Your most common focal length(s)?

[Peeb]

It seems on zooms I'm mostly at one extreme or another in general shots.
Sports you're all over the place but in general I know
18-35, mostly 18mm
24-85, mostly 75-85, or 24mm
80-200, all over the place (main sports lens)
150-600, mostly 600mm
and when I use my 50mm, I'm always at 50mm

When I had my 24/2.8 lens I found that my 24-85 @24mm/2.8 was better than the prime.

I'm really surprised that the zoom would beat that prime. Go figure

 

[astroNikon]

It seems on zooms I'm mostly at one extreme or another in general shots.
Sports you're all over the place but in general I know
18-35, mostly 18mm
24-85, mostly 75-85, or 24mm
80-200, all over the place (main sports lens)
150-600, mostly 600mm
and when I use my 50mm, I'm always at 50mm

When I had my 24/2.8 lens I found that my 24-85 @24mm/2.8 was better than the prime.

I'm really surprised that the zoom would beat that prime. Go figure

I was too. I was experimenting with how wide images were when I tested the 24/2.8 AF-D against the 24-85/2.8-4 AF-D both at 24/2.8 and the prime had pincushioning, and wasn't as sharp when you pixel peeped, etc. as the 24-85. I think I had a thread about it back then, probably 4 years ago + on my D7000.

 

[zombiesniper]

Answered here.
What's your most used focal lengths?

 

[SCraig]

I appreciate your detailed and thoughtful analysis, but I think you may have misunderstood the goal of the exercise.

The sample set I used was "keepers from one trip". Obviously, bracketed images would be discarded with only the "keeper" counted. Panoramic shots would count as one regardless of the number of component images that were sticks together.

This was not intended as a statistical exercise – it was merely intended to give me a glimpse into my focal length preferences on one trip. This triggered in my mind a curiosity as to whether or not the preferences I exhibited would seem consistent or inconsistent with everyone else's inclinations.

I share your disinterest in compiling long-term statistical data on these issues as I agree that it could well be incredibly inefficient – and not overly helpful.

That's going to depend on what subject matter they prefer. If I'm shooting drag racing I can usually get close enough to use something in the 50-70mm range. If I'm shooting other motorsports it's usually either close enough for about 70mm or far enough for 300mm. If I'm shooting aircraft, wildlife or birds it's virtually always 500mm.

I shot 1,000 images at an airshow a couple of years ago and the only shots less than 500mm were those of the static aircraft (maybe a couple of dozen). On the other hand, I shot about 800 images at a drag race last year and not one exceeded 70mm. On another trip last year I shot about 1,000 images and they ranged everywhere from 18mm to 300mm.

Oh, and I don't even own a prime lens for any of my digital bodies. I have a couple for my old 35mm gear but it hasn't seen the light of day for many years.

 

[Peeb]

I appreciate your detailed and thoughtful analysis, but I think you may have misunderstood the goal of the exercise.

The sample set I used was "keepers from one trip". Obviously, bracketed images would be discarded with only the "keeper" counted. Panoramic shots would count as one regardless of the number of component images that were sticks together.

This was not intended as a statistical exercise – it was merely intended to give me a glimpse into my focal length preferences on one trip. This triggered in my mind a curiosity as to whether or not the preferences I exhibited would seem consistent or inconsistent with everyone else's inclinations.

I share your disinterest in compiling long-term statistical data on these issues as I agree that it could well be incredibly inefficient – and not overly helpful.

That's going to depend on what subject matter they prefer. If I'm shooting drag racing I can usually get close enough to use something in the 50-70mm range. If I'm shooting other motorsports it's usually either close enough for about 70mm or far enough for 300mm. If I'm shooting aircraft, wildlife or birds it's virtually always 500mm.

I shot 1,000 images at an airshow a couple of years ago and the only shots less than 500mm were those of the static aircraft (maybe a couple of dozen). On the other hand, I shot about 800 images at a drag race last year and not one exceeded 70mm. On another trip last year I shot about 1,000 images and they ranged everywhere from 18mm to 300mm.

Oh, and I don't even own a prime lens for any of my digital bodies. I have a couple for my old 35mm gear but it hasn't seen the light of day for many years.

