What's your favorite focal length and why?

[fmw]

I do not think one can see the difference between Zoom and Prime.

Not in an internet jpeg image. But the single focus length lens should produce more resolution and contrast than is normally visible in a 100% crop. Now I have to go out do a test to back up my claim. I have three zoom lenses. Two of them produce spectacular image quality. I'll see if a prime lens can outperform them. Be back later.

 

[fmw]

Mission accomplished. I won't judge. I'll let you do that. The subject is my garden shed. It has a lot of texture. The Fulji X-E2 camera was tripod mounted in the same location for all the shots. All the images were made aperture priority at f8. The lenses were:

1. Zeiss 32mm f1.8. The Zeiss name is legendary for high quality lens design. This lens is no exception.
2. Fujifilm 18-55. This is Fuji's most popular lens and is know for its excellent image quality.
3. Fujifilm 60mm f2.4 macro. Sharp as a tack.
4. Fujifilm 50-230mm consumer zoom lens. Good IQ for the price.

Here are the images with the labels on top of each:

Zeiss 32mm prime



Zeiss 32mm crop



Fuji 18-55 zoom



fuji 18-55 zoom crop



Fuji 60mm prime



fuji 60mm crop



Fuji 50-230 zoom



Fuji 50-230 crop



There you go. Any comments. Any decisions about whether the primes outperformed the zooms?

 

[Derrel]

Assuming 35mm film or digital equivalent, I like 50mm, 35mm and 28mm prime but also enjoy using 35-70mm zoom. As well as these I also like 135mm prime, but only use this occasionally. The 50mm I like for the crispness but also there is some play possible with the DoF. The 35 and 28mm wide angle are among my favorites because of what can be included in the frame and the depth that can be achieved (these are my favoured choices for street/situational shots). The 35-70mm is a great convenience tool that affords a lot of diversity and is my first choice for family days out, birthdays, etc. The 135mm is wonderful for isolating the subject, especially in people photos.

The above is pretty good commentary. I used to use Nikon's little f/3.3~4.5 35-70mm autofocus lens...really liked it in the 40-43mm range a lot of times, on APS-C. I like the 35mm f/2 AF-D prime, and the 28mm length too.

One of the differences between zoom lenses and prime lenses is the lens drawing and lens rendering style...with "some" primes having very unusual lens drawing style, or very beautiful, or weird, or exotic bokeh. Sharpness is EASY these days on zooms, but some of the prime lens designs that the lens makers have developed are very,very special.

A good case in point: Nikon's 180mm f/2.8 lenses, those from the 1980's to today; the "look" of the images this lens makes is very different from say, the 70-300 f/4.5~5.6 AF-S VR-G Nikkor when shot on a lot of scenes...and it's not the "sharpness" so much as it is the way the lens "draws" the scene. Many prime lens designs have fewer lens elements than today's 17-,18,19,20,21, or even 23-element zoom lens designs, and that can increase contrast in the prime lens shot as compared to the zoom lens shot, especially when shot directly into strong light, or can allow "some" optical aberrations in the prime lens to remain not-quite corrected away, which can give that "lensy" look to a simple 6- or 7-element prime lens shot. Of course, this might be considered to be lens esoterica , and thus beneath the level of notice or awareness for many shooters, who do not really concern themselves with lenses to a high degree; almost ANY modern (modern as in post-1975) lens can make a decent picture, but to say that zooms and primes are "equal" is an overreach.

Some lenses have WEIRD image character: Frank's two poets [sic, poets], the 105mm f/1.4 AF-S G Nikkor, and the old-school 35mm f/1.4 Ai-S Nikkor...both are totally,totally,totally not imitatable by any zoom lens. The 35mm f/1.4 has super-strong field curvature...this causes a most-unusual sort of sharp center/soft edges look, a look that some love and others dislike. If a person reaaallllllly wants to do research, the info is out there. The lens is also VERY fast, at f/1.4, which can make images that a slower-aperture f/2.8 zoom cannot make.

