Reasons for selecting a specific focal length lens

[Glenn2]

one virtue I've never really seen discussed much, or at all, regarding wide to ultra-wide focal lengths is the following;

They allow you to get really close to your intended subject & scene, so that when trying to photograph items in public spaces or museums, especially ones that are also popular with other tourists or photographers, you are closer than ALL of them. This has the major benefit of also removing them from your photograph so the end result is a picture of the object you want with much fewer distractions in it.

To me, the sweet spot for this is 21mm, specifically ones that show excellent distortion correction. (Fuji XF14mm / Zeiss Biogon Contax-G 21mm)

My experience exactly! For street photography in places like India you've got to get really close or else your subject can get lost in the foreground crowd. I like to show the setting and not just get head shots so the 21mm Super Angulon spends a lot of time on my camera.

I've also come to like the 35-40mm range for a daily carry camera when closer to home.

Glenn

 

[13Promet]

I mostly do film street photography and zone focus for quick shooting action.
My favourite FL for it is 50mm (Summicron IV) because I feel it as the best compromise between field of view, perspective and comfortable distance to subject (2,5 meters or more).
But when available light becomes scarce (winter/night) I go for 35mm (VC 35 f/1.4 MC) because I get some additional DoF at the same aperture, and can use slower shutter therefore narrower aperture, both of wich are quite handy for zone focussing.
But as I said I like the latter FL less than the 50, so I find myself cropping afterwards when using it, or getting very close to the subjects (1.5-2 meters), which can result in being too intrusive in their "comfort bubble".

BTW my average arguing with subject is about once every two rolls with 35mm, once every six rolls with 50mm 🙂

 

[bmattock]

Interesting statements, I felt compelled to reply. Keep in mind I mean this with the utmost respect and friendliness.

What I'm saying is that there is no short cut to making art.

That may well be true, if it's art one is making. I frankly don't aim to create art, and I wonder if it's more or less common to want to do so?

One might ask, if I'm not aiming to create art, then what I am doing? Having fun, being creative, filling some inner need to do ... something. It may not be art, but I'm still compelled to do it.

If its too easy, its crap.

Really? I have a different opinion. If it's hard, find an easier way to do it. Perhaps that is from my background. I don't like doing hard things for the sake of doing hard things. If it has to be that way, then fine. If not, take the route that gives the most pleasure while getting the job done.

So, if you're lucky you're going to find the right focal length for your subject, if you're not, like most photographers, you're in the mercy of GAS and ebay.

You say that like it's a bad thing. 😉

I have collected my share of crap in the past. Got rid of a lot of it due to financial necessity, but now that the bad patch is past, I probably will buy stuff I don't need again. I don't really see the harm in it. Like anything I do, it gives me pleasure; is that wrong somehow?

Free your mind of everything that you know about photography and wait for the spark to return, once you have the creative spark, the gear part will fall into place by default. otherwise photography becomes a hell of GAS and constant frustration.

Honestly, I don't have a lot of frustration. I have a fair amount of toys - mostly cheap crappy ones because I like buying cheap crappy ones. I take a lot of photos - or did, and I aim to restart that part of my life. I've been off devoting my time to other stuff the last five or six years.

But I wasn't frustrated then and I'm not now. I take photographs. Occasionally I crank out a good one - sold a few magazine covers, just sold a book cover. Probably not due to my talent, but more due to the theory that even a blind pig finds an acorn now and again.

But the important thing to me is that I enjoy it. Photography is how I relate to and connect with the larger world, the community outside of my friends and family, just like being online on various forums.

It's not about finding 'the lens' and 'the one true way', nor is about the pursuit of the ideal whatever through massive acquisitions. It's just about having fun and satisfying myself.

Again, said in camaraderie. I can see that this isn't your way, and I respect that.

 

[Spanik]

I just use the lens that will give me the photo I want to make. There is no fixed subject/focal length relation.

This also means that sometimes I cannot make the photo I want to make. Then I use whatever lens is on the camera right then and adapt to it.

 

[hepcat]

I just use the lens that will give me the photo I want to make. There is no fixed subject/focal length relation.

I get that, but the question is: how do you determine which lens will give you the photo you want to make?

 

[Ronald M]

You choose a WA when you can not back up more or really need to make a foreground object larger in comparison to background.

You choose tele when you do not want to move in closer because foreground objects grow in relation to background or you need a small section and can not move closer.

Perspective is governed by where you stand, not focal length of lens.

Angle of view is governed by focal length.

Simple. End of discussion.

 

[Spanik]

More or less, what do I want to include which will determine how wide to go while considering how close I want the "main" subject (if there is one) to be and DoF will determine the diaphragm.

