What do various focal lengths "mean" to you?

[fjrabon]

I pick the FL for the subject and how I want it to look.

This needs to be stolen and made into a sig file !!!!

Years ago, before the advent of so,so many fine zooms, a lot of people recommended doubling focal length between lenses, which is an interesting method. I've tried it, and it does work to an extent, especially for general, outdoor work.

For example: a 24mm wide-angle; a 50mm normal; then a 100mm telephoto (or a 105mm in Nikon); and for the long lens, the venerable 200mm. Works for me. Old-school 200mm f/4 lenses used to be very light in weight and very easy to carry.

The old 35mm to 70mm zooms were pretty handy.

I could probably be very happy with something close to that: 35mm, 85mm and then something in the 170-200mm range.

 

[Torus34]

I think of increasing FL as increasing withdrawal from the immediacy of my surroundings. Shooting mainly 35mm film, I consider wandering about with a 135mm lens a more contemplative experience than toting, say, a 40mm lens. Somewhat private by nature, I seldom plug in 35, 28 or 24mm glass.

"The world is too much with us; late and soon," Wordsworth

 

[pgriz]

I see the different focal lengths as giving two basic characteristics:
1) Separation or compression of the space between the subject and background. The low focal lengths essentially allow creating a very obvious separation between the foreground subject and the middle- and back-ground, whereas the telephoto usually compresses the space.
2) DOF - the low focal lengths give me a greater depth-of-field at wider apertures, whereas the telephone range can create a very tight DOF framing.

The other characteristics (perspective distortion, FOV angle, close-focussing), are usually, at least in my case, subservient to the other two main characteristics.

The exception to this is my use of the UWA (10-22mm) for interior work photography which is dictated by the need to capture a wide view in confined spaces, where the distortion is less important than being able to show the context.

 

[Gary A.]

So, when I grab various focal length lenses, I usually have a thought behind them more than just "what allows me to frame this like I want?" This is ignoring the cases where you simply must use a certain length due to physical constraints (ie can't move in any closer, or can't move back any further, that is you have a choice of which focal length you could use, that isn't pre-dictated to you).

For example in full frame terms, I usually think:

17-35mm : Inside the image. As in I reach for this focal length when I want to impart a sense that the viewer is inside the scene. A sense where the image has various areas and you can "have a look around."

35-50mm : Being there. I reach for this focal length range when I want to impart a sense of being there. Not a part of the scene, but watching the scene like I was standing right next to it.

50-100: Isolating. I grab this focal length when I want to "crop out the world" and focus on a part of the scene.

100-200: peering or compressing. I grab this focal length when I want to impart a sense of a scene compressed or give the feeling of stealing a glance.

I don't think I see the world or my photography quite as formulated or clinical as you. For me it is pre-visualization, (as you have alluded), but I'm not part of the previsualization equation as you have stated. Depending on the subject, but typically, I sorta reverse the roles as you have stated. I pre-visualize, not how I want the world to see my subject ... but rather how I think the subject wants the world to see itself. In application, I see a photo op. In my head I have a vision of the final image and I adjust the camera position, camera settings and focal length to reflect that mental image. Then I move to my next pre-visualized image and adjust for that mental vision. Often I have this slideshow going on in the back of my cream cheese brain of the same scene but with different focal lengths and DOFs.