Agreed. That is why it is always a good question to ask yourself what it is that you primarily capture (or wish to capture) when you're making purchasing decisions

 

[Peeb]

Answered here.
What's your most used focal lengths?

Thought I remembered such a thread! Thanks for the find

 

[Frank F.]

I do not zoom. Yet my experience is similar to the TO's.

I recently aquired some tele lenses. Since then I take my shots at 24 (DX & FX) and 35 (DX & FX) plus still a lot at 85 (DX & FX) yet currently more at 105 (FX only).

Since I bought the 300 (FX & DX) in spring 2016 my 60 and 50 do not see much use. I have to consciously force myself to use them, by doing my daily "one camera, one lens" exercise.

My Conclusion:

Which of the focal lengths at hand get most use seems to depend on the context.

In a professional setting I seem to care about getting a lot of perfect shots, so I use all the tools available. I shot a musical event and I used four or five lenses on two cameras in less than one hour. Lighting was bad, perspectives were blocked and I just wanted to acquire the best pictures I could possibly make with my skills.

If I shoot for fun I follow my intuition and most of the times I do it with one camera and one lens I choose beforehand.

 

[SCraig]

Agreed. That is why it is always a good question to ask yourself what it is that you primarily capture (or wish to capture) when you're making purchasing decisions

Very true. Quite possibly THE most important question once can ask themselves when choosing a lens. If a chosen lens won't allow one to get the field of view they want for a given subject then it will likely spend more time in the bag than on the camera.

 

[Dave442]

how the focal lengths broke down:

I think this could be useful to know to go back and see why you are not having more in the middle range of the zoom and why no keepers from the 70-300. Like many have noted, it is common to have shots with the zoom taken at the extremes. What I started doing a while back was to force myself to use the zoom as more of a prime and set a focal length and then move to compose the shot. This works very good with the 70-300mm, set it to 200mm and move your feet. If you are at the extreme then there is a higher probability that you really needed to go either wider or longer than the zoom allowed.

Anyway, I'm just suggesting that this could also be good information to find out what to do to start getting more keepers from the focal lengths you are not using or those that you are using and not getting keepers.

 

[Gary A.]

When I was working news, I only shot with primes. (I worked news in the film only days when zooms were slow and terribly unsharp.)

My most used lenses were: Nikkor 85mm F/1.8 and Nikkor 28mm F/2.8
Next were: Nikkor 180mm F/2.8 and Nikkor 20mm F/2.8
After those: Nikkor 300mm F/4 and Nikkor 135mm F/2.8

Today, when I shoot with zooms, typically I shoot either racked-out or racked-in. I sorta treat zooms like two primes in one lens.

 

[Frank F.]

If I have one prime on my camera I see the picture before even liftig the camera to my eye. If I am used to the lens I already know where to stand to have the right frame. If the lens is less known to me I might be a few steps off or the idea in my head might be completely wrong. That is the way to learn the right perspective.

That said a zoom seduces to take the camera to your eye an get it right from where you stand by zooming.

That is my explanation for the extremes. If you do not move to the best position for a shot you try to max out the "reach" of the lens in the extremes. I wonder if that sticks even with a lens like the 28-300?

Primes have the disadvantage that at the best perspective you have no leverage to change the crop with the lens.

So you either cut off part of the picture

Or

You get too much in the frame and have to cut off parts later

Or

You have to move and leave the best perspective just to get less or more in the frame.

With digital editing I use two ways to escape from that dilemma: cropping and stitching in post

 

[Peeb]

If I have one prime on my camera I see the picture before even liftig the camera to my eye. If I am used to the lens I already know where to stand to have the right frame. If the lens is less known to me I might be a few steps off or the idea in my head might be completely wrong. That is the way to learn the right perspective.

That said a zoom seduces to take the camera to your eye an get it right from where you stand by zooming.

That is my explanation for the extremes. If you do not move to the best position for a shot you try to max out the "reach" of the lens in the extremes. I wonder if that sticks even with a lens like the 28-300?

Primes have the disadvantage that at the best perspective you have no leverage to change the crop with the lens.

