Topic: Bonding (or not) with certain focal lengths

[02Pilot]

Related to the recent thread on bonding with certain cameras, I've been ruminating on the question of focal lengths. After thinking I had the whole question mostly figured out, I realize that I don't. Instead, my relationship with different focal lengths seems to be in a state of constant flux, and further there's seemingly no pattern to what works and what doesn't. A couple of examples should suffice to describe this.

Up until recently, I really thought I was settled on 50mm for general use. Then on our recent trip to Washington, I decided to shoot primarily with a 35mm. This very quickly felt quite natural, and afterwards 50mm felt quite tight in similar circumstances, almost like a short tele. I need to get back into familiar settings with both to see if this was the result of shooting in different surroundings, or if I've actually changed my shooting style in some way. If the latter, is it just a temporary adaptation or a more permanent shift?

Related to this, I've been trying to figure out wide lenses for a while now. So far I've tried 21, 25, and 28. Of these, I've gotten along well with 21 and 28; try as I might, 25 just doesn't seem to fit. This is clearly not a question of 25 being "too wide," as if that were the case 21 would never have worked. Nor is it "not wide enough". So what's wrong with it? I have no idea. But I just can't seem to come to terms with it.

It seems like these questions are concentrated on wide and normal focal lengths; long lenses seem easier to match to specific tasks, and being primarily a rangefinder shooter, my choices only go up to 135mm in any case.

Anybody else over-thinking this question, or is it just me?

[Kayos]

I've over thought and messed around with this massively

I use a couple of short tele's if I'm on a walkabout, but more often it's 3 primes, a 14mm, 50mm and an 80mm. I also have a 135 but if I need that I have a decent tele that covers it

When photographing building i will take just 1 prime with me and work within the confines of the lens, I find I'm often happier with more shots that way than when I take more lenses it a tele

[02Pilot]

The question of how many lenses to carry is another related issue. Normally, I'll carry one or two maximum; trying to work within the confines of a particular focal length is part of why I seem to be spending so much time thinking about which ones work for me. I'm getting a bit better about carrying only one, but it's a struggle. I keep reminding myself that having just one allows me to concentrate on shooting.

Only when travelling to new locations where I'm not sure what I will need am I likely to pack three. For a travel kit, I've done 35/50/90, 21/50/90, and 25/50/100 (and probably some other variant I can't remember). I just got a 28 for my LTM cameras (which is the system I travel with), so that may well become the standard wide, depending on how I feel about the results.

[AJShepherd]

A lens I've often struggled with is the Voigtlander 15mm Aspherical Super Wide Heliar. This is the thread mount version which isn't rangefinder coupled, but with that depth of field that's not important.

If anything it's TOO wide and if I'm not careful I get big expanses of nothing in the foreground. Sometimes I force myself to use it in the hope that it'll click and I'll get the hang of it. Nearest i've come is to try and make sure there's something in the foreground to hold interest.
That, or force the perspective like in this shot:

Thumper by Antony Shepherd, on Flickr

[hookstrapped]

I read somewhere that there are two types of people: the 35 wide 50 normal people, and the 28 wide 40 normal people. I'm definitely among the latter.  I love 28 and 40 both, and 35 and 50 both feel uncomfortable. I think it's a matter of how you see things in your mind's eye and finding a focal length / field of view that matches.

[Sandeha Lynch]

I quite like 24 even though I always found 35 and 28 a little wide.  However while I love 100, it's 43 that is my carry round.  I have a couple of great 50s, but 43mm just seems golden.

[Indofunk]

You're not only not overthinking this, I believe you're underthinking it At least compared to me. I started out my reintroduction to photography a few years ago with a DSLR and a 50mm prime. Loved it because that was all I had Then when I made the jump to film, I got a 40mm Canonet. That just seemed to be perfectly normal, as in when I look through the viewfinder and then look at real life, it looks exactly the same to me. No distortion, no tele-ing in, just perfect human (my) eye perspective. I still liked the 50mm perspective, I think of it as getting just a little closer like you're "hugging" the scene But 40mm is definitely "normal" and I won't take any argument on that!

