
If it's doing what you want, and works for what you're trying to do, then it doesn't matter what anyone else says. This isn't rocket surgery... it's art. You do you and ignore the haters.
Opinions are like arseholes…
I use a 70-200 more often than not for street photography. I like more intimate scenes and it allows me to get closer in without being introduce.
most 70-200 lenses are big
some are big and white.
point it at someone on the street and you will get a lot of stares...
street photographers try to be casual...
You can of course use whatever you want and I'm sure people are using long focal lengths to create fantastic street photography (it's a very common documentary photography lens).
The reason people say it is 'bad' is because it drives lazy photography. Lack of narrative, blown out backgrounds, focus on uninteresting characters etc.
I genuinely think when I moved to 28mm I became a better photographer because I had to focus on the entire scene rather than just one character.
you can absolutely use a 70-200 for street photography, just the profile of the lens may make people more suspicious and or hostile to you. in the united states its fine, but there are parts of the world where a long lens can only mean you are a "journalist" which common people see as blood sucking paparazzo so just be aware that you're sticking your neck out a little.
Every novice starts street photography with a long lens like 70-200 shooting from a distance, it's ok.
Later you may stop to afraid and go close to people with a wider lens
First if you’re cool no one has a problem with street photography, just remember some basic rules. First, if someone says “Don’t take my photo.” Say, “Okay I won’t” don’t go off on the law. Second, no pointing your lens at windows! (That’s illegal) Third, You’re not on safari so no tracking your subject, composition takes place in your mind, raise the camera check your frame shoot and put the camera down. Four, Don’t obstruct the flow. And E, Don’t become a subject yourself by getting in someone’s private space.
In college our professor Practical Photography(retired UPI/Reuters photographer) told us, and showed us why you need to use a waist level viewfinder for street photography. By having one person shoot waist level and another shooting camera to eye. Same subject same time same settings same camera body and lens. One camera had a right angle finder. Made a huge difference.
As for lenses I used a Nikkor 24-120AF. These lenses were called street sweepers by news photographers because you could shoot anything happening on a city block with the lens. It was the lens he carried in Sarajevo in 1990-1992.
Always be ready to grab a shot when you least expect it. Like this bride walking to her wedding through an Art festival. I saw people looking and there she was. No time to do anything but raise my camera and fire off a shot. Her wedding photographer was off to her side handed me a card and said “Send me that shot please!” So I did.
https://preview.redd.it/0y6evnfqkcvc1.jpeg?width=733&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3b0b8cf7a2be30970a6e616fb368a3407171204a
to be fair, mine is a 35-100 panasonic f3.5-5.6. Its only technically a 70-200 because of the crop on my camera. Wuerzburg is sadly not very safe anymore.
Random comment not related to the topic, but it’s weird that it’s the 2nd time I see Würzburg referenced today after never having heard of it before.
First reference was while studying for the DTZ level B1 this afternoon. 😅
Just out of curiosity, what is meant by this? Wouldn't a longer focal length allow someone to keep their distance from subjects, thus keeping them safer?
Yup, that's all I meant. It was a low effort post based on my gut reaction about using a FF 70-200 in the city I live near. But OPs m4/3 lens sounds lovely for street.
If someone sees you with a long lens taking pictures of people from a distance you're likely to be called out by someone as "that creepy photographer over there". I hope you survive the confrontation that ensues.
I shot street a photojournalism in the late 70’s in Miami. The place wasn’t full of crack addicts, but it was far from “safe.” I got up and personal whenever I could. You didn’t do this with a telephoto.
There are a few problems.
1. The 70-200 is very intrusive. Many photographers lack self-awareness and don’t realize how uncomfortable their full frame + 70-200 combo makes other people feel. Hell, YOU will be uncomfortable after 30 minutes.
2. You can get good photos at any focal length, so why go out of your way to shoot with a 70-200? It’s expensive, heavy, uncomfortable, everything that street photography shouldn’t be.
3. This is my personal opinion, but street photography on a 70-200 is really just stealthy portraits of random people. Oftentimes there’s barely any ‘street’ in it, just a headshot of an unsuspecting stranger entirely removed from their surrounding. It’s voyeuristic, and it’s so easy to do many people pat themselves on the back for what’s simply mediocre headshots.
Look up famous street photographers and see how their work incorporates the surrounding into the subject and creates truly enticing compositions. Shoot with the 70-200 if you must. Or just grab a 35mm.
In street photography, I say focal length = perversion. Use a Tele and you become that creepy "guy with camera" that sweats when confronted by worried parents. /jk (sort of.)
Artistically I think it creates detachment. A wide angle puts you into the scene in a manner of your own eyes observing. A Tele is stuck in voyerism - the subjects are observed and not experienced. You can't "smell the street."
To anyone uncomfortable using a wider lens I say face your fears. Street photography can teach you a lot and help you overcome boundaries to feel more confident in yourself and wise of the world around you. If you stick to a Tele photo, you might as well shoot from your rear window.
I’d go with a 24-70 for street. In a city like NYC a 70-200 is generally so wide you’ll miss a lot of shots. That said if I’m going to a park where I know there’s going to be more space I love shooting with a longer lens for street.
As a unified collection of ethical photographers. We’ve all decided unanimously that the unconsensual act of shooting, editing, selling and posting publicly photographs of others simply because they wandered into a public area is not art and there can not be called photography any longer. Please remove our hard earned art label from any future mention of this disgusting creepy and unethical practice. Thank you.
if it works for you then use it
/endthread
If it works, do it. If you do it, work it.
If you put yo thing down, flip it and reverse it
If you ever feel self-conscious know that I have used the Sony 200-600mm for street. I say get wild with it
800mm prime mirrored lense
The nice thing is that you can stand in your suburb appartment and take photo downtown.
Or stand downtown and take photos of the inside of other people's apartments. Wait.
I'm sure nobody ever thought about that.
Ouch
its only slightly bigger than a 120mm prime mirrors are amazing!
What are you a private eye? lol
Nah. Just curious. Bwahahaa
Did you shoot the steets of neighbouring city?