See this as a starting point. How Good a Lens?

As is suggested the len's signature is something that a serious shooter might be concerned with.

 

[fmw]

You made some great points, Derrell. The 180 f2.8 made wonderful images. The issue was always carrying it. Another great Nikkor telephoto was the 105 f2.5. Only five elements. Incredible images (and much easier to carry than the 180). I think it was the most popular of all the Nikkor telephotos.

 

[Derrel]

You made some great points, Derrell. The 180 f2.8 made wonderful images. The issue was always carrying it. Another great Nikkor telephoto was the 105 f2.5. Only five elements. Incredible images (and much easier to carry than the 180). I think it was the most popular of all the Nikkor telephotos.

Yeah...I LOVED the 105mm f/2.5 Ai-S Nikkor...bought it when the Ai-S model was first introduced, in the early 1980's; it was my very first ever brand-new Nikkor lens! STILL have it! A wonderful imager, and a fast and easy focuser...one of the lenses Nikon made its fame on was the "one-oh-five two-point-five". It was a super-popular lens among Nikon shooters in the 1970's and 1980's, and easy to carry.

The newer AF and AF-D vrsions of the 180mm ED f/2.8 have an ever-so-slightly skinnier barrel than the older manual focus versions; I have both sitting on my desk, right now! The manual focus lens has a pretty much straight barrel, while the AF lens has a slight taper to it, and feels a little lighter, but for practical purposes, both are about the same size, yet the AF-D version "carries easier", or so it seems to me.

BOTH lenses were/are really good prime lenses, easy to use, sharp, contrasty, and good focusers.

 

[The Barbarian]

I just can't get into the wider lenses lately. Even 35mm is usually too short for me! Give me at least 50mm every time. In fact every time I put the 18-55 lens on, I end up quickly swapping it out for the 60 or the 50-230. I can't remember the last time I liked anything I shot at less than 50mm! I just love the way the longer focal lengths isolate a subject.

What's your current favorite focal length? Why?

As a kid, I first started taking pictures with a brownie. It had a lens that was too wide for my taste; everything looked smaller than I wanted. When I got a decent camera, I preferred longer lenses, and over the decades, I've slowly moved to wider and wider lenses for most things.

I always thought the progression was "tele first, and move to wide later." Guess I'm wrong.

 

[photoflyer]

I understand where you are coming from. I find myself gravitating to the 70-200 2.8. However it really depends on the mission. I am a pilot and while out flying I have the 24-105 f4 on. Only it (in my bag) can capture the breadth of a scene like this. Not a particularly good photo (a little busy at the time) but the ability to also capture landscapes is partly why I also stepped up to a full frame camera.

This was shot at 24mm.

 

[Derrel]

You made some great points, Derrell. The 180 f2.8 made wonderful images. The issue was always carrying it. Another great Nikkor telephoto was the 105 f2.5. Only five elements. Incredible images (and much easier to carry than the 180). I think it was the most popular of all the Nikkor telephotos.

Here's a shot from the 180mm f/2.8 AF-D Nikkor lens. Color-toning in Lightroom. The sunglasses _were_ that odd red lens color! The 180mm defocuses the background pretty well, and is very sharp, and compresses the rending of the human face to a pretty fair degree when compared with the way shorter lenses render the face.

[

180mm f/2.8 AF-D Nikkor lens, shot at f/4 at 1/1000, Nikon D610

 

[Vtec44]

On full fame digital, 85mm f1.4 for portraits and 50mm for general purpose. On medium format film, 105 f2.4 for portraits and 90mm f2.8 for general purpose. Most of my work is done by these lenses except for really wide angel shots. I typically use my 24-70 at 24mm for that. I rarely shoot wider than that even though I have a Tokina 16-28mm. The distortion especially with people in them is just too much for me.