So then enter the 35mm. This is the absolute most annoying focal length for me. It's also the focal length I shoot the most, because my XA is almost always in my pocket. But I hate it. It's just a little wider than "normal" so I always want it to be a 40. But it's not. And therefore it annoys me

On the subject of 28mm. A long time ago I looked through Peter's Ricoh GR and was immediately disgusted by it. Never thought of 28mm after that for years. Then somehow I ended up with a 28mm Minolta mount lens for my SRT. That one? I love it!! I can see half the world with it! Whenever I take out my SRT, I always have at least the 50 and the 28, and switch back and forth all the time. So I thought my opinion had changed, so last week I looked through LA's Ricoh GR and .... hated it So then I realized that the reason I loved the 28 on my SRT is that, as another photographer friend of mine said, the viewfinder is as big as my living room! I think that makes a huge difference. In fact, I have a Minolta TC-1 that I picked up for Peter literally 1/2 hour ago, and even looking through that is a bit meh.

So is it focal length + viewfinder size? I think for me it is. Maybe I should try a 35 on my SRT? 

[Sandeha Lynch]

So is it focal length + viewfinder size? I think for me it is. Maybe I should try a 35 on my SRT? 

See if you can borrow a Pentax with a 43/1.9 Ltd lens.

(That's probably a $500 lens, but you can stick it on a $10 body.  )

[Indofunk]

So is it focal length + viewfinder size? I think for me it is. Maybe I should try a 35 on my SRT? 

See if you can borrow a Pentax with a 43/1.9 Ltd lens.

(That's probably a $500 lens, but you can stick it on a $10 body.  )

I have no doubt I'd love a 43. That's close enough to my favorite 40 that I'm sure I'd "bond" with it.

[Francois]

So far for me, I'm not fond of anything over 80mm. While it's useful in some situations, it makes me feel too remote to be any fun.
On my good old Nikon, I usually have that nice 28-70 zoom and that's about it.
As I grow older I want to travel lighter than I used to, so I bring a lot less kit than I used to.

[02Pilot]

I read somewhere that there are two types of people: the 35 wide 50 normal people, and the 28 wide 40 normal people. I'm definitely among the latter.  I love 28 and 40 both, and 35 and 50 both feel uncomfortable. I think it's a matter of how you see things in your mind's eye and finding a focal length / field of view that matches.

I've also seen this type of categorization framed with 28/50 and 21/40 as the ideal combos, with the usual comment being that 50 and 35, and 40 and 28, are too close together.

You're not only not overthinking this, I believe you're underthinking it At least compared to me. I started out my reintroduction to photography a few years ago with a DSLR and a 50mm prime. Loved it because that was all I had Then when I made the jump to film, I got a 40mm Canonet. That just seemed to be perfectly normal, as in when I look through the viewfinder and then look at real life, it looks exactly the same to me. No distortion, no tele-ing in, just perfect human (my) eye perspective. I still liked the 50mm perspective, I think of it as getting just a little closer like you're "hugging" the scene But 40mm is definitely "normal" and I won't take any argument on that!

So then enter the 35mm. This is the absolute most annoying focal length for me. It's also the focal length I shoot the most, because my XA is almost always in my pocket. But I hate it. It's just a little wider than "normal" so I always want it to be a 40. But it's not. And therefore it annoys me

On the subject of 28mm. A long time ago I looked through Peter's Ricoh GR and was immediately disgusted by it. Never thought of 28mm after that for years. Then somehow I ended up with a 28mm Minolta mount lens for my SRT. That one? I love it!! I can see half the world with it! Whenever I take out my SRT, I always have at least the 50 and the 28, and switch back and forth all the time. So I thought my opinion had changed, so last week I looked through LA's Ricoh GR and .... hated it So then I realized that the reason I loved the 28 on my SRT is that, as another photographer friend of mine said, the viewfinder is as big as my living room! I think that makes a huge difference. In fact, I have a Minolta TC-1 that I picked up for Peter literally 1/2 hour ago, and even looking through that is a bit meh.

So is it focal length + viewfinder size? I think for me it is. Maybe I should try a 35 on my SRT? 

The view matters, to be sure. I have discovered that good external viewfinders for rangefinders are an expensive addiction, but one taste and you're hooked. Nothing beats a 1:1 brightline viewfinder. BTW, did I ever show you my Kontur finder? It's a strange design: it's opaque except for the brightlines, and you shoot with both eyes open - the brain superimposes the lines on the scene, so in effect you get a floating brightline frame.

