I have found this illustration that shows how the framing of a subject varies at different focal lengths. At first glance, 10mm vs 17mm is quite a big difference. But then again, it seems like the photographer could just have stepped back a meter or two and have the same frame content with 17mm as with 10mm in the current position.

So I wonder ... is there a way to calculate how many meters you have to step back to fit a 10 mm frame into a 17mm focal length?


Object size in the frame has a simple linear relationship to focal length, so if you're filling the frame at 1 meter with the 10mm lens, you'd have to step back to 1.7 meters to get the object in the frame with a 17mm lens.

It's worth pointing out that stepping back and using a longer focal length is not a direct substitute - you will end up with a different looking image. Specifically you will have less background in shot (background objects will all appear larger) and you'll have a flatter, slightly more natural looking perspective.

This technique is often used by portrait photographers who step a long way back and tend to shoot at 85mm or more. The flatter perspective is more flattering, for example the "smaller background" effect of a 10mm would make the face look smaller in comparison with the nose, thereby making the nose look bigger than it would look to the human eye.

  • awesome, that simple :) so compression aside, this means for near objects i could get away with stepping back a bit. But for landscapes stepping back would mean going hundreds of meters. Makes sense. – rompetroll Sep 20 '12 at 14:24
  • 1
    Yeah I only bust out a the super-wide angle when I physically can't back up any more. – Matt Grum Sep 20 '12 at 14:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.