 

[fmw]

You made some great points, Derrell. The 180 f2.8 made wonderful images. The issue was always carrying it. Another great Nikkor telephoto was the 105 f2.5. Only five elements. Incredible images (and much easier to carry than the 180). I think it was the most popular of all the Nikkor telephotos.

Here's a shot from the 180mm f/2.8 AF-D Nikkor lens. Color-toning in Lightroom. The sunglasses _were_ that odd red lens color! The 180mm defocuses the background pretty well, and is very sharp, and compresses the rending of the human face to a pretty fair degree when compared with the way shorter lenses render the face.View attachment 149786[

180mm f/2.8 AF-D Nikkor lens, shot at f/4 at 1/1000, Nikon D610

It is a superior lens to be sure. I sold mine along with all my Nikon gear. If I still had it, I would likely adapt it to the Fujis. Nice image.

 

[orf]

What's your current favorite focal length? Why?

35mm. I like the look.

 

[ac12]

All depends on what and where you shoot.

On 35mm film, I used to shoot with a 24mm, and sometimes it was not wide enough. When you back is literally up against the wall, so you cannot back up any more, you need a wider lens.

My favorite lens is a general purpose (GP) zoom that goes from wide to short/mid tele.

I currently have a 35-105 on the 35mm film camera. I used to use the 43-86. The 35-105 has a wider range on both ends that make it more flexible than the 43-86.

On a DX body, I shoot a 18-140. It is a great GP lens. Not pro quality, but good enough for me. And I've been surprised at how often I use the full range of the zoom, when shooting sports. The 18mm end works great when in football when the guys are running down the sideline, 6 feet from me. Similarly for basketball and volleyball. For me the only negative is that it is a variable aperture lens and slow, so shooting indoors can be a challenge.

On a FX body, a 24-120 f/4 would be a roughly similar lens to the 18-140 on the DX body, not quite as wide in range, but plenty adequate.

My current favorite is a 500mm mirror lens, because I just got it. So I am using it more than I otherwise would.

 

[petrochemist]

I suspect I tend to shoot more telephotos the UWA, even ignoring the bias thrown in from airshows & motorsports (both lots of shots at LONG lengths).
The fisheye & UWA lenses are IMO more difficult to compose for but I still enjoy giving them a go on occasion.

My camera bags generally have lenses covering from 180° to ~400mm equiv. Longer & wider options are available to me but require me to carry something extra so don't make regular outings.

Ignoring the skew from airshows etc, it's likely my most shot focal length would be around 90mm equiv. If I have the kit lens fitted I often seem to want just a little more, yet with the telephoto fitted I often want just a bit wider, and with both systems 90 equiv would be close to this switch over. With my DSLR I've picked up a 28-80 from film days (giving me 42-160 equiv) to try & reduce the need for lens swapping, but I can't say I've gelled with it as yet.

 

[Derrel]

SNIP>>>>With my DSLR I've picked up a 28-80 from film days (giving me 42-160 equiv) to try & reduce the need for lens swapping, but I can't say I've gelled with it as yet.

I've been reaching for Nikon's old and cheap 28-80mm f/3.5~5.6 AF-D for indoor, flash-lit portrait sessions more and more over the past year, both on APS-C and FX format d-slr cameras. I shoot it mostly at f/7.1 or at f/8 with studio flash, and it has been a really,really handy,small,useful lens. So...perhaps the focal length range, and the compact size will begin to grow on you?

 

[nerwin]

I don't have a favorite focal length perse since my feelings on this subject changes. My favorite can be 20mm for one week, 50mm the next, 200mm next. It's never permanent.

But if I had to choose and I know it's probably cliche but I'd choose 50mm (full frame or 50mm equivalent) because honestly it's just a standard focal length and it's my safe place when I run into a creative block, I can pop my 50 on and shoot and because I've been shooting that focal length for many years I've become to enjoy it but I try not to over do it because 50mm is widely overused.