But you just cannot put a flowchart on it. That's the same as asking to a painter why he choses to paint "that painting" or a composer why he wrote "that music". Most important is the relation between your subject and its environment and how you want to show that.

When using film there is another tradeoff to make in order to get a reasonable shutter speed if not using a tripod.

 

[hepcat]

You choose a WA when you can not back up more or really need to make a foreground object larger in comparison to background.

You choose tele when you do not want to move in closer because foreground objects grow in relation to background or you need a small section and can not move closer.

Perspective is governed by where you stand, not focal length of lens.

Angle of view is governed by focal length.

Simple. End of discussion.

More or less, what do I want to include which will determine how wide to go while considering how close I want the "main" subject (if there is one) to be and DoF will determine the diaphragm.

But you just cannot put a flowchart on it. That's the same as asking to a painter why he choses to paint "that painting" or a composer why he wrote "that music". Most important is the relation between your subject and its environment and how you want to show that.

When using film there is another tradeoff to make in order to get a reasonable shutter speed if not using a tripod.

I've been doing photography for over forty years and these two replies put together are probably the most succinct summary of how to choose a lens I've read. They describe well both the art and science of focal length selection. Thank you both.

 

[lukitas]

After a lifetime of standards, I find myself magnetically attracted to the 28 mm angle of view. On the Leica, I had the ultron, on the fuji the 18mm, and now the Ricoh GR.

It can make photos that suck you in : somehow, you can feel that the sides of the picture are closer to your ears than to your nose. I like how you can get a full standing portrait from about a meter away : getting that close leaves less chance of surprises crossing my frame. Tilting up of down can add drama or heroics. 28 mm is very good for simulating a child's point of view : full standing with straight verticals demands that the camera be about waist high, which means the camera looks up at the face, down at the shoes. (there must be something freudian about my attraction to the child's eye point). With close-up portraits, the camera gets within kissing distance : you can smell the persons' breath.
28 mm : up-close and dirty and inside the scene.

I do get a few altercations, possibly brought on by coming in close. But I make friends too.
With the small GR, I get less confrontations, and more friends. I try to dance a fine line between being quite open about taking pictures, and not being too obvious about it. Calculate the moment I have to move the camera to get it in place in time, smooth and purposeful, fast without surprising, the moment I shoot I'll know wether to smile or just lose interest.

Cheers

 

[Richard G]

You're absolutely right, Roland. Actually my guess is that most of us use both methods at various times; perhaps one more than others... but we still make those choices, and usually for reasons of framing, DOF isolation or inclusion... there are a variety of reasons.

This is really an exercise in self-reflection about why we work the way we do.

What I'm trying to pull out of folks, either way, is how they go about making that selection... what their process is. We all have "process." For some of us it seems "instinctive" but the bottom line is that there is an articulatable reason that we use what we use... and once we articulate that, its easier to understand why we may make other choices as well. And it's more clear to other folks what their options may be too.

There is some pretty good research on how experts make so many good/ correct decisions. Turns out it very often is not explicit knowledge that they can articulate. If you ask a carpenter how he does a perfect rebate for a door latch every time you'll find the answer unhelpful. If you watch him do it you and he may be surprised at the detail that the expert doesn't have down in a transmissible set of instructions.

 

[lukitas]

Did you see or read David Hockney's 'Secret Knowledge'?

A most interesting exposé about the use and influence of lenses and mirrors in European art.
By using a convex mirror, you can project an image on a canvas. The size of the lens determined a smallish canvas and a limited angle of view. By extrapolating the straight lines in the projection, perspective was discovered, and they used it first to build wide angle views.
Caravaggio overcame the limitations of the mirror or lens by projecting one character at a time, resulting in pictures that had as many points of view as there were characters in he scene.

The classic fifty feels very comfortable: everything in proportion, the viewer is at the right distance from the scene.

The wide angle comes closer to what the painters tried to achieve : to show more than what you can see naturally.

 

[CMur12]

RF = 40mm.

I've tried to go the RF route, but the only situation in which it worked for me - and it worked perfectly - has been for travel, where my aims were more documentary. For me, travel has always involved other people who weren't taking pictures, so I needed something small, lightweight, and easy to use that didn't get in the way of other concurrent activities and interactions. This was always a compact, fixed-lens RF with a focal length of approximately 40mm (Olympus 35 RC, Vivitar 35 ES, and Canonet G-III 17 QL).

For travel, 40mm gave me a nice sweep of inclusion for scenery, without being "wide," and it was good for group shots of new friends. These cameras provided me sharp, well exposed slides that were pleasing to view as a representation of my experience. I wanted a focal length that would present my viewers the same perspective they would have if they viewed the same scene directly themselves.

