[Closed] Cameratrackworld - favourite focal length?

The right one for the shot I want.

But if you wanted me to name one, which is kind of silly, I'd say 8mm. Just because.

24mm full frame. Classic wide angle, make you fill the frame. Either that or an 85.

35mm full frame. Its good for anything.

35mm on FF.

135mm, awesome portrait lens. Too long to be practical 95% of the time though.

300mm - can get a really good perve on the neighbours, but not so long that you look like you're perving on the neighbours

👿

90mm.

I don't have one for the full frame, but it is connected to the m4/3 almost all the time (45mm f1.8). It is on the "list" for "someday".

Sorry... the And Why bit.

I do a lot of stitched panoramas. A LOT. I like 90 as it gives me some degree of foreshortening of perspective which starts to stack the Lakes Fells ontop of each other to add drama.

24mm is good too, but it starts to recede the background, which is why I have moved away from wide angle of late. I do have a very spangle 12-24 on the full frame Nikon that doesn't see much action at all now as a result (keep thinking I should trade it for an 85 or new standard zoom since the 24-70 is a bit... erm... battered!)

I quite like longer too - 200mm is quite a nice landscape lens, and I have a few shot up to 600mm but that is for very particular scenes really 😉

Not just perving on neighbours.

Honest.

35mm full frame. Its good for anything.

Interested in some thoughts about this, esp. As I've just bought 35mm. Didn't get on with my 50mm equiv focal length despite it being a peach of a lens

I've just started shooting more and over the weekend used my 75-300 telephoto and the 50mm prime

While I do like the reach of the telephoto I much prefer the photos I take with the 50mm

It's made me very tempted to upgrade my old 20D to a 7D Mk II. Knowing how much sensors and FPS have improved means it's almost inevitable that I'll get one soon I think.

[URL= http://i683.photobucket.com/albums/vv198/daverambo/IMG_7542-crop_zpsxrmqew0a.jp g" target="_blank">http://i683.photobucket.com/albums/vv198/daverambo/IMG_7542-crop_zpsxrmqew0a.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
50mm Prime f3.5 1/250

120mm (schneider apo-digitar) on cambo actus technical camera/sony A7r

why? long enough subject to camera distance and works as good as a true macro lens at around 1:1, diffraction doesnt seem an issue at f11 and zero chromatic aberration.

400mm, 'cos I take pictures of wildlife mostly.

[URL= http://i534.photobucket.com/albums/ee345/TLR99/IMG_3617_zpsicb1g2ua.jp g" target="_blank">http://i534.photobucket.com/albums/ee345/TLR99/IMG_3617_zpsicb1g2ua.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

[URL= http://i534.photobucket.com/albums/ee345/TLR99/IMG_9347_zpsffeeac23.jp g" target="_blank">http://i534.photobucket.com/albums/ee345/TLR99/IMG_9347_zpsffeeac23.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

[URL= http://i534.photobucket.com/albums/ee345/TLR99/IMG_2305.jp g" target="_blank">http://i534.photobucket.com/albums/ee345/TLR99/IMG_2305.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

35mm DX (50mm equiv). Its light, simple and has a great aperture range.

I've got three lenses:
Nikon 14-24 mm f/2.8
Nikon 24-70 mm f/2.8
Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8

The one that has impressed me the most is the 70-200, so I've been using that more than the others. But impressed is not the same as favourite, it does depend on the situation I'm in.

So I cant answer that question.

Interested in some thoughts about this, esp. As I've just bought 35mm. Didn't get on with my 50mm equiv focal length despite it being a peach of a lens

All the images on my Flickr account [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/geetee1972/ ]here[/url] are shot at 35mm (native 35mm on a FF sensor).

That said, I do tend to crop down and almost always, I find the crop ends up with a field of view that probably equates to 50mm. I think therefore that I'm probably more of a natural 50mm shooter than a 35mm one. To that end, I've just acquired a 50mm prime lens (a very nice Loxia f/2 manual focus for an A7II body).