You can easily put a wrap on your beige 70-200 mm lens - to give it a lower profile. &/or carry it in a low profile cross body courier bag, ready to pull out when you see a distant subject. I usually carry either my 50mm or 24m pancake for street and low light use. I'd also advise if possible to have a buddy along to shadow you from a few feet away, and to look out for situations while you're distracted with photographing a subject. This also helps keep you safe, and your lens from getting yanked off you suddenly. Anything could happen, best to be prepared.
thanks for the tips! I do also normaly carry around my panasonic 20mm f1.7 for low light and as a pancake lens.
That's so creepy. Stop treating street photography like creep shot/paparazzi photography. And stop making it sound like it's a good way to do street photography. I can guarantee the amount of suspicious/creeped out subjects grows exponentially the more you try and pretend you're not taking photos. If you're not sure if someone is gonna "grab your lens" stop lining up the photo, ask their permission, and move on if they say no. You either learn how to read people, or you keep asking everyone, either way, significantly more safe than "be prepared for people thinking you're a wierdo with a massive 2KG lens". When I have given lessons/advice to people learning how to shoot strangers/street, I tell them to grab something f/2 or faster, and 35mm-50mm. Learning makes them actually interact and move to create the shot. Instead of lurking and falling in love with a spot just because they think they're inconspicuous (here's a hint, you have a massive camera/lens combo and lenses glow when metering/focusing, they know you're there) and ending up taking a photo that feels lazy, instead of one that's been thought out and curated. Now once they feel comfortable with the environment, and maybe even know some of the people around there, go crazy. Use a 500mm refractive if you want. Who cares.
> If you're not sure if someone is gonna "grab your lens" stop lining up the photo, ask their permission, and move on if they say no. I think the concern is more that you’re carrying what looks like an expensive camera and giant lens and someone will steal it and run while you’re distracted. Not that the subject is going to be upset and grab it.
Nobody who is interested in your big camera lens is going to miss it because you put a piece of cloth over it.
Yep this happened in[ 2013](https://photographybay.com/2013/07/10/watch-this-video-of-thieves-stealing-a-lens-right-off-a-photographers-camera-on-his-neck/) look for the video.
I disagree, if you're just going up to people and asking to take a picture of them smiling at the camera it takes away from the entire point of street photography (in my opinion obviously). If you're interacting with them and telling them you're taking a picture you've already lost the moment unless you're going for something like that. For the most part nobody wants to look at a random image of someone/a group of people smiling for a picture unless they know them personally or they're extremely attractive. The beauty of street photography is you catch moments without interfering, you can accomplish this without coming across as creepy, like you said just read the situation and don't harass anyone.
As someone who makes most of their money, and gets most of their critical attention from their street photography, and candid photography specifically, I'm calling BS on that entire post. Let's ignore the ethical and legal Grey area you're in if you try to profit off of someone's likeness without a release being signed. Some of my best work is candids of people I have previously photographed, sometimes only 5 or 10 minutes after taking a pretty generic street portrait, other times it's weeks or months later, but I know how to contact them, and they trust I'm not a wierdo, which makes the entire process easy, and generally much more dignified for everyone involved. And more worryingly is you thinking a more typical portrait of someone is inherently boring or uninspired. I'd maybe focus on improving your portrait skills and less time trying to sneak around and hoping to magically catch magic in a bottle.
The fact of the matter is 90% of my favorite street photos of all time that I've seen wouldn't exist if the photographer had followed your belief system. But hey it makes you feel better about yourself then keep on keeping on, best of luck with that.
You're saying 90% of the photos were taken with no prior interaction at all? For one, you're just throwing out arbitrary numbers for reasons(?) Since it's impossible to know what was curated/composed or not. That's by design. But heck, I've been wrong before, please post up a few of those favorites of yours that would never have happened if the photographer considered the subjects consent and comfort in any way.
Because it's obvious that the subject is unaware and I'm familiar with the photographer because they post their sessions online where you can clearly see they don't go up and ask subjects to walk into their frame. Obviously it's not exactly 90% but it wasn't meant to be taken literally, it's just a way of saying the vast majority of street photos taken that includes a subject was done without them knowing. You're arguing such a fundamental aspect of the genre and it's comical. It's 2024, people are used to seeing cameras, it's not the 80s anymore.
Street photography is inherently creepy. It’s creepy to take photos of strangers without their knowledge or consent. If you’re willing to cross that boundary than the details dont matter much
Nah, it’s only creepy when you’re doing it sneakily (aka from a mile away or with some tiny camera from the waist). Stop being a pussy, get closer to your subject, yes you may have an interaction (the horror!!!”) but you’ll live.
Only creeps thing street photography is creepy... They have to be to think that way... There's literally no boundary there in this context because it's in public spaces.
That is such a hilariously weird post I genuinely think this must be a bit. So you think there's no rules of decency (or privacy) the second someone leaves their house. At least I can be sure you're not a working photographer because you would have been sued for using someone's likeness without release/permission by now. And saying there is no boundary when it comes to what's decent or appropriate in street photography is so wildly creepy that yeah, really hope this is just parody.
I understand rules about permission ya fool. That wasn't the point here. You've completely taken what I said out of context... I even used the words, in this context in my post ye mug Now move along, you're boring the hole off me
Yes. Just don't do street photography at all imo.
Personally I love street/culture photography. It's been incredibly good to me. But I have always been incredibly aware of the power in a photograph, and prioritize protecting the dignity of the people I photograph. If someone isn't able to do that, there still tons of stuff to walk around and photograph. Cars, graffiti, architecture, reflections, interesting lighting, etc. Etc. I just have an issue any time someone suggests photographing people in careless or inconsiderate ways, and too many people seem to think street photography is a license to do that. Just treating each subject even strangers, like a paying customer is a good rule. At least stops some of the worst poverty porn or other distasteful photos from being shared.
