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 doesnāt let you do these independently. One has to make certain compromises about the cropping and working distance. Thatās 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 Iāve seen, the most common misconception about focal lengths is that the focal length itself somehow causes perspective distortions. As long as weāre talking about reasonably rectilinear lenses (with distortions corrected), it does not. It is the working distance that matters.
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 isnāt 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 ālook the sameā 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 āzooming with your feetā 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.
I didnāt graph mine, but apparently I gravitate toward the extremes (or at least, I used to ā no more). This covers images from 2007 to the current day.
I looked at raw files, since I donāt always keep JPGs and I certainly donāt 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 ādottedā (i.e., supposedly sweet spot) on my 17-70, but thatās 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 didnāt feel like extracting and analyzing the lens typeā¦
(I donāt know about the 0.0 mm shotsā¦ just a glitch in the matrix, I suppose.)
For me, this is true only in so far as I donāt 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 ā 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). Iām in the process of moving to fuji atm so I suspect Iāll be using 35mm from now on.
I can confirm your stats. I call it the āzoom biasā.
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.
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. Widerā¦ widerā¦ 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, thatās too close, any idiot with a camera could capture that. The one farther away. Zoom inā¦ inā¦ 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 childās toy binocular. Well, it looked interesting on the LCD.
Iām sure youāre right. I canāt 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 weāre too lazy to change lens?
Are we looking at the world through our lens first rather than āthrough our eyesā?
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 doesnāt 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 itās 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 ā35mm equivalentā 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, shouldnāt this debate be about the ābest field of viewā or āfavourite working distanceā? Maybe not, but food for thought!
I donāt think Iāve ever done this, though Iāve always used APS-C cameras (except for my P&S days, when I probably didnāt pay focal length any attention at all).
I should have worded it better, but itās just my experience in online forums and websites. In manufacturer-specific forums, especially Fuji ones, you wonāt get people giving equivalents, but in more general photography forums, itās common for people to give equivalents to help with comparisons between the full-frame crowd and other sensor sizes. 35mm full frame has become the standard so everyone can be on the same page. Although thereās a case to be made that itās actually not very helpful because it perpetuates myths about focal length/DOF/background blur, etc. I think it would be better to just say 16mm APS-C, 35mm full-frame, or 50mm crop, for example.
Yes, in my P&S days I had an Olympus XA2 and I donāt know if I ever knew the focal length. It was probably something like a 27mm, but I donāt know and it never bothered me.
I donāt know that I have much to add here, although I agree with your point about working distance.
Something I find a little puzzling is the endless confusion (in some corners of the internet) over aps-c vs full frame equivalents, and people who think that (for example) a 35mm lens designed for aps-c cameras, used on an aps-c camera will give the FOV of a 35mm lens on full frameā¦
Not intending to be snobbish - just honestly puzzled over the lack what I would think of as clear thinkingā¦
As someone who does street and documentary photography, thereās only one answer: a 28mm (that is, on a 1.6 crop). Any wider, and Iād be breathing down my subjectās neck; any narrower, and Iād never get my subject sharp. This is all because I use zone focusing, of course.
I plan to take some street portraits next year; that way, I can finally get to play with a few more focal lengths.
