Reasons for selecting a specific focal length lens

[hepcat]

I have read countless threads here and on other forums extolling the virtues of specific focal length lenses and how they "fit" someone's vision, or are a favorite. Or the one-lens, one-body, one-year plan. Or some other posts about specific focal lengths being "best." And it seems that there's confusion regularly about perspective, field of view, and depth of field.

I have the impression that there's a lack of understanding of why specific focal lengths are selected for specific purposes, and that some photographers choose "their" lens poorly even though they may have other choices, but don't understand why they're not getting the results they had in mind.

So let's use this thread to discuss your lens choice(s) in terms of what kind of image properties you expect your lens to provide; for example a 90mm lens will provide nice separation of a main subject; an informal head and shoulders portrait from a busy background. A 28mm will provide significant depth of field, can be deployed with zone focus, and include more of a room when shooting inside... I'd like to hear what qualities you make your focal length choices for.

 

[uhoh7]

When I want to make somebody look skinny I use the 28. When I want to make them look fat I use the 135 😉

 

[Iestrada]

For street, 35mm. The perfect compromise between dept of field, environment inclusion and the isolation properties of a 50mm. Not too wide, not to narrow.

 

[bmattock]

I like a 50 to a 58 as my standard prime. I will happily shoot a 35 or a 90/100/105 if the situation seems to call for it. I tend not to use wide that much, except when photographing crowds with a zoom dslr. I like a 135 at times, and I'll go to 300mm on a dslr zoom when I want to pick out a face at an event. I'm big on faces.

I guess I don't really have one favorite, but with a rangefinder or a film slr, I assume a 50 and change as needed.

I don't believe in isms or rules or popular groupthink. I go my own way, always have.

 

[jnclde]

After shooting with both a 50mm/35mm FL for a couple of years. I've come to terms with using a 40mm. Most of the time I feel 35mm is too wide for outdoor and 50mm to narrow for indoor. With the 40mm, I consider it a tight 35mm with a bit more compression, giving the 'rendering' to lean towards a 50mm more than 35mm. It's a compromise, just like anything else. That's why I bought a 90mm as well, just incase I want true portraiture compression. Maybe someday I'll use a 24mm or 21mm, but I have not felt comfortable enough. I shoot on the streets and mainly try to shoot small scenes and don't focus too much on the human element to be the most important aspect of the image, but the image as a whole.

Leica M2 40mm M-Rokkor Kodak Vision3 500T

 

[Ko.Fe.]

On RF I have:
50 is for portraits with separation from background.
35 is for reportage, documenting.
25 is for the crowd and small interiors. I also like to get close and focus close with it while getting the rest in the background.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

I have read countless threads here and on other forums extolling the virtues of specific focal length lenses and how they "fit" someone's vision, or are a favorite. Or the one-lens, one-body, one-year plan. Or some other posts about specific focal lengths being "best." And it seems that there's confusion regularly about perspective, field of view, and depth of field.

I have the impression that there's a lack of understanding of why specific focal lengths are selected for specific purposes, and that some photographers choose "their" lens poorly even though they may have other choices, but don't understand why they're not getting the results they had in mind.

So let's use this thread to discuss your lens choice(s) in terms of what kind of image properties you expect your lens to provide; for example a 90mm lens will provide nice separation of a main subject; an informal head and shoulders portrait from a busy background. A 28mm will provide significant depth of field, can be deployed with zone focus, and include more of a room when shooting inside... I'd like to hear what qualities you make your focal length choices for.

This is posted in the Rangefinder Photography Discussion so I assume it relates to rangefinders, specifically? Personally I think you are only looking at a part of the equation. If you really want to get somewhere with the conversation, perhaps you should discuss the differences between Eg. making an image with a particular focal length on a 35mm rangefinder, and comparing the results with one used on a medium format type, which will have both a different angle of view and (in most cases) a different aspect ratio. I don't use a MF rangefinder myself but I certainly know from experience that using Eg. an 80mm lens on 35mm and MF 6x6 yields very different results, not least because of the aspect ratio quite apart from the other considerations.

It's not as arcane a discussion as one might think. For instance Lee Friedlander has used both 35mm and Hasselblad Super Wide at various times.
Cheers
Brett

 

[hepcat]

This is posted in the Rangefinder Photography Discussion so I assume it relates to rangefinders, specifically? Personally I think you are only looking at a part of the equation. If you really want to get somewhere with the conversation, perhaps you should discuss the differences between Eg. making an image with a particular focal length on a 35mm rangefinder, and comparing the results with one used on a medium format type, which will have both a different angle of view and (in most cases) a different aspect ratio. I don't use a MF rangefinder myself but I certainly know from experience that using Eg. an 80mm lens on 35mm and MF 6x6 yields very different results, not least because of the aspect ratio quite apart from the other considerations.

It's not as arcane a discussion as one might think. For instance Lee Friedlander has used both 35mm and Hasselblad Super Wide at various times.
Cheers
Brett

That wouldn't be an arcane discussion at all, Brett, and perhaps a really good subject for the general photography forum. I shoot medium format as well, but in this particular case I was interested in compiling information on why folks select their lenses when shooting 35mm rangefinder cameras.