It makes sense that you see ~40mm as normal, given that 42mm is perfect normal on 35mm film. It's a very natural perspective.

A lens I've often struggled with is the Voigtlander 15mm Aspherical Super Wide Heliar. This is the thread mount version which isn't rangefinder coupled, but with that depth of field that's not important.

If anything it's TOO wide and if I'm not careful I get big expanses of nothing in the foreground. Sometimes I force myself to use it in the hope that it'll click and I'll get the hang of it. Nearest i've come is to try and make sure there's something in the foreground to hold interest.
That, or force the perspective like in this shot:

Thumper by Antony Shepherd, on Flickr

I struggle in the same ways with 21mm, even though I like it - 15mm seems impossibly wide for my purposes.

[Pete_R]

I think you can bond with individual lenses whether they fit with your normal choice of focal lengths or not. And you can equally not bond with a lens that should fit. I've always been a 35mm person and have used a 35mm, or an equivalent on larger formats, as standard for years. But, for instance, I never bonded with the 55mm on 645 but did with the 80mm (50mm equivalent). I think it depends as much on the lens/camera combination and what you use them for.

[Francois]

That's true. I know I have some lenses that have such a long throw that you have a hard time using them.
And on the other hand, I have a few that are so short that I have a hard time getting a precise focus.

And then there's the focus direction, aperture click direction and all sorts of little things like that.

[02Pilot]

Lens ergonomics is another related issue, but for a given focal length one can usually find a lens that works in other ways. I don't think the opposite - being able to bond with lenses based strictly on ergonomics - is true, at least for me. The Voigtlander Snapshot Skopar 25/4 is a perfect and recent example. I love the ergonomics: focusing click-stops at 1m, 1.5m, and 3m, combined with enormous DOF, make it a near-perfect street photography lens. It's small, easy to use, and produces very nice quality images. But for all of that, I can't seem to get comfortable with it. The 21/4, which has very similar ergonomics (minus the click-stops on the focus), is much easier for me to work with.

[Jack Johnson]

(Sticking to 135-format film, but I'm floundering in similar paths in medium format.)

Like a lot of other people, I learned with a 50 and always thought of it as normal, but like you I really bonded with 40, and would shoot with one all the time if I could find (would just buy) one for any of the SLRs I tend to pack around these days.

I do have a 55 that I thought I wouldn't bond with because of its length, but I've found it's nearly perfect for how I shoot family portraits.

I have a couple of 28s that I'm learning to use and like them enough, but I think I would like a 24 better. That Vivitar UWS 22ish seems to be about right when I'm thinking wide. My brain can't even go 17 or so, but I envy the people who can.

I have a couple of 135s that I haven't bonded with, but I keep trying, and I don't own much else: no <28, no 85, no >135.

My verticals with 35mm seem to hold up better than my horizontals, and if I remember right the vertical FoV on a 24 is the same as the horizontal FoV on a 35, so mulling over focal lengths has definitely given me a lot to consider.

[Francois]

Actually, 17 is not too bad. I know I just love looking through mine. But it does have one drawback, you don't have to go far from yous subject for it to become tiny. This makes it just useless in wide open spaces... Or at least pretty much useless. But when you need to cram some big thing in the frame, there's nothing better.

[zapsnaps]

As usual, I seem to be going against popular opinion on this one (I dont do it deliberately, honestly).

As mentioned in the bonded/not bonded thread on gear, I had a Leica M6 with a 50mm lens and I didn't bond with it at all. I swapped it for a Leica R8 with 2 zoom lenses: 35-70 and 80-200. So, with the exception of the 70-80mm blind spot, 35-200 would cover everything, right? After a few years of carrying both lenses each time I went to snap something seriously, I realised that I nearly always had the 80-200 on the end of the body and the 35-70 was rattling around in the bag, just adding (quite considerable) weight. So, I started leaving at at home and I rarely miss it. I like snapping bits of cars and bits of buildings. I usually keep it at about 90mm or so. That's enough for me to capture an interesting architectural detail or the design flourish which typifies that car for me. I hate background clutter (wires, aerials and people in building shots, people and other cars in car shots), so a 90mm crop gives me a clean field of view. But it also allows me to take landscapes without people in them, which I prefer.

