No that title isn't some obscure bit of SQL code. Not doing that to you today. This is Fish Creek bridge 2, not once, not twice, but 3!, 3! THREE times for all of you. There's a reason why I did all three. Before I tell you why, do you have any preference? Don't be afraid to take a minute and embiggen each one.
So far I think this is the prettiest of the Fish Creek bridges, especially when it comes to background. I just love how the bridge emerges from the trees on either side, and that hillside of trees backdrop is beautiful, especially with snow on the trees. The arch and colour of the bridge are a nice contrast, but not jarring.
But why? Ok ok. The first was shot quite close with a 50 mm lens, the second quite a bit further away (but I'm not sure if it's twice as far) with the 100 mm lens, and the third a long way off with the 200 mm lens. A really long way, on the order of half a K away. All the shots were on a tripod with the same aperture (f22 for you photographers), and shutter speed tweaked for slight variations in the light.
I suppose if I'd been on the ball I'd have a shot of each with the lens wide open to see what the shallow depth of field does to the shot, but the intent today was to get everything into focus. From these shots, and especially the last one, it looks like the bridge is right beside the bank with the trees, but it's not. It's probably a half K away from the bridge as well, so the trees are nearly a full K from the camera.
My preference, you ask? Well, I've just spent a few minutes looking at each shot blown up to full size on a 27 in monitor, and they all look lovely. Each is slightly different, but I think I prefer the middle one. That lens is just a hair sharper than the other ones, and I think the quality shows. The triangular peak of trees above the bridge adds an element of interest and a bit of layering.
Tell me which one you like best.