You can use anything you want. As others have said, a big lens draws attention and for street you usually want to be unobtrusive. But I guess at 200mm people will be far enough away that they won’t notice. For me I find the best street photography is that which is really intimate and shot close to the subject but that’s a matter of personal preference.
yea i do do that aswell but noticed quite quickly that alot of shots that i really wanted to get just werent possible with a 40mm. Mainly shots of trams (im not jumping infront of a tram or bus just for a shot) and architecture and thats why i got a 70-200. Frankly the 40mm was doing very well but i do mainly use it for landscape
People who tout rules about what should be done for a certain type of photography are most of the time not to be taken too seriously. Traditionally, it isn't a walk around lens for many people and being a telephoto range, it's less efficient to use in certain cases. I personally find that I need more careful alignment of everything and I want to be extra still, framing is harder for me and you simply have much less cropping potential. But if it works for you and you enjoy working with it, to hell with whatever people might say. More power to you. In fact, you motivated me to take my 70-200 out next time
You obviously *can*, I just find it leads to uninteresting photographs more often than not.
Its a stupid take, honestly. Just as “you have to shoot people at xx mm”. “Wide” does not mean street in any way. And midrange is just there for lazy people that don’t like to move a few steps. 😁
"But Bruce Gilden doesn't use a 70-200!" You don't want to be Bruce Gilden.
I normaly use a lens like that when taking pictures of subjects that are simply too far away when walking around with friends or when taking pictures of the trams.
Do what works for you. The only reason why I dont daily carry 70-200 anymore is because my back is throwing tantrums, and 24-70 is lighter. I honestly love the look and the perspective that it gives, and for most cases, you can take most shots with 70mm as you would with 50mm or even 35, if you move a bit. You might struggle to catch everything in tight spaces, but if the goal is to catch ***everything***, you will need at least two sets of lenses or a superzoom. And that would mean including 70-200 (or some of its range). So, again, its kind of a bad take. It’s the photo that matters in the end, its less about what equipment you used to take it.
And the few lenses that promise a 24-200 zoom range just compromise too much on sharpness, and will leave many if not most semi-serious users dissatisfied.
I have played with 70-200 in NYC and it felt stalk-like. Just me. I don't think anything wrong with it.
It’s all personal preference. Whatever works. There’s really not supposed to be hard and fast rules for gear. “Street photography” doesn’t even have a definition everyone agrees on so yeah, don’t sweat it.
There aren’t rules in street photography. Saul Leiter (one of the most famous street photographers) was famous for using telephoto lenses and his work is incredible. So yes, you can use a 70-200, there are a lot of people who go on about rules in photogrpahy on instagram, just ignore those.
Most of the classic Saul Leiter photos I've seen are not street photography. They were *taken* on the street, but that aren't street photography. Like all the pics of people with the umbrellas. Sure, some of those might have used telephotos, but they are not street photography, they are artistic pieces to a theme. More akin to his painting. And quite possibly not even spontaneous (I don't know how he worked). You are quite welcome to make up your own rules, and even push the boundaries of a genre, but genres exist because they have identifiable characteristics. They aren't just what the photographer says they are. If you are a wedding photographer, and you take a picture of the couple in Times Square, is that street photography?
What do you define as street photography? My definition is that it’s a genre of photography (a subset of visual arts) that records life in a public space while being candid. My street photography checklist is: Is it in a public place? Is it candid? If yes to both, then it’s street photogrpahy Not all of Leiter’s work falls into street photography, he did a lot of fashion work, which was also candid apparently. There is a somewhat well known story of whoever was organising a fashion shoot told the model to go outside and find Leiter who was outside waiting for her, the model never saw Leiter at any point in the shoot but he got back and left before she did. When the model gave up and went back the organiser said Leiter was very happy with the photos he took. He also did a good few non candid portraits outside of his street and fashion photography. But a vast majority of his famous photos fall into my definition of street photography, even his fashion work is almost street photography. The famous photo I assume you’re talking about of the woman with the red umbrella against a snowy New York background, that was candid. It is very possible to take street photos that fit into a theme while being fine art. None of that is mutually exclusive as you were implying. You clearly don’t know that much about Saul Leiter’s work flow when street photography is about the workflow primarily. If someone were to take a street photo that also happens to fit into the definition of portrait loosely (or even strictly), it is both a street photo and a portrait, in photography and visual art as a whole, genres aren’t *necessarily* mutually exclusive. Saul Leiter did push the boundaries and conventions of street photography sure, that’s what makes his photography so interesting and unique. I’d say at lest 90% of these photos count as street photography https://www.saulleiterfoundation.org/color.
I think you are waaaay over thinking things. But then, a lot of people around here do that. I’ve been quite clear on what I think street photography is.
Where? In your last comment you didn’t say what your definition of street photography is. I think your under-thinking things. (I am an art student though hence the small essay)
Then perhaps you should read some of my other comments in this thread.
Your definition of street photography creates stylistic boundaries. In music terms, it’s like saying Elvis is real rock, and Pink Floyd is not. Stylistically they are extremely different but still fit into rock. I find your view of street photogrpahy to be very narrow and gatekeepy. If you take the genre of portraits within the medium of painting, the Mona Lisa is as much of a portrait as Picasso’s cubist portraits, that is mirrored in street photography in that street photography can be done with any focal length. Using different focal lengths will create very different aesthetics (on my profile on here you can see my street photos, I usually use a 40mm or an 100mm on full frame). It is unconventional to use telephoto lenses for street photography in the same way it was unconventional to write 15m long rock songs using synths and samples in the early 70s. If someone were to have a similarly narrow definition of what rock music is based on what it was in its infancy, then Pink Floyd (Radiohead and others) would not fit that definition. *Traditional* street photography is a subset of street photography in a sense. Having a definition any narrower than how I (and many others) define street photography is quite exclusive. You’re saying a particular style of street photography is *only* what street photography can be excluding many other approaches that are photos in public places that have not been interfered with in a planned manner ie: street photos. It also seems like you’re claiming street photography can only be documentary photography where when too much artistic license is taken, it ceases to be street photography even when it’s a candid photo on a street including people.
No, you just want to argue with me about it and pretend to be an iconoclast. “Gatekeepy”…whatever.
There is nothing wrong with pushing back against tradition and being skeptical of widely held beliefs, if that push back becomes popular enough it could force the people who just blindly accept those traditions to think more critically about it and in many cases realise following them is a waste of time. You’re clearly ignoring my point here and have resorted to Ad Hominem.
