Really good point that I hadn’t fully absorbed previously
2 Likes
I think we’re straying off the point here. The point being that 35mm (FF) is the correct focal length, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong and should be treated with utmost suspicion.
That said, I struggled with my 24 mm aps-c prime when I got it, and still do on occasion. But that’s because it makes me do things I’m uncomfortable with (ie, get closer to my subjects), but that often result in better composition and more interesting perspective.
I agree… the X100V has been a challenge to say the least. I like the focal length but it’s difficult to make it work. aps-c 35mm, 16mm or 50mm are almost like cheat codes when it comes to some compositions.
As someone who shot 24mm FF for years, almost exclusively, taking a steps back is hard.
2 Likes
Nononono, you have it all wrong. 40mm is the correct focal length! 35 is just far too wide. How would you even get a decent bokeh out of such a wide angle? 40mm is obviously much superior in every way!
1 Like
Funnily enough yesterday I saw a video which defended 40-50mm as the best focal length, due to its magnification, not particularly its FOV, being more or less the same as our eyes
I’ve read it’s 43. But really it should be 42
7 Likes
I think “same as our eyes” is misleading, because it all depends (looking with one eye or two). I would rather formulate the problem in terms of relative viewing distance / angle.
When most people look at a screen, they have a viewing angle that corresponds to something between 28mm and 70mm full frame (depends on whether you are looking at a 13" laptop or a 32" screen, whether you are cooped up in an economy class airplane seat or a train, sitting at home/office with a comfy viewing distance, etc. but it is a reasonable ballpark).
The thing about really wide angle (<18mm ff) is that typically you look at it using a viewing angle that was not the angle the camera captured the frame. This allows for all kinds of visual gags/puns for your brain to play on you, and can be exploited for artistic effect. Or the “people with elongated heads on the edges” effect.
Of course the discrepancy between capture and viewing angle persists for all focal lengths, but it is most pronounced at wide. Narrower then 35mm FF it just becomes a mix between artistic and practical considerations (how far I am from the subject), and above 90mm-ish FF no one can really distinguish focal lengths just by looking at the photos so it is purely a practical matter.
2 Likes
For me, the best focal length is the one I can dial in with my zoom lens to get the composition I want from where I can stand. Recently, I find myself paying more attention to that, considering feedback from my frequency of recent post-process cropping.
I somewhat miss my APS-C ‘superzoom’ days, focal-lengths galore and a sensor size that mitigated the crappy resolution. Indeed, I recently bought a refurb copy of the Nikkor 24-200mm superzoom equivalent for FF, does the composition job nicely but really shows its ass in FF. We’re on a trip now, and I left it home and brought the F-mount 70-300 zoom and Z adapter I’d originally bought with the Z 6, when there was a paucity of Z Nikkors. Shoulda spent the extra money