The 35mm focal length is incredibly versatile though, especially if you have a high pixel count sensor that will allow you to crop and still have a high resolution image.

It can be a challenging length to shoot with though, primarily because it requires you to be pretty close to the subject. It's great for candid portraits if you're close enough; I tend to have portraits that are at least torso and head, rather than just head and shoulders though as otherwise you'd end up too close to the subject.

For street shooting, with 35mm, you're either capturing a pretty wide field of view or you're getting right in amongst the shot. If the latter, then people are almost always going to know that you're photographing them; you're just too close for that not to be the case.

If the former then although you can maintain a reasonable distance, you're going to have to think carefully about your composition, because there will be quite a bit going on in the frame. This is why I end up cropping quite a bit. It's not ideal, but so I've only had the one camera (with a fixed lens).

35mm is wide enough for most landscape and architecture; it's not quite as well suited as 28mm but a 28mm lens is even harder to work with other genres in my view.

So to answer the question - 35mm for landscape and reportage, 50mm for street and candid portraits and 85mm for formal protraits. I don't shoot macro or wildlife.

25mm on M4/3 so the classic nifty fifty in real terms, not been off the camera for a while now.

[img] [/img]

400mm

I've got three lenses:
Nikon 14-24 mm f/2.8
Nikon 24-70 mm f/2.8
Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8

The holy trinity 🙂

I prefer the 24-120 and the 70-200 f/4. My 70-200 2.8 was shown up as soft by the higher resolution of the new sensors and the f4 is pin sharp.

Anyway - now my favourite lens is the Sigma 35 ART - outrageously sharp and a perfect focal length for what I shoot.

Recently replaced my 50mm (FF equivalent) with a 35mm, and finding I gel with the 35mm much more. I found the 50mm a little tight for environmental portraits.

DrJ - I got the latest version of the 70-200, which according to Greys is supposed to be sharper (plus has the benefit of the latest version of VR).

So far its been the best lens I've ever owned. Bonkers fast as well, its made me rethink where and how I shoot.

I think you can hire them, so perhaps worth a try before you buy, as they are flipping expensive.

This is a hard question. I love shooting at super wide 8mm as I love the crazy perspective it gives. But my 35mm f2.4 prime is stupidly awesome for a £100 lens and I have some fantastic pictures from that lens. Not sure I can choose between them. I haven't got any long lens so haven't tried shooting above 55mm.

All depends what I'm shooting - but for my urbex / buildings stuff it's a 12-24mm zoom on full frame.

Whatever the camera/phone I have in my hand at the time has on it.

I'm not precious about kit - for me it's all about composition and feel (and usually a massive amount of heavy-handed processing). That's what being trained as a (fine art) painter does for your photography...

... gets me into all sorts of arguments with 'technical' photographers (and fellow photography teachers).

If I could afford it, I'd have a bag of primes from 12mm to 600mm but a couple of fast zooms.
I cant. 🙁
Although I do like my fast 50s. Every SLR I've owned has had that as its main lens. Although its a little bit long on an APS-C sensor, so a 28 or 35mm might be better. My current 50mm f1.8 is a lovely sharp fast lens.

Probably 75mm (50mm f/1.8 on a DX sensor).

Just discovered that the Nikon 35mm DX actually covers the full frame on my D750 with only a small amount of vignette, so that'll probably become a favourite somewhere.

DrJ - I avoided the 70-200mm f/2.8s for years just on the basis of weight, shot on a Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 DX* which was pretty equivalent range but a fraction of the size and weight. Now have the 70-200 f/4 and absolutely love it - a lot of the benefits, but handholdable for an entire day without my arms falling off.

*which, coincidentally, is up for sale on the classifieds at the moment...

Just bought the new Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM because I broke my old nifty fifty (The mk2). New one feels much more robust, nice AF motor and nicer bokeh. Using that almost exclusively at the moment, love it. Also just got a new 24mm pancake prime but haven't really used that a lot yet.