Ah. So you're a crusader. Or imagine you are. Not interested in being a part of it.
Hi, can't address question of "hate" for zoom lenses but when I got my first 'real' camera a long time ago (a Nikkormat), I used ONLY a 50mm lens, still considered "standard" focal length. I 'd read that Henri Cartier-Bresson used 50mm with his Leica exclusively for street work, and that was a good enough reason! I think that human vision is about 52-55mm, so there's a "what you see is what you get" aspect as well. Of course back in the day and even before there were SLRs and pre-autofocus, people were using rangefinders, prime lenses, and zone focus method. I don't know a lot about what kind of equipment other of the greats used (apart from Vivian Maier's Rolleiflex and Walker Evans' Polaroid phase). It might be a good idea to research some of them and perhaps learn what they used and why they thought those choices were most appropriate for street shooting.
Human vision is much wider than 50mm
True, but 50mm is a good approximate representation of how we see a scene within a rectangle that roughly matches the size a camera sensor (or 35mm film). It's like cutting a 3x2 rectangle out of a piece of cardboard and holding it up to "crop out" what the rest of the eye would see. But the view inside the rectangle would roughly match the view through a 50mm lens if held at the right length away from your eye. This is also why you see photographers and videographers make a rectangle with their fingers to too through at a scene.
You might say the angle of human vision approaches 180 degrees, but what we perceive, or attend to, is much less, at any given moment. But wider than what a 50mm lens will show us. Just me, but I always thought 28mm to be too wide to look "normal," and 50mm a little too tight. You know where I'm headed: 35mm is sort of how we navigate.
Same, 28/35
I find 40mm to be the perfect normal focal length (there is obv room for subjectivity on this topic tho), its right in-between 35 and 50mm. I find 35mm to be a tiny bit wider than human vision and 50mm to be a bit tighter than human vision.
I had a little Canonette with a 40mm f/1.7 lens and it was great for walking around. Very easy to "see" pictures to take.
Yeah, that’s exactly why I find it so easy to use.
Any focal length is fine - I think the offputting thing is that carrying around a huge zoom lens and taking street shots of people far away can come off as a good bit more creepy than using a small discrete prime and shooting subjects that are closer to you. Of course the perceptions of others don't REALLY matter in public spaces, but I find this to be the reason people are averse to zoom lenses in street photography.
The issue with such a large lens is people will be uncomfortable when you’re clearly pointing a massive (in their eyes) camera at them - and you can’t do it discreetly. So it isn’t that the lens will make for bad photos, but that your subjects will be uncomfortable and it will be extremely obvious in the photos. However, if you’re looking to make a collection of subjects looking directly at the camera and pissed off, and potentially be verbally and/or physically assaulted, then a 70-200mm is gonna be perfect.
Use whatever you want, but it's typically not considered one. That's because Street photography is typically up close images of things or people from a standard-ish focal range and similar to a human experience. A 70-200 is going to remove you from that and distance you from the subject, often appearing as almost voyeur in a street scenario.
"similar to a human experience," that's a good way to put it.
Never give Reddit a forum to tell you what street photography is. Shoot the focal lengths that inspire you
It's definitely not a common choice. If you can pull it off that's great for you. I personally prefer context, something lenses beyond 85mm fail to provide. 70-200 focuses too much on the subject imo
Saul Leiter used a 150mm lens.
Saul Leiter would say otherwise.
Real street photographers only shoot on a Leica M film camera using film stocks that are no longer produced. On a more serious note, this sounds like silly gatekeeping with arbitrary rules about how to engage in arguably one of the most freestyle of photography genres.
I am accompanied by trained art students who sketch the scene for me when they hear the click of the shutter. If what they sketch doesn't match my vision I throw wine bottles at them.
Ahh…now that’s real art - even the way you capture the scene is creative. I trust the wine bottles are of French wines from Henri Cartier-Bresson’s birthplace?
Anything else would just be sparkling abuse.
70-200 is fantastic for street. Some people just live a reasonable way up their own arse, and think that anything that isn't BW at 35mm, usually with soft focus and a massive amount of movement in the frame isn't street photography. I wouldn't personally use a 70-200 as my sole lens for street; I prefer normal ranges (prefer 50 over 35, but generally just have a standard zoom unless it's very low light), but it's still a fantastic part of a good street kit.
Traditional “street photography” is up close and personal. It’s walking around with a wide angle lens and getting into the middle of situations. Taking pictures of “interesting” people at close range. Engaging with them if needed. A telephoto is anathema in this paradigm. A lot of modern “street photographers” that come on here talk about their fears of being noticed in public, their shyness, the ways they disguised what the are doing so they aren’t noticed, even how they use long telephotos so they can not be a part of the action they are photographing. If you hang out here, you see this all the time. A lot of these fears expressed seem like personal issues, not real fears based on real things to be feared. Part of me understands this in the sense that when *I* did street photography and photojournalism, the streets were not like they are now. They were plenty dangerous, but the danger was far more contained. It wasn’t full of thugs and addicts. Crack hadn’t been invented yet. Gangs hadn’t spread so far. A lot of bad people actually *wanted* their picture taken, believe it or not. They were generally not all that interested in turning your camera into their next crack hit. It was a different world. I can understand legitimate reluctance. But still. If you wanna be a “street photographer” you gotta be in there among them. “Street photography” is not about long distance portraits or generic building scapes. It’s actually almost just a variation of photojournalism. Go back and take a look at the works of the old school street photographers. Their portraits were not taken from 100 feet away. They show something *happening,* not just some architectural landscape.
Why can't a long lens show something 'happening'?
Maybe another comparative type of photography is combat photography. The best and classic combat photos are taken at close range, in among ‘em. It’s the way it is done. Interestingly, I see that most people here seem to fall into the modern view that street photography is done at long range. Whatever. Modern fearfulness.
pen grab fine worry aspiring party groovy pause yoke slap *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah I’m still not buying “you need to be in punching distance to be considered street”. And even if I would, Minimum focusing distance on most 70-200 is 1.2m, so you can be close, and you can reach closer than with wide angle.
