Interesting. Had thought of limitations forcing creativity but not this. Seems odd/irrational we wouldn’t frame at appropriate focal length given freedom to do so but on other hand can see tools end up affecting the job. Will have to check exifs
I have a vague theory is that there is a misconception floating around. The idea of an appropriate focal lenght.
The misconception is that this appropriate focal length comes from the subject not the project of the photographer. That there is a photograph to be taken and that the photographer will find this correct view and adjust their zoom until it matches. This seems to be a common idea among zoom users. Their own statistics tend to show its not the case. Instead they are ruled by their gear.
Despite zoom lenses in practice being two primes in a barrel they differ from primes in how they make you see and how you find your frames. The prime user explicitly makes the choice a zoom user makes ( judging from comments I’ve heard over the years) unknowingly
3 Likes
yep, a 42mm lens would be the answer to everything…
1 Like
I think it is very useful to think in terms of the working distance, which affects the perspective. Particularly crucial when photographing people.
A zoom gives one the liberty of first choosing suitable working distance, then adjusting the field of view by zooming, to select how much of the surroundings are included in the photo.
A prime doesn’t let you do these independently. One has to make certain compromises about the cropping and working distance. That’s not necessarily a bad thing and can lead to some creative decisions and a distinct style, but can also necessitate some cropping in post.
From what I’ve seen, the most common misconception about focal lengths is that the focal length itself somehow causes perspective distortions. As long as we’re talking about reasonably rectilinear lenses (with distortions corrected), it does not. It is the working distance that matters.
3 Likes
The question is. Does your exif stats, how you actually use your lens, support this idea?
I also have a niggle the working distance idea isn’t solid. Why maintain perspective going from headshot to full body? Is consistent working distance/perspective important when the image is so different. I understand that the face will “look the same” but does it matter when its so small in the latter frame?
If the zoom pull is smaller then conversely the change in perspective from “zooming with your feet” is so small that it will be imperceptible.
Then again I feel that using the same, or a small (3?), selection of focal lengths does bring a coherence to a set of photos that is valuable when putting them together. So maybe the opposite working distance model also brings something of value.
1 Like
Ooo! That lens looks scrumptious!
Searching eBay in 3… 2… 1…
1 Like
Careful, they are a family and not budget options.
My favorite one, too. The only disadvantage that it gets stuck to the body 
I didn’t graph mine, but apparently I gravitate toward the extremes (or at least, I used to – no more). This covers images from 2007 to the current day.
I looked at raw files, since I don’t always keep JPGs and I certainly don’t process every raw I shoot. Orange background are the focal length extremes (17-70 and 70-300 lenses) and the yellow background indicates an interesting range. Not only is 28mm the “dotted” (i.e., supposedly sweet spot) on my 17-70, but that’s also the range I typically use for panoramas. The 70mm shots are split between the lenses, but probably favor the 17-70 more than the 70-300. I didn’t feel like extracting and analyzing the lens type… 
(I don’t know about the 0.0 mm shots… just a glitch in the matrix, I suppose.)
1 Like
For me, this is true only in so far as I don’t have primes. My longest prime is 135: I use my 70-180 for longer focal lengths. My shortest is 35: I use my 17-70 for shorter focal lengths. With a zoom mounted, I have a non-foot composition tool. And I do use that: not just the extremes. Honest!
I like my small collection of primes best. But hey, in a universe which allowed impossibly small and affordable 1.8 zooms — maybe I might change my mind. Physics and my wallet say that that is not going to happen.
My favourite prime is my 40mm lens on my APS-C Canon (with my 24mm as a backup). I’m in the process of moving to fuji atm so I suspect I’ll be using 35mm from now on.
So basically ~50mm FF equivalent.
3 Likes
in this universe, yes.
I can confirm your stats. I call it the “zoom bias”.
Whatever zoom you have, the two extremes will be the single (double) most used focal lengths.
Does not matter if it is a 43-86, 35-70, 10-20, a 24-120 or a 12-600.
The bigger the range, the more the values will be spread out of course, but the peaks are rarely different.
You Sir, are among the few enlightened.
Did you also know, that DOF is not determined by focal length but distance to subject?
For me it works like this: look at this fantastic landscape. I want to capture its beauty: the majestic mountains over there, with that valley on the right, and that peak on the left, too. Wider… wider… until everything I see with my eye as interesting becomes a small, meaningless detail in the actual shot.
Hey, look at that bird. No, not that one, that’s too close, any idiot with a camera could capture that. The one farther away. Zoom in… in… actually its beak is kind of nice. Later, when culling the photos, I realize (for the 100th time) that my zoom is not a pro lens, and its sharpness at the telephoto end is only good when compared to a child’s toy binocular. Well, it looked interesting on the LCD.
10 Likes
I’m sure you’re right. I can’t help wondering why, though. Just to maybe try to counteract it.
Is it just the hard stops at the end of the ranges?
Is it that we carry lenses that are too short or long for our needs or standard zooms that are unhappy mediums?
Or that we’re too lazy to change lens?
Are we looking at the world through our lens first rather than ‘through our eyes’?
Speaking of nifty 50s…
2 Likes
I would go one step further and say that most people are actually talking about field of view when choosing their favourite focal lengths, and working distance plays a big role in that. Even though the focal length of a lens doesn’t change between sensor sizes, most people tend to give the FF equivalent when talking about focal length. This is to help visualize what they would see through the viewfinder. But it’s not actually a focal length equivalent they are talking about, but a field of view equivalent.
So, even though you are actually changing the focal length and therefore perspective and depth of field when using a “35mm equivalent” lens on an APS-C or M4/3 sensor, you get to have the field of view and working distance that you are comfortable with (if you used to shoot 35mm). If you really really enjoyed a certain focal length on a 35mm sensor because of the inherent properties of that specific focal length, then you will need to adjust your working distance to achieve the same field of view when using a different sized sensor (further away for smaller sensors, closer for larger sensors).
So, shouldn’t this debate be about the “best field of view” or “favourite working distance”? Maybe not, but food for thought!
1 Like
I don’t think I’ve ever done this, though I’ve always used APS-C cameras (except for my P&S days, when I probably didn’t pay focal length any attention at all).