I think I agree with everything geetee1972 says.
I have 21, 35 and 50mm lenses.
The 21mm is only used to try and capture huge landscapes. It doesn't get used very often. Its just too wide and i find I have to crop down. My thought therefore is that I might as well have used the 35mm.
The 50mm is for street and portrait work, it opens wide and is a lovely lens.
The 35mm is on the camera 80% of the time. Its good for landscapes, and can be used on the street. I agree trying to take a portrait is a bit difficult.
I like my 35mm so much that I've just got rid of one and bought another that opens up just a little more. Its perfect!
These are all used on a FF camera.

All the images on my Flickr account here are shot at 35mm

Great Portfolio there Greg.

An interesting question. At the moment, I'm loving my Nikkor 105mm macro, which is great for close-up work, but also very good for portraiture. The lens I use the most though is my battered old Sigma 28-70 f2.8 zoom, which is pretty good but I think it's past it's best as it's getting quite rattly and suffers from the odd focusing error. Thinking about a new 24-70 f2.8; hoping the new VR version coming out will mean lots of people selling their perfectly good older ones for lower prices. Don't really see the point of VR on such a short zoom.

DrJ - I got the latest version of the 70-200, which according to Greys is supposed to be sharper (plus has the benefit of the latest version of VR).

So far its been the best lens I've ever owned. Bonkers fast as well, its made me rethink where and how I shoot.

I think you can hire them, so perhaps worth a try before you buy, as they are flipping expensive.

I was thinking about getting the older 80-200 f2.8. which is a fantastic lens; tough as old boots. But VR is very useful on longer focal lengths, so thinking carefully about this one. Even a s/h VR version is really expensive.

I like to think of myself as a 'prime' lens person, but the reality is, that modern zooms are so good it's silly to deliberately avoid them. I do quite a bit of work in low light in situations where it's difficult to obtain the optimum shooting position, so fast zooms are a Godsend. I'd quite like to try a 135mm DC, as well as the 85mm f1.4. It's nice sometimes to whack on a 50mm in very low light, as the FX sensor is just amazing in such conditions. And I really must get a proper superwide angle lens at some stage (14mm or so).

400mm

That kingfisher shot is amazing.

Great question, but any answer I may have is trumped by tlr's photos. What he said.

I like to think of myself as a 'prime' lens person, but the reality is, that modern zooms are so good it's silly to deliberately avoid them.

The reason for using primes, for me at least and I think a lot of other prime shooters, is not optical quality. It's primarily about creativity and simplicity. If you only have a prime, it does make you think more carefully about framing and composition and that makes you a better photographer (well that's the idea anyway).

Size and form factor is also a reason. Primes tend to be smaller and lighter, not always but most 50mm primes tend to be light and compact for example.

Great Portfolio there Greg.

Very kind of you to say Paul thank you. Love this btw!

https://flic.kr/p/xTxinh

That kingfisher shot is amazing.

Wow!

The reason for using primes, for me at least and I think a lot of other prime shooters, is not optical quality. It's primarily about creativity and simplicity

Plus primes are generally faster, which is a bonus in low light. I think the difference in optical quality is minimal these days, but there are still compromises with most zooms. My 50mm f1.8 is definitely sharper wide open, than my 28-70mm zoom.

I've got to go and buy some lenses soon. No good talking about it. I get the feeling this is going to be bloody expensive. 😳

have different favourites depending on what I'm shooting.

but if I were to pick a single prime to keep on 90% of the time, I'm thinking 35mm would have to be the one. other 10% would be 300mm zoom just because of the nature of the subject.

no idea what I did with my 50mm el cheapo 1.8 plastic mk2 canon lens. I put is somewhere "safe", that's so safe not even I can find it. might have to think about replacing it with 35mm, or perhaps that funky new 40mm.