Favourite Focal Length?

35mm, 135mm and 500mm/750mm

I guess I don't have a strong affinity for any particular number. I'm aware of perspective but since that is based solely on camera to subjects distance I guess I look to focal length to just give me the framing I want. Same as cropping from a perspective perspective. Though I'd prefer more pixels per duck or whatever if I could get them. 

I don't have a particular preference for a focal length but I do have a favorite lens: 24-70. My photography is mainly landscapes. Fixed focal length lenses are not ideal in landscape because you often find yourself in situations where it is not possible to "zoom with your legs". There is often an obstacle in the landscape that prevents you from stepping forward or backwards. For example: at the edge of a cliff or at the edge of a pool, etc. 

I recently sold my 16-35 lens because I rarely used it. In most situations, 24 mm is wide enough for my photography. Next to my 24-70 I also have a 70-200 f4 lens. In some rare occasions I will put my TC 1.4 on that lens. So I'm perfectly happy with the 24 - 200 range I have with both lenses. 

Yesterday I bought a used 24-120 f4 for my D850. I wouldn't mind the extra reach on my "main lens" and it shaves 200gr off the combo compared to the 24-70 (which is an f2.8). 

That's easy: 100-400

....it's the only lens I currently own. 😝 

My wallet took enough of a hit when I bought my R5, that I decided on the RF100-400 5.6-7 to get me started. The IQ is very good, it's very light and affordable. The minimum focus distance of about 3' kind of sealed the deal. It seemed to be a solid compromise.

After shooting with it for a couple of months, I have been really pleased with it. I seldom run out of reach, I can do pseudo macro with it and if I want to go wider than 100, I just stitch a pano.

The long term plan was to use it for a while, then pick up the RF100-500 because it's 100 mm longer, a full stop faster and weather sealed. But it's also almost $3K. 😱 

I recently rented a 100 2.8 macro as a candidate for my stable and while it was an amazing lens, it did seem to be a bit of a one-trick pony. That'll probably be an "eventually".

Posted by: @bo-gussname

↑

That's easy: 100-400

 

....it's the only lens I currently own. 😝 

My wallet took enough of a hit when I bought my R5, that I decided on the RF100-400 5.6-7 to get me started. The IQ is very good, it's very light and affordable. The minimum focus distance of about 3' kind of sealed the deal. It seemed to be a solid compromise.

After shooting with it for a couple of months, I have been really pleased with it. I seldom run out of reach, I can do pseudo macro with it and if I want to go wider than 100, I just stitch a pano.

The long term plan was to use it for a while, then pick up the RF100-500 because it's 100 mm longer, a full stop faster and weather sealed. But it's also almost $3K. 😱 

I recently rented a 100 2.8 macro as a candidate for my stable and while it was an amazing lens, it did seem to be a bit of a one-trick pony. That'll probably be an "eventually".

Here is a nice review site for Canon lenses. Sometimes a real bargain can be found with the adapted EF lenses. 

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/

Really difficult question! For general purpose, I usually use my 24-200 mm lens, and I find that for landscapes, I often end up on the short end (24-28 mm), while for people/portraits, I'm often at 100+ mm.

I also love 58 mm for people, but that's more due to the lens (F-mount 58mm f/1.4 - my favourite non-telephoto lens) than due to the focal length per se.

For birds/wildlife, it strongly depends on the setting. Generally, it's a case of "the more, the better" for me, so the 800mm f/6.3 PF is my most-used lens since I got it last summer. But if I'm in a hide, or work with big and/or approachable birds/animals, 300 and 500 mm are great, too.

Street: 28mm

Travel and portrait: 35mm

Headshots: 85mm

Macro: 105mm

BAck in  film days I tended to stick to 50 most often, liking the normal perspective and the field of view, and now shooting DX have tended to stick to 35.  But because I travel a lot and can't take a big bag of lenses, I've gotten more used to the 16-80 and to zooming more, and also, because I'm often rushed and unable to compose carefully, and shooting digitally,  I think I'm tending to shoot wider, since having a little extra to crop off is easier than missing something.

28mm is probably my favorite all around focal length.  Wide enough for a variety of situations (landscapes, street), but not too wide.

On the telephoto side, anywhere in the 85mm to 105mm range is the perfect compliment.

Very good question! I guess that the focal lengths I prefer may not always coincide with the ones I use the most, especially when I am trying to be creative,  but here they are:

Landscapes: 24 or 35mm

Portrait: 35 or 85mm (headshots)

Wildlife: 450mm, or 24mm if I want to show the background, i.e. animals in their environment.

Macro: 105mm

It changes all the time for me. Recently, I've been really drawn to the most neutral, middle-of-the-road focal lengths for landscape photography in the 28-50mm range, for the very reason that they are unobtrusive!

I've realized that I usually don't want my focal length to add too much of its own character to the photo - like you'll often see with ultra-wides, and sometimes with telephotos. I would rather not draw attention away from the subject.

I still love telephoto landscape photography, but more for abstracts these days. And I won't avoid ultra-wide focal lengths, if the subject requires it! But if I could have just one focal length in my bag, it would be a 35mm.

I am a hobbyist who takes family, NH coastal landscape, and simple nature photos. Until recently, 40mm and 135mm were my only focal lengths. I recently purchased a used 70-200mm f/2.8E FL so now I  am not so sure about a favorite focal length but I  use my Sigma 135mm f/1.8 less; at my age the VR feature of the zoom helps and the extra reach is nice.   My normal is lens is a Sigma 40mm DG, no complaints other than its weight but I  need a lighter camera/lens combo when vsiting my Colombia with my wife.

@tricki I get the "prefer" versus "use" issue here. My favorite lenses in an abstract sense tend to be primes in the normal range.  I like the idea that the picture is a condensation of what I see and how I see it.  But because I travel a lot, I rarely have those lenses in my kit, and most of what I actually end up using is a zoom.  The 16-80 DX is no slouch, and mostly pretty normal, so no hardship, but sometimes I wish I had the time and space to walk around with a plain old 35 and do it the old fashioned way.

To me unless you are using a fisheye that distorts the image plane there is no difference (except for pixels on the subject) in n a wide lens cropped in post and a longer lens uncropped. The focal length is only framing. All other differences come from changing the physical distance between camera and subjects. In other words all the usual equivalencies apply, as photography life has covered so well.