So you either cut off part of the picture

Or

You get too much in the frame and have to cut off parts later

Or

You have to move and leave the best perspective just to get less or more in the frame.

With digital editing I use two ways to escape from that dilemma: cropping and stitching in post

Actually, when I have a zoom, I tend to rack it to the extreme long or short before I ever lift the camera to my eye.

Example: I had my 24-85 mounted while at the beach when a seagull landed next to me. I really needed about a 150mm lens for the picture in my mind, so I racked the zoom all the way to 85, aimed, shot- then cropped in post.

You thought process, tho, is totally valid and I agree.

 

[Frank F.]

I feel for me the best way to do it could be to choose a focal length in the middle of my zoom and the walk to the best perspective and then crop. It is just my brain does not work that way. Yet I learned that my brain seems to be working quite differently from other peoples brains anyway.

The best perspective first. Then the crop. That should be the rule.

Primes and Zooms are two different tools for that purpose. Working with them requires two different strategies. Both have their limitations.

 

[nerwin]

I used the library filter in Lightroom and changed one of the columns to focal length and then picked a zoom lens and 9 out of 10 times I shot either at the widest setting or the longest setting, only a few shots in between. I tend to shoot wide than tele out of all focal lengths. Maybe that is just my style?

Anyways this is the problem I have with zoom lenses, I never know which focal length I want to use for that particular shot. I'm constantly racking back in forth trying to get an idea...which is why I'm starting to gravitate toward using just primes now because I just pick one lens and roll with it because I have no choice but to use it and my shots tend to be more creative with better composition and less snap shot like with a zoom. Plus as a bonus, they are often smaller and lighter and have less elements for better rendering.

When I had the Fuji X100 which had a fixed 23 f/2, I had a blast shooting that and I learned to make that single focal length worked. If I needed wider, well I can just take a bunch of vertical shots and stitch them together! If I needed to get closer, then I'd walked closer if possible, if not..well I'll figure out something different.

Prime lenses just gets me thinking more than zooms. I've had many zooms and you know...every time I used them, I always felt lazy. I'm not trying to say zooms are useless at all, but for me and my style of shooting, they just don't always work. However, they are VERY convenient, especially for shooting events and I could make a reason to use a single prime for events too but I don't get paid to shoot them so it doesn't matter to me because I'm just having fun. If I was getting paid, then no question in my mind, I'd invest in some pro zooms like a 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 lenses. In fact, I know quite a few photographers who have the Nikon trinity lenses (14-24, 24-70 & 70-200) strickly for working and when they are shooting for fun, they have a simple prime setup.

Different strokes for different folks as they always say.

 

[SCraig]

I feel for me the best way to do it could be to choose a focal length in the middle of my zoom and the walk to the best perspective and then crop. It is just my brain does not work that way. Yet I learned that my brain seems to be working quite differently from other peoples brains anyway.

The best perspective first. Then the crop. That should be the rule.

Primes and Zooms are two different tools for that purpose. Working with them requires two different strategies. Both have their limitations.

It can't always be that way. As I mentioned most of what I shoot these days is motorsports and birds / wildlife. In both instances walking closer to get the shot is just not an option. Birds absolutely will not sit still while one walks closer to them, and waterfowl are frequently out in a lake further making it difficult to get closer. They also have a disturbing tendency to land in a tree very close by or at a distance with no consideration to what lens I'm using. With motorsports, depending on the event, when I'm standing beside the track the shot I want may be a good distance from either side or only a few feet in front of me. And it will happen quickly. With top fuel dragsters and funny cars taking about 3.7 seconds to go a thousand feet I don't have much time to get a shot. Even with lesser classes running 6 second passes in a quarter mile they are passing in front of me FAST.

Photography is not a "One Size Fits All" endeavor. What one person shoots can, and frequently is, radically different from what another shoots and the equipment requirements vary as well. I could never, ever get the shots I want using a prime lens. At the very least I would need two bodies and two lenses and then would still find myself missing a lot of shots. I bought my first zoom lens back in the 70's and have never looked back at primes because I can't get what I want out of them. I respect that in many instances they work well for many people, but keep in mind that for me they just plain don't work well.