Back home, with more artful intent, I shoot SLRs, primarily 85mm and 28mm. For landscape images with a tighter graphic composition, I find that 85mm better matches my vision. It's also a joy to look through an 85mm f1.7 mounted on an SLR. For wide angle, I have kept it simple by sticking to 28mm. This is wide enough to afford me the DOF I want for effective near-far compositions and it allows me to "open up" the perspective as only a wide angle can. For portraiture, I use 85mm, 100mm, and 135mm. The 135mm is perfect for tight head-and-shoulder portraits.

When going for best IQ, I shoot medium format in TLRs (including Mamiya with multiple focal lengths), on a tripod, and I really get into square composition. I think I could really get into RF for medium format, but right now I can't justify the expenditure.

- Murray

 

[JChrome]

Let me answer you by first by describing the challenges that faces a typical street photographer - my field of photography.



If you use a prime lens in street photography, you have to go back and forth and zoom with your legs, this alerts people to your presence and also makes you seem awkward. If you use a zoom lens, you have to stand still and zoom back and forth, and while you do that everyone notices the guy with his eye on the view finder fiddling suspiciously.



If you use a P&S and do hip shots, people think you're one of those creepy up-the-skirt perverts. If you use a long lens you look like a voyeur.

Prime lenses are tops for me. In terms of going back and forth with your legs, I don't do this too much. I have a good idea about what my lens sees (pretty close to my eye) so I plan the attack before I go in for the shot.

Before I shot street, I shot a lot of underwater photography. Fish are even more shy than humans (but still oddly similar). Before you go in for the shot, you place your strobes accordingly and adjust anything else. Then you plan your approach. Then execute.

For the OP, my general rule is to use either a 40 or 60mm. As others have mentioned these are a good balance between getting surroundings and having opportunity for portraiture. I love the look of the longer lenses but I need a wider FOV for versatility. I go out with only one lens though and seek shots that work well with that lens.


www.stillthrill.com

 

[ww2photog]

Let me answer you by first by describing the challenges that faces a typical street photographer - my field of photography.

If you use a prime lens in street photography, you have to go back and forth and zoom with your legs, this alerts people to your presence and also makes you seem awkward. If you use a zoom lens, you have to stand still and zoom back and forth, and while you do that everyone notices the guy with his eye on the view finder fiddling suspiciously.

If you use a P&S and do hip shots, people think you're one of those creepy up-the-skirt perverts. If you use a long lens you look like a voyeur.

So what to do? Do you go to some poor country and become a slum tourist with smiling locals in your photos? That is easy street photography, but after a hundred photos of people sitting on the street cooking food and smiling at the camera, there is not much 'art' in there.


What I'm saying is that there is no short cut to making art. If its too easy, its crap. So, if you're lucky you're going to find the right focal length for your subject, if you're not, like most photographers, you're in the mercy of GAS and ebay.


Free your mind of everything that you know about photography and wait for the spark to return, once you have the creative spark, the gear part will fall into place by default. otherwise photography becomes a hell of GAS and constant frustration.

Good advice

 

[shimokita]

My RF primes run from 15mm to 135mm with 2x28mm & 2x50mm in the middle and unless there is a specific composition / location in mind the FL for a random walk is more or less how I feel on that day. Find something interesting and try to frame it in the best light given the lens on the camera... an exercise in composition.

For pre-visualized work most of the standard reasoning applies with the caveat of enjoying alternative possibilities.

Casey

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Interesting discussion; I wonder if I dare point out that usually when I know what I'm going to do I take the right camera and lens but when I see something and think it would make an interesting or even good picture, then I usually haven't planned it. So that means I've a P&S with a prime or zoom, because that's the camera I stick in my pocket just in case, etc...

So to me the unexpected means a 28-85 zoom or a 28/35 prime. They sometimes limit me as a 28 or 35 means I get too much in the VF and all of them chose the exposure for me, unless I've one of those +1½ EV's as a mode.

I guess I should carry the XA more often but small range-finders are very vulnerable; something I learned many years ago.

Regards, David

 

[hepcat]

This is an interesting discussion indeed. I wish the forum software had a "thanks" or "like" button as thanking each of you for your perspectives in a post would be tedious to read, but I appreciate that each of you have taken time to lend your "process" to the group. It's clear that each of us deploy these tools a little differently and for different reasons. Even though I've done this for forty years, I still find it a refreshing exercise to consider why I do what I do, and I appreciate that there are different ways of looking at selecting focal lengths.

I hope that the discussion continues. I learn something with almost every post.