I like 90 so much that if I bought an SLR or a range and wanted just one dedicated lens, it would be a 90mm piece of glass that I'd nail to the front of it.

[Late Developer]

Whether it's a rangefinder or SLR my favourite lens is a 35mm with as wide an aperture as possible - the reason being that it allows isolation of the subject from the background.  At present, I have an f2 for my Leicas but, if I can ever afford one, I'd go for the f1.4

When I'm using medium format (6x6) I really like my 60mm.  I have a 50mm and 80mm (both of which are excellent lenses) but I almost always settle on the 60mm and, if I want something longer, the 120mm Makro-Planar.

I don't know why, though. I can only ascribe the reason to the view through the lens and, perhaps, the distance from the subject matter at which I am comfortable shooting.

[emjos]

For me usually a Voigtländer Ultron SL II 40/2 is on my EOS most of the time. 40 mm is perfect on 135-film. There also is a EF 200/2.8 sometimes but really nothing in between. Since I recently picked up a Konica Hexar AF, a very "bonding" camera, I have to get used to the 35/2 on it too But there is something special with 40 mm!

[Urban Hafner]

My favourite focal length is still 50mm (on 135 film). That's probably because it's the focal length I've used the most. Zoom lenses generally just don't work for me. I also have a 28mm and a 100mm for my Minolta but I have a hard time using those.

In medium format the situation is a bit different. 80mm is still my favourite but I can easily use a 50mm (both 6x6 and 6x4.5) which is equivalent to maybe a 35mm on 135? So maybe I could give 35mm a try in 135 one of these days. But fast 35mm lenses are rather expensive so maybe I'll just stick with the 50mm.

[Sandeha Lynch]

Someone might know of the source for this but I've long forgot. 

Many years ago some research was done (probably in some photo magazine) on which lenses gave the greatest mileage.  They worked it out by looking at photo competition winners.  Possibly less than 1% of first prizes were awarded to shots taken with an 18mm fisheye, ditto at the long end of the scale.  Possibly 80% of all prize winners had been taken with a standard 50mm.   

[Indofunk]

Someone might know of the source for this but I've long forgot. 

Many years ago some research was done (probably in some photo magazine) on which lenses gave the greatest mileage.  They worked it out by looking at photo competition winners.  Possibly less than 1% of first prizes were awarded to shots taken with an 18mm fisheye, ditto at the long end of the scale.  Possibly 80% of all prize winners had been taken with a standard 50mm.   

Don't know if that's correlation or causation ... the most "standard" lens produced by the industry, and generally bundled with many SLRs (?), happens to be what most pictures are taken on?

[Sandeha Lynch]

Don't know if that's correlation or causation ... the most "standard" lens produced by the industry, and generally bundled with many SLRs (?), happens to be what most pictures are taken on?

True.  I think one point the article was trying to put across was for people not to get their knickers twisted over this or that hugely expensive white elephant lens that they always dreamed of having.  'Cos ordinary lenses can do the bizness well enough.

[Francois]

It's a bit of both... possibly.
On one hand, the human eye is said to have a normal field of view that's about the same as a 50mm... but when we search we find out that our eyes have an horizontal field of vision of between 100° and 110° per eye. 130° to 135° for the pair. Our eyes can this see a lot more than a nifty fifty, so this myth is definitely busted right there.
To be exact, we'd have to get a lens with a focal length of between 12 and 2 mm... not possible for a camera.
But those values count in peripheral vision, not just the spot where we have our cones to see color.
This doesn't take into account the capacity our brain has to isolate small details in a larger scene.

Also, for a 35mm, the normal focal length is 43mm. A value that's pretty close to 50mm in a sense.

But it also happens that considering the thickness of the camera, the easiest lens to design is at around 50mm... so go figure.

[Sandeha Lynch]

Also, for a 35mm, the normal focal length is 43mm. A value that's pretty close to 50mm in a sense.

But it also happens that considering the thickness of the camera, the easiest lens to design is at around 50mm... so go figure.

Yep, that partly explains why the 43mm costs hundreds in any coin, while a 50mm usually comes free.

[Indofunk]

blah blah blah blah shoot more film

Hope you don't mind my slight edit Francois

In fact, just for good measure I'm going to call a flower foul

[Pete_R]

On one hand, the human eye is said to have a normal field of view that's about the same as a 50mm...