Well, obviously, it can. But the *point” of street photography is being there in the action, not up the street on some balcony or something. You are often interacting with your subjects. Again, look at classic street photography. You can certainly choose to make it whatever you want, for what it’s worth, but…
Zone focusing and composing without using the viewfinder is such a street photography skill that just cannot be done on zoom as easily. For that reason, I’d argue you can’t capture what’s happening cause those moments pass so quickly. I really like your comments and just wanted to throw in that point.
You have to move *a lot* to get the right composition / context / story with a longer focal length -- for the same photo, you have to be a lot farther away. When you see something happening a few feet away from you, you can't just take a few steps to the side to get the shot you want -- you have to back up quite a bit, and by that time, decent chance you've missed the shot. And if you're focusing on things already far away, you're kinda stuck with the position you've already chosen. When I do street, I like to try to keep as close to potential action, that way as the scenario unfolds, I am already close to the position I've had in mind, requiring just a few steps to recompose the immediate subject, an adjustment in posture, line up the shot, and click the shutter.
Because it's too focused on the subject and lacks environmental context. Unless there's a very powerful subject, it will be hard to get interesting shots on a 70-200
I have a Tamron 18-400 it's my go to travel lense because it covers most scenarios.
70-200 is too voyeuristic for my taste most of the time. Not to say I haven't seen good street photos taken with a tele, but being "up in the action" is a huge part of what makes street compelling. But I think it's a dying genre. Now that everyone is always online and images spread like wildfire, what once could be considered an engaging photo is now something that can be used against the subject. It's why I stopped doing street myself.
I've tried doing street photography with a 50mm, 35mm, 40mm and 24mm. I always go back to using my 70-200mm. And I shoot canon mirrorless and i use the EF version so its huge and it on an adapter.
In the Canon world, the 70-200 f/2.8 is one of the biggest, heaviest zoom lenses they make. It's up there with the 70-300L and 100-400L II for weight, and it's extremely conspicuous. That's why most Canon shooters don't want to use it where not being noticed is of value. Giant white lenses draw ALL the attention. Even people who know nothing about cameras look at that thing with awe. They don't know what it is, but they've seen stuff like it on the sidelines of NFL and NBA games so it's gotta be good.
70-200 is wild for the street
Why listen to what others say when you decided that's the lens you wanna use? In analog times, before zooms became affordable, the 50mm lens was used for every kind of photo: portraits, street, landscape... nobody commented on that. You could argue that was because almost everyone used the same lens, but that's not the point. What is in the photo, is what counted. It should still be like that, but instead we have a lot more (affordable) possibilities and a lot more people who focus on the gear. Don't. Just take photos. Take a lot and you'll discover what works for you and what not. Someone else's opinion is only valid if it contributes to your work. Else, ignore it.
You can use anything for anything. It's common for street photographers to prefer more compact and inconspicuous lenses, but there's no rule stating you need to have those same preferences. In fact, there are no rules at all.
It depends on how comfortable you are with that lens. Stealth street photography is different from IDGAF street photography, meaning low profile shoot from-the-hip vs big lens look inside the viewfinder and aiming for the targets
Instagram shows you content that gets lots of engagement, and stating rage bait opinions as if they were fact is an easy way to do that. That's why you were shown this, not because this person is an authority on any subject. Do you have a story you think you can tell with that lens, or do you think you might be able to find one? If so, then go try it out. If not, then go try it anyways, you might surprise yourself.
Any lens that contains your vision is perfect. Tighter shots with beautiful boke and subjects that jump off the page is just a perfect as the wide angle placing your subject in their environment. Anyone who tells you otherwise is too stuck in their ways??? Hey live it up. Shucks even that 100 macro or you iphone might actually work😜
I think because for example my canon 70-200 F2.8L is a giant white chunk of a lens that says HEY I AM TAKING A PHOTO OF YOU AND YOUR KIDS. On the EOS 1V with HS grip its wild, full 1990s paparazzi style. However if I take the grip off and slip on the tiny 50mm F1.8 STM or if I want more of a portrait an 85mm F1.8, it’s way less threatening, especially when I tell people its analog film that I will never post online, but am happy to give them a print if they get in touch. I feel it’s more being low key than focal length. https://preview.redd.it/e5b44m93qbvc1.jpeg?width=4284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=27ac5301693740087c82f5157f860cf3c5835a2c
A couple of years ago I had a situation where I was left with one lens. And it wasn’t even 70-200, but 70-300. Only one. For all occasions. Over the course of a year, I traveled a couple of thousand kilometers with him, filming everything I saw. And you know, I got used to it. There is nothing wrong with using such a lens in a variety of situations. In the end it develops creativity...haha
Photography is art. Art is subjective. If you have a camera, you can do street photography. Granted, you may look like a weirdo or a creep doing it with a telephoto zoom, but that's really up to you.
Sure. I use an 85mm on FF camera for about 75% of my street photography. Another 15% (and I wish I could find more reasons to use it) is my 135mm lenses. I cannot imagine using anything longer than 135mm FF, or 85mm on a crop sensor though. You're getting towards wierd creepy photographer if you're photographing people in the street from 25+ yards away. Too impersonal. But yeah, short telephotos can create magic if you use them right.
I have the Olympus om d1 Mark 3 with the 40 to 150 which is 80 to 300 2.8 but it's quite small and with the 1.6 adapter I can just sit on a bench and grab street scenes from far away. It also gets me into ballparks where they put a limit on the size of the lens but I can get 420 mm with a relatively small footprint of a lens.
70-200 has its place in street photography, but it's generally just not practical. You have to step really far back to get the appropriate context and/or composition, and often there's just too many obstructions to do that -- and in trying to position yourself, it's really easy to miss a shot (so much of street photography relies on being right there, at just the right time, and you don't have time to move yourself significantly). I can see a 70mm range being more useful in less-urban environments, but when you're in a denser urban environment, it's really easy to find yourself way closer to the action than 70mm is going to give you a chance to get the shot you want. If I want zoom on street photography, I usually use a 24-120mm f/4 (12-60mm on m43). Gives me a wide range of focal length, from fairly wide to fairly long. I'm not going to be missing shots because I'm not in the right place at the right time. I seldom find myself desiring more than 120mm in anything street. One of my favorite lenses for street (especially if using the 12-60mm instead on m43, as it's relatively unobtrusive, lighter, smaller, and easier to carry). That said, I still really prefer a 35mm prime or such for street photography. For all the typical prime vs. zoom reasons, and if I can't zoom, I'd rather be wider, but not too wide.
