What is your least favorite lens length...

[M Currie]

I voted 28. I don't quite know why, but it just seems that I don't get what I want from it. I love 50 and find it comes closest most of the time to what I am envisioning. 35 is nice for a bit more inclusion, and still pretty normal. 24 is good and wide and just short of distortion. I love 85 for indoor people shots and 105 for outdoor, and 135 is at least pretty decent for pulling things in. But there's just something sort of "eh" about 28

 

[Takkun]

I was thinking this exactly. No love for the 135. I guess they don't have the a Zeiss 135. I forget about it sometimes , then I'm always amazed by how well it performs.

Makes my camera look obscenely huge, but I'm loving the goggled 135 elmarit. Got it while my 90 is with Mr. Goldberg with the intent of selling it once I got it back, but I'm finding I use it more and more.

Shot with ADOX 50, not my favorite film, but I quite like this photo.

My least favorite? I think 28. if I want wide, I want WIIIIIDEEEEE. And it's not enough, but the 35/50 combo works well for me. I think my 'normal focal length' of my vision is around 75, but I find the 35 most useful for me and the 50 good for lowlight.

I know for a lot the 28 and 35 are standard walkaround combo for people, but if I'm going to use a lens that needs a finder, I may as well go with a 21 or 24.

 

[JChrome]

I don't know if I can call a focal length "least favorite". More like, "least used to".

I never really shot with 135mm and then I took it as the only lens for my trip to Washington State and found that I came away with some really great images. I think it taught me that I can enjoy any focal length, I just know I have to work within the limitations of that frame.

 

[JChrome]

This is not an outstandingly meaningful poll, as it comes close to attempting to prove a negative. Cheers, R.

Not at all. Not even close. Proving an ontological negative is different than proving something you feel negative about.

 

[Stdon]

a 50mm, any 50. Just don't like the angle of view. I have a 50 f1:1.2 Ai and it's pretty good but I have it just to have one. Rarely used and for nothing of importance.

 

[Sid836]

85mm is the upper limit for me.

 

[Joe AC]

I expected the 135mm to come in first but would have never guessed the 50mm to come in second!

Joe

 

[michaelwj]

I'll take this as what's your least favourite on an RF.. In which case it's the focal lengths over 75mm. So I ticked 135..

On an SLR, though, I really do appreciate long focal lengths to compress perspective in landscape photography..

I'll take it as on a RF too. I picked 40 mm, it's too close to 35 and 50, I can see how some might like it, but not me. Coming in close behind, it'd be the 85 and 100, might as well use a 90 which I have frame lines for.

Michael

 

[Godfrey]

I don't think I have a least favorite. Or at least it depends upon what camera and lens we're talking about.

Various different lenses on various cameras haven't appealed to me, but the same FoV on another camera with another lens has.

G

 

[Paul Jenkin]

135mm for me.

Usually great, optically, but I find 135mm too long for portraits and not long enough for the telephoto work I like to do - particularly when on holiday (birds, animals, etc).

 

[raid]

With a 50mm lens, you have to work harder to create a great image. Isn't this most of the fun in photography?

 

[Major Tom]

I wish I had the luxury to hold an opinion on this.

 

[Margu]

my least favorite focal length is anything less than 42mm.

with smartphone default focal length at 35mm equivalent, and starting focal length for kit lenses, both dslr and mirrorless at 28mm equivalent, the world is full of widenagle shots.

 

[boomguy57]

This is kind of a dumb question (no offense to OP), as there is rarely "one" answer as there is for the opposing "favorite" question. By that I mean if you don't like 90, you probably don't like anything longer either, for example.

I always find it interesting to read how much others are attracted to focal lengths that I find unsuited for me. 75, for example--not as good as a 90 for portraits or longer work, and not as versatile as the 50 (again, YMMV). Or why someone could dislike the 35 (heresy!) as it's my favorite. And others still are all-wide-all-the-time, which I don't get either.

It's interesting to hear others' views. It's a very personal thing I guess.

 

[Harry Lime]

Anything wider than a 28 or longer than a 90.

 

[Chris101]

I don't like 28, but I do like 21 and 35. Don't know why, must be numerological.

 

[raid]

I like 28-40-50-66-75-90

The "66" is a 50 on the M8.

 

[djcphoto]

Anything less than 50mm is perverse.

 

[JChrome]

With a 50mm lens, you have to work harder to create a great image. Isn't this most of the fun in photography?

As Margu said in another post, the world is filled with wide angle shots. I think that means to make a good wide angle shot is just harder. To me, going wider isn't "easier".

 

[Darthfeeble]

85 and above, I'm shakey with a wide angle and unless I brace against something, a longer lens is just a waste of time.