That's a commonly made mistake. It's actually nothing to do with the angle of view of the human eye, it's about perspective. For once, Wikipedia has a pretty good description, the key point being "a normal lens is a lens that reproduces a field of view that generally looks 'natural' to a human observer under normal viewing conditions".

So if you take a picture with a 50mm lens then go back to the point you took it and hold up the print at a 'normal' viewing distance, the image should approximately match the real scene.

[Indofunk]

On one hand, the human eye is said to have a normal field of view that's about the same as a 50mm...

That's a commonly made mistake. It's actually nothing to do with the angle of view of the human eye, it's about perspective. For once, Wikipedia has a pretty good description, the key point being "a normal lens is a lens that reproduces a field of view that generally looks 'natural' to a human observer under normal viewing conditions".

So if you take a picture with a 50mm lens then go back to the point you took it and hold up the print at a 'normal' viewing distance, the image should approximately match the real scene.

Thank you, someone else is also pedantic about "field of view" vs "perspective" As Francois noted somewhere in his flower foul post, the normal "field of view" for a human is about 135^o, which is unmatched by any camera that I know of. As far as perspective, I still hold that 40mm looks more natural to me than 50mm, but the way you described it, "hold up the print at a 'normal' viewing distance", that makes more sense. When I'm taking the picture, though, I'm squashing the camera right up against my eye, which is probably why it looks more telephoto to me

[jharr]

I learned with a mechanical camera (ttl meter) and a nifty fifty. Now besides giving one the opportunity to say "nifty" 75 years after the word went out of style, I just like the perspective of the 50mm. It feels natural on a 35mm aspect ratio. I occasionally shoot longer (75mm or 105mm), but once I have a wider lens on, I start getting lost and can't seem to compose anything pleasing. Now by wider, I mean <35mm. I don't have any lenses in the 40's, so maybe if I tried one, I'd really like it, but I just haven't seen the need. 50's are cheap (my second favorite price) and fast. <there's a joke in there somewhere about liking my women like I like my 50mm lenses, but I'm not going to say it> I suppose if I was in the UK or Europe and had the opportunity to shoot vast cathedral interiors, I might warm up to a 24 or 16, but for my shots of cactus flowers and whatnot, the fifty will always be nifty.

[Pete_R]

When I'm taking the picture, though, I'm squashing the camera right up against my eye, which is probably why it looks more telephoto to me

The viewfinder magnification will also have an affect in that case.

[Francois]

I think we can also bring in this the effect of optical compression...
Please get ready to throw flowers

The angle of the lens' field of view, more than just affecting the width of the image, will affect the size of the objects in the image in proportion to their distance from the lens. So, my 500mm shot of Montreal taken from the island is a bit over 4km from the mountain. The Hydro Quebec skyscraper is at 2km from where I was standing. But when you look at them, they seem to be close together and of similar height.

But if I had taken it with a 50, even the mountain would have been small, the building minuscule and very far from where I was.

I think this separation is more important in bonding with a focal length than anything...

[02Pilot]

I think there's a difference between using a lens for a specific purpose on the one hand, and bonding with a focal length on the other. Certainly, if you know you want to create a specific effect, you can tailor the lens selection to it, but that's different than having a choice of a few lenses for general purpose use and grabbing the same one time and again because it just works best for you.

Of course, if you consider a 500mm lens "general purpose," you are quite clearly a far, far better photographer than I am. 

[Indofunk]

I think we can also bring in this the effect of optical compression...
Please get ready to throw flowers

The angle of the lens' field of view, more than just affecting the width of the image, will affect the size of the objects in the image in proportion to their distance from the lens. So, my 500mm shot of Montreal taken from the island is a bit over 4km from the mountain. The Hydro Quebec skyscraper is at 2km from where I was standing. But when you look at them, they seem to be close together and of similar height.

But if I had taken it with a 50, even the mountain would have been small, the building minuscule and very far from where I was.

I think this separation is more important in bonding with a focal length than anything...

Nice try, but you're NOT getting a flower foul this time. What you said makes perfect sense, and I'm sure it's something that we all notice when we shoot I'm with Andrej on the difference between that and "bonding", though it definitely affects bonding, as does field of view, perspective, and everything else we're discussing here