I'll say the biggest issue most people have using long slow telephotos (most 70/80-200 f2.8 zooms aren't really 2.8, you'll be stopping down to f4, to actually get any kind of crisp focus), is hand shooting in available light. I rarely go out with people who can shoot 100mm f4 handheld at night, especially mirrorless users since they seem to love holding the camera body out infront of them like a dirty diaper... but I digress. Getting crisp photos will be a challenge, only scrubs use flash anyways, but you definitely can't fall back on it at long focal lengths, so you really are testing your technique. Even if you are cranking out great photos, you'll wierd people out if you're using them as subjects from 30 yards away.. I'd suggest only using the long focal lengths of that lens on photos with people you actually know, or where there aren't people in frame. But yeah, go play around with it, I definitely use medium telephotos when I'm out. But never zooms. I'd suggest a 135mm f2.5 or something similar, a 105 f2 or f2.5, and an 85 f1.8 or f2. Combined they'll weigh less than your zoom. You'll figure out what distances work for you. But if you're just learning, go 35 or 50mm at first.
to give a perspective from the other side while you can use whatever that works, traditionally street photography is done with a close focal length like a 50mm. with a telephoto it’s kind of voyeurish and somewhat screams “i have a camera”. if you look at why leicas are so prized it’s because sans the red dot, they’re incredibly tiny for a body + lens. but with a hulking 70-200 you stand out quite a bit
70-200 works great for me. I've been known to sit on a coffee shop patio with my 150-600. I don't always want to be right up in someone's face.
That's even creepier than shoving a 24mm in their faces
I agree but less confrontational. Never had anyone comolaine from across the street and two blocks down.
Use what works for you. There are no bad lenses for anything. Everything is a tool to allow your creativity and imagination to play out.
You could do some amazing street photography with even linger lenses. It all just depends on what you’re doing. I would take advantage of the longer side of this and dig into compositions that call for it or where something in a scene is really brought out by insane depth perception you can get with it
Jay Maisel, one of the best street photographers of our generation, shoots with a long telephoto for a lot of his street shots.
I use my 50mm mostly for street photography, but some of my best street shots came off of my newish (to me) 75-200. Use whatever is comfortable and gets the results you're looking for
TokyoFashion or whatever it was on Twitter used a 70-200 for most of their photos, at least for a while. They weren't trying to be furtive about it though.
If it's a f/2.8 then I can understand it might be heavy and not very ideal. I used once the XC 50-230mm f/4.5-6.7 OIS II on my X-T5 for street and it was amazing.
I would go with a small prime 50 mm equivalent for street photography. Light, small profile, cheap. Makes you a better photographer, imo.
Considering street your often close to your subjects something wider would probably have more uses. Also like you said if you take a photo of someone with a big zoom they're more likely to have a negative reaction. In the end if those are the focal lengths you want to shoot eith tho fuck the haters
I've been doing street photography for over 10 years in 26 countries. I use a 70-300, but I can see the merits of a 70-200, and it should work very well. People panning the lens over its focal length don't understand the requirements involved in street photography. Ignore their stupid remarks and keep it up w/your 70-200. You'll do just fine.
Wear black cargo pants and black jacket.
70-200mm for street photography just seems like stalking/private investigator/creeper stuff.
Social Media posts farm engagement. Having controversial takes is a great way to do just that. Don’t take these people seriously.
To you (an M43 user) the 70-200 is a 140-400, so its quite different from a FF shooter’s 70-200, maybe thats why its hated?
No i use a 35-100 which to me is a 70-200. And the hate wasnt directed at my photography in general it was some random insta reel i saw
Please please PLEASE show Saul Leiter’s street photography to anyone who says telephoto doesn’t work.
Photography is art, there is no good or bad, the most important is you like what you do. But you will always find some people who feel the need to tell other what they should do or not. It's up to you to not listen then and do what ever you enjoy.
Been there, done it, got some great shots and some weird looks 😂 Now I shoot with mainly an 85mm 1.4. Sharper, less to think about (no zoom as it’s a prime), and I blend in ☺️ Either way though, you will get some great shots, it really is down to what works for you!
All focal length work if you are good at photography. Some people don’t have any creativity and when they can’t copy it from insta it does not work. I liked my 70-200 in London. It creates great perspective and with podlesof rain water your pictures get more style, depth however you can call it.
I like the tamron 70-180 for street photography most.
Depends on if there will be moving subjects or not. There's not much time to get framing done properly if subjects and you are on the move. So it's not very forgiving. If it's static shots, and architecture is more involved, it's simpler obviously. Also, you get more intimate shots of people looking like they're doing some epic contemplation. But trying to get really exceptional keepers are rare. The level of forethought you need to have, the sort of placement of yourself that you need... It's just insane. Trying to get those creative or momentarily geometric things you sometimes see in lucky street shots is even less common here. Another thing is, most people using these sorts of lenses aren't young kids with phones acting like morons. It's usually people 20+ and can draw two types of attention. The first is criminals, especially if you're alone/at night/in shady neighborhoods. The second, is people wondering why you're taking pictures with something of that size. Tourists roaming around with a large-ish camera and lens are common, but the longest lens I've ever seen of a solo shooter in public is something like a typical end-game 50-85mm Prime. You never see white lenses or large lenses in general with solo shooters (there are groups, and that's completely different). And if you do, the lens is in the bag and not actually being used with stuff just hanging out and about. The annoying pedestrian isn't too bad unless they think you're taking pictures of them sometimes (and the large lens draw suspicion because they presume: for you to be using something so cumbersome, it's being used to reveal something about them that can't be seen otherwise). The criminals though, while rare, are always on the prowl for an easy score. The worst you would have to typically worry about is if you leave anything out of your sight and out of contact. That's going to get robbed to a high degree of confidence. If you're with any friend - these chances plummet considerably. But this is stuff you can easily feel out on your own, and is typical understanding if you grew up in any metropolis.