 

[bmattock]

That wouldn't be an arcane discussion at all, Brett, and perhaps a really good subject for the general photography forum. I shoot medium format as well, but in this particular case I was interested in compiling information on why folks select their lenses when shooting 35mm rangefinder cameras.

Oh, if we're just talking rangefinders, I pretty much just shoto 50. In fact, I sold all the others, so I guess I must like 50mm.

 

[uhoh7]

That Silly HCB only seemed to be interested in 50s 😉

It would be fun to join the forum and just use his quotes LOL

He could be so snarky 😉

He def had "a lack of understanding of why specific focal lengths are selected for specific purposes", since he used one for everything 🙂

 

[rowghani]

I like my pictures having the same perspective as my eyes so I go 40 to 50mm.

 

[Canyongazer]

[a 90mm lens will provide nice separation of a main subject. A 28mm will provide significant depth of field.
[/I]
Nope.
The degree of DofF is a product of magnification, not focal length.

 

[hepcat]

Oh, if we're just talking rangefinders, I pretty much just shoto 50. In fact, I sold all the others, so I guess I must like 50mm.

Ok, why? Why do you like the 50mm? What does it do for you?

That Silly HCB only seemed to be interested in 50s 😉

It would be fun to join the forum and just use his quotes LOL

He could be so snarky 😉

He def had "a lack of understanding of why specific focal lengths are selected for specific purposes", since he used one for everything 🙂

Actually HCB had some very interesting quotes about why he preferred a 50mm. Feel free to find them and share them. I think he had a very clear understanding of why specific focal lengths are chosen and he chose to use a 50mm for the things he liked to shoot. You'll find that his quotes bear that out.

[a 90mm lens will provide nice separation of a main subject. A 28mm will provide significant depth of field.
[/I]
Nope.
The degree of DofF is a product of magnification, not focal length.

Really. I believe that "magnification" occurs with using a longer focal length. That said, DOF is a product of aperture, actually... but a wide angle lens will have inherently greater DOF at any particular plane of focus and aperture than will a telephoto; call it magnification or an increase in focal length as you will.

 

[mdarnton]

I use the lens that boxes in the picture I see before I put the camera up to my eye. That varies on the situation and my mood.

 

[Colin Corneau]

For street, 35mm. The perfect compromise between dept of field, environment inclusion and the isolation properties of a 50mm. Not too wide, not to narrow.

This sums up exactly what I was going to say, and why. Probably more succinctly, actually!

 

[vladimir]

50mm

50mm

That Silly HCB only seemed to be interested in 50s 😉

It would be fun to join the forum and just use his quotes LOL

He could be so snarky 😉

He def had "a lack of understanding of why specific focal lengths are selected for specific purposes", since he used one for everything 🙂

very funny!!

 

[ferider]

Interesting question.

First of all, I only adjust the focal length between shots of the same subject, when I shoot landscapes with plenty of time, or at events that I am asked to document, when I carry two cameras.

More often than not, when I "hunt" alone for photos, do I use a single camera with a single lens on it for an hour or two, or even a full day. Meaning I pick the lens with some general criteria (for example 28 for a certain type of portraits), and then I specifically hunt for opportunities fitting that lens. Meaning i don't adjust the lens to my vision, but the vision to my lens.

I love RF because they put a frameline in space, confirming my vision, 50 for a one-eyed look, 28 for both eyes open. 75-90 to get close to people or details. For environmental people stuff (street?), it's all about distance - 50 is more or less safe (a couple of meters or more), unless you do a head shot, with 28 you really get to know your subjects.

When I use two cameras simultaneously, it's either with 28/50 or 35/75-90, depending how close I can get.

Roland.

 

[Bingley]

When shooting street, I know that I will usually get an entire person, from head to toe, into the frame at a distance of about ten feet when shooting with a 35 focal length and that a 50 at the same distance will get around 2/3ds of a torso. So I lean towards 35 if I'm shooting street. I see 40 as a tight 35.

When shooting landscapes, I usually use a 50, but I keep a 28 handy for special situations. I rarely use other focal lengths. I don't like the perspective of very wide lenses in my own photography; I prefer a focal length that is more neutral with regard to perspective.

 

[Doug]

I like pretty much anything and everything from 21mm through 90mm and will happily use one lens for a while, then choose a different one. Different focal lengths result in different photos, and that keeps me on my toes.

When I started a project of environmental portraits, I wanted the immediacy and intimacy that comes from being in very close, but I wanted some context too, and 25-28mm was my choice. At other times I’ve preferred being more detached and choose 50-75mm. And using a 35mm can be comfortable.

I have no single favorite, as the preference varies back and forth over time. My eye adjusts to detect photo opportunities consistent with the lens on the camera.

 

[presspass]

Because I shoot a variety of subjects - sometimes for work, sometimes for myself - I will use anything from an 18 to 135 on rangefinder and from a 15 to a 400 with an SLR. I choose the lens that will include what I want and exclude what doesn't help tell the story in that specific photo. Not much of an answer, I know, but it's the best I can do.