 

[mdarnton]

I commented earlier on using the lens that "boxed" the photo I see, and I had another thought on it. I have most often used a 50mm, and my best photos are often with a 50mm. Somewhere along I realized that when I put the 50mm up to my eye I almost always end up stepping back just a hair to avoid cropping the edges of something I wanted in the photo. With wider lenses, often the opposite happens. Looking at my photos, I'm thinking that the 50mm photos usually work better because they're tighter compositions, with less unintended mess.

This is something people usually say about longer lenses, anyway, because they tend to include a narrower patch of background, but I think that lens combined with my eye is just resulting in generally tighter compositions.

Certainly the lens I have the most problem with in this regard is my 15mm. I love the look, but have a hard time getting in close enough with it to really make the subject stand out without things getting grotesque. I notice that many other people have the same problem with it, and the tendency seems to be for everyone to make two types of 15mm shots--either visual hash, too busy, or gross distortions that rely on the bizarre. It's a hard lens to handle.

 

[JChrome]

Reasons for selecting a specific focal length lens

I commented earlier on using the lens that "boxed" the photo I see, and I had another thought on it. I have most often used a 50mm, and my best photos are often with a 50mm. Somewhere along I realized that when I put the 50mm up to my eye I almost always end up stepping back just a hair to avoid cropping the edges of something I wanted in the photo. With wider lenses, often the opposite happens. Looking at my photos, I'm thinking that the 50mm photos usually work better because they're tighter compositions, with less unintended mess.

This is something people usually say about longer lenses, anyway, because they tend to include a narrower patch of background, but I think that lens combined with my eye is just resulting in generally tighter compositions.

Certainly the lens I have the most problem with in this regard is my 15mm. I love the look, but have a hard time getting in close enough with it to really make the subject stand out without things getting grotesque. I notice that many other people have the same problem with it, and the tendency seems to be for everyone to make two types of 15mm shots--either visual hash, too busy, or gross distortions that rely on the bizarre. It's a hard lens to handle.

It is an interesting discussion and one I think about often.

Just to play devils advocate a bit, do you not also think that some of your best shots came from a 50 because you had it with you the most and had the most practice with it? Statistically it would give your 50 the highest chances of a great shot. But then, does this matter?

It's really difficult for me to say what makes something the best. I know I like longer lenses. Another interesting notion is that we consider what focal length the best is according to our best shots.

By that measure, the best shot I've ever taken, in my humble estimation was with a Pentax 67 and 165mm f4 LS lens.

I don't think other people agree with me on what my best is of course. I was never a good editor. This image is just very personal to me which skews it significantly.

But there are a few shots from that 165 I consider magic but I've probably only taken 80 shots with it! Not sure what it means or if there are conclusions to draw. Then again, I don't consider this street photography even though it is of a stranger. I planned this shot and got it with a tripod.


www.stillthrill.com

 

[Hsg]

Interesting statements, I felt compelled to reply. Keep in mind I mean this with the utmost respect and friendliness.



That may well be true, if it's art one is making. I frankly don't aim to create art, and I wonder if it's more or less common to want to do so?

One might ask, if I'm not aiming to create art, then what I am doing? Having fun, being creative, filling some inner need to do ... something. It may not be art, but I'm still compelled to do it.



Really? I have a different opinion. If it's hard, find an easier way to do it. Perhaps that is from my background. I don't like doing hard things for the sake of doing hard things. If it has to be that way, then fine. If not, take the route that gives the most pleasure while getting the job done.



You say that like it's a bad thing. 😉

I have collected my share of crap in the past. Got rid of a lot of it due to financial necessity, but now that the bad patch is past, I probably will buy stuff I don't need again. I don't really see the harm in it. Like anything I do, it gives me pleasure; is that wrong somehow?



Honestly, I don't have a lot of frustration. I have a fair amount of toys - mostly cheap crappy ones because I like buying cheap crappy ones. I take a lot of photos - or did, and I aim to restart that part of my life. I've been off devoting my time to other stuff the last five or six years.

But I wasn't frustrated then and I'm not now. I take photographs. Occasionally I crank out a good one - sold a few magazine covers, just sold a book cover. Probably not due to my talent, but more due to the theory that even a blind pig finds an acorn now and again.

But the important thing to me is that I enjoy it. Photography is how I relate to and connect with the larger world, the community outside of my friends and family, just like being online on various forums.

It's not about finding 'the lens' and 'the one true way', nor is about the pursuit of the ideal whatever through massive acquisitions. It's just about having fun and satisfying myself.

Again, said in camaraderie. I can see that this isn't your way, and I respect that.

Aiming to just have fun with photography is the most productive way to start photography, but as time passes, years go by and then decades, one begins to face the difficult question of, 'what do I have to show for all that time, money, and energy spent on photography?'.

You should consider yourself lucky that you're still having fun with photography.