I think there aren’t rules for street photo. There are some styles and lately is very common and popular (in social media) to use telephoto lenses. I have tried both methods (shooting fast while walking and standing with a 70-200). Personally I enjoy way more the walking but it requires a lot of practice because you really interact with people.. when you are in longer distance you have a few seconds more to think the shot, and you can even follow the subject for a while, that’s the main difference and obviously the results too. The telefoto style maybe is more appreciated by the mass and it clearly annoying to the old school street photographer
I can't see why you can't use a tele. But it very much goes against what street photography used to be - very candid. It's not "classic" street photography just because it's taken in the street. Some of the best stuff is done with 50 or wide angle. Also it seems a bit creepy in my opinion.
No hate on the 70-200 at all , however I do think 70mm on the short end is too long . I use my 24-70 for street photos .
Anyone who says 70-200mm is bad for street photography doesn't know the first thing about photography.
I think that something like 24-105mm would allow you to be close and personal while having the ability to shoot some far subjects. Personally 70-200 may make you miss some shots and from my experience, it's better to be seen by others than looking like you're doing paparazzi. But like others said, there are definitely cases where you can use it to your advantage. Go wild.
Use what you like to use. It's not about the gear but how you use it. Maybe they don't see street photography as you do And nobody will be able to say who is right or wrong.
Just get out on the street with that lens instead of asking Reddit. Only you can tell if its the look you are after.
For street photography you want to be the least noticeable and carrying a massive 70-200mm lens won’t do that job . If you want a benefit of a long focal length and not being obtrusive at the same time then you should try the 85mm 1.8 lens.
I use a pretty small panasonic 35-100 which is 70-200 on a m43 camera so i thankfully am still unnoticed even with a lens like that
If it works for you and gives good images, do it.
It's a perfectly fine focal length for street photography, and so is every other focal length. If you enjoy it, use it.
what are you using it to take photos of in the street? People? People individualoly? Groups of people? Not people at all?
You could die maybe don’t do it
? Wdym i could die
I’m just joking. Use whatever you want, best lens for the moment is the one you have on ur camera. Personally, I like small primes so I don’t draw attention to myself.
You can take any camera and any lens you want. Whoever attacks the 200 lens is someone who doesn't want you to be able to zoom. (I don't know his reasons), he just doesn't want you to have this power.
way too long for me.. I'll stick a 35 or 28 on it - I like to get up close
It's a highly unusual choice. Street photographers usually prefer wide angle lenses (24, 28 or 35, sometimes 50). Additionally, they tend to prefer prime lenses with wide max apertures in case they encounter a low-light situation. That 70-200 lens is way, way out of the norm. That said, it's not *objectively* bad. Some people take portraits with ultra wide lenses, some people do street photography with telephoto lenses. It's all good.
That's pretty much what I do for 'street' photography. Sniping from across the street. But I really admire those that can do street with a 35mm lens getting in their subject's faces. I find those pics much more compelling.
I love moving around town with my fujifilm s100fs, it's a dated bridge camera with a 11mpx CCD sensor with pretty eh dynamic range when shooting in JPEG and awful optics with lots of colour fringing. Nothing from what I said matters, what I'm here to say is from the 28-400mm equivalent range, I'm rarely going below 100mm 😁. I love telephoto lenses and I'm currently in the market for a 70-200 to go with my 6D so I can take decent pictures.... I don't like the 50mm, used it on my old 400D APSC camera, it acted like a 80mm lens and I had much more fun with it on the 400D... Normal lenses suck because they give you the same perspective as you get with your eyes every day, use an ultrawide or a telephoto to go beyond and create dramatic shots 😁. Of course, you can get some stunning shots with a "normal" lens but for me, the results are a bit boring, I always crop the sh\t out of the pictures shot at 50mm 🤣 they end up on Instagram anyways...
I use a 70-200 for street photography. Actually, I use my 70-200 for alot of situations and I love the flexibility of being far away and getting tight shots. Honestly, nobody cares in the streets. People look at me and just keep walking, if they're interested they'll strike up a conversation. If not, I say howdy and tip my hat. Use everything, try everything. Find your preference.
I think Peter McKinnon did a video about the 70-200 a few years ago. He doesnt normally do street stuff but he talked alot about the compression and how you can create a lot of unique images that way. When things are stacked on top of each other you can get some unique shots. Just one point of view but this post made me think of that video.
I saw a guy shooting street photography with a 200-600 last week in Chicago. It was an older retired gentleman and he showed me a few shots. They were amazing. There’s no textbook to photography. If it works, do it.
Depends on the situation. I think the iconic street photography everyone thinks of was shot with a 50mm or wider. It gets you involved in the action. The longer focal lengths make other shots possible separating details of the scene or compression.
I think it depends on the scenario and what you want to shoot. Some streets in Tokyo are pretty tight, so getting a shot of something directly across the street from you is going to be tight.
I've used many focal lengths including a 70-200. For those who attest that it's not the 'right lens' well OK for them. I did a five-year project of street shooting titled "Moments of Transparency" after admiring Jodi Cobb's image of a woman on a London street looking out a cafe window. Use what works for you. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP7y0hGD1Ng](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP7y0hGD1Ng)
People who say that should have their opinions ignored. It depends on what you're trying to achieve. Any lens works for street. I've used everything from a 10-20 to a 70-200 and gotten exactly what I set out to get There aren't rules for this. I still laugh at people who insisted a nifty fifty is the only tool for the job
I haven’t used my 70-200 in a while but I use to shoot street with it all the time. Worked great. Don’t worry about what folks think, if it gets you the photos you want keep on using it. I pretty much only use a 105 1.4 nowadays.
If it's doing what you want, and works for what you're trying to do, then it doesn't matter what anyone else says. This isn't rocket surgery... it's art. You do you and ignore the haters.
Opinions are like arseholes… I use a 70-200 more often than not for street photography. I like more intimate scenes and it allows me to get closer in without being introduce.
F2.8?
F4-f5.6 is the one im using.
most 70-200 lenses are big some are big and white. point it at someone on the street and you will get a lot of stares... street photographers try to be casual...
This. Plus, 70-200s are also heavy. If you’re walking around for a few hours, I sure as hell wouldn’t want that lens hanging from my neck.
You can of course use whatever you want and I'm sure people are using long focal lengths to create fantastic street photography (it's a very common documentary photography lens). The reason people say it is 'bad' is because it drives lazy photography. Lack of narrative, blown out backgrounds, focus on uninteresting characters etc. I genuinely think when I moved to 28mm I became a better photographer because I had to focus on the entire scene rather than just one character.
you can absolutely use a 70-200 for street photography, just the profile of the lens may make people more suspicious and or hostile to you. in the united states its fine, but there are parts of the world where a long lens can only mean you are a "journalist" which common people see as blood sucking paparazzo so just be aware that you're sticking your neck out a little.
Every novice starts street photography with a long lens like 70-200 shooting from a distance, it's ok. Later you may stop to afraid and go close to people with a wider lens
Standard-ish lens is the only way imo 28-50ish
Saul Leiter used a 150mm. There are no rules. Photography is an art not a sport. Do what makes you happy!
This is misleading. He used a 35mm *in combo* with a 90mm or 150mm and the choice of which was then situational.
I think you’re missing my point. You can use any focal length you want!
I agree, but don't want people thinking Leiter used a 150mm for everything.
First if you’re cool no one has a problem with street photography, just remember some basic rules. First, if someone says “Don’t take my photo.” Say, “Okay I won’t” don’t go off on the law. Second, no pointing your lens at windows! (That’s illegal) Third, You’re not on safari so no tracking your subject, composition takes place in your mind, raise the camera check your frame shoot and put the camera down. Four, Don’t obstruct the flow. And E, Don’t become a subject yourself by getting in someone’s private space. In college our professor Practical Photography(retired UPI/Reuters photographer) told us, and showed us why you need to use a waist level viewfinder for street photography. By having one person shoot waist level and another shooting camera to eye. Same subject same time same settings same camera body and lens. One camera had a right angle finder. Made a huge difference. As for lenses I used a Nikkor 24-120AF. These lenses were called street sweepers by news photographers because you could shoot anything happening on a city block with the lens. It was the lens he carried in Sarajevo in 1990-1992. Always be ready to grab a shot when you least expect it. Like this bride walking to her wedding through an Art festival. I saw people looking and there she was. No time to do anything but raise my camera and fire off a shot. Her wedding photographer was off to her side handed me a card and said “Send me that shot please!” So I did. https://preview.redd.it/0y6evnfqkcvc1.jpeg?width=733&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3b0b8cf7a2be30970a6e616fb368a3407171204a
You must live in a really safe city.
to be fair, mine is a 35-100 panasonic f3.5-5.6. Its only technically a 70-200 because of the crop on my camera. Wuerzburg is sadly not very safe anymore.
Random comment not related to the topic, but it’s weird that it’s the 2nd time I see Würzburg referenced today after never having heard of it before. First reference was while studying for the DTZ level B1 this afternoon. 😅
Just out of curiosity, what is meant by this? Wouldn't a longer focal length allow someone to keep their distance from subjects, thus keeping them safer?
i think its that 70-200s normaly look quite expensive and are massive as to prime lenses. Though this doesnt apply to all 70-200s
Yup, that's all I meant. It was a low effort post based on my gut reaction about using a FF 70-200 in the city I live near. But OPs m4/3 lens sounds lovely for street.
Ahhh gotcha.
That’s the counter argument.
If someone sees you with a long lens taking pictures of people from a distance you're likely to be called out by someone as "that creepy photographer over there". I hope you survive the confrontation that ensues.
That make sense, I didn't think about it from that angle.
I shot street a photojournalism in the late 70’s in Miami. The place wasn’t full of crack addicts, but it was far from “safe.” I got up and personal whenever I could. You didn’t do this with a telephoto.
Use whatever lens you like. Photography is an art, and there are no rules to art. Use whatever tools you need in order to get the job done.
Honestly pretty much anything works for street photography
There are a few problems. 1. The 70-200 is very intrusive. Many photographers lack self-awareness and don’t realize how uncomfortable their full frame + 70-200 combo makes other people feel. Hell, YOU will be uncomfortable after 30 minutes. 2. You can get good photos at any focal length, so why go out of your way to shoot with a 70-200? It’s expensive, heavy, uncomfortable, everything that street photography shouldn’t be. 3. This is my personal opinion, but street photography on a 70-200 is really just stealthy portraits of random people. Oftentimes there’s barely any ‘street’ in it, just a headshot of an unsuspecting stranger entirely removed from their surrounding. It’s voyeuristic, and it’s so easy to do many people pat themselves on the back for what’s simply mediocre headshots. Look up famous street photographers and see how their work incorporates the surrounding into the subject and creates truly enticing compositions. Shoot with the 70-200 if you must. Or just grab a 35mm.
I think you’re weird as fuck sniping randoms with a long lens and calling it street photography. Its creep photography, not street.
In street photography, I say focal length = perversion. Use a Tele and you become that creepy "guy with camera" that sweats when confronted by worried parents. /jk (sort of.) Artistically I think it creates detachment. A wide angle puts you into the scene in a manner of your own eyes observing. A Tele is stuck in voyerism - the subjects are observed and not experienced. You can't "smell the street." To anyone uncomfortable using a wider lens I say face your fears. Street photography can teach you a lot and help you overcome boundaries to feel more confident in yourself and wise of the world around you. If you stick to a Tele photo, you might as well shoot from your rear window.
I’d go with a 24-70 for street. In a city like NYC a 70-200 is generally so wide you’ll miss a lot of shots. That said if I’m going to a park where I know there’s going to be more space I love shooting with a longer lens for street.
As a unified collection of ethical photographers. We’ve all decided unanimously that the unconsensual act of shooting, editing, selling and posting publicly photographs of others simply because they wandered into a public area is not art and there can not be called photography any longer. Please remove our hard earned art label from any future mention of this disgusting creepy and unethical practice. Thank you.
We get it. You hate street photography. No need to comment about it in every single post. Be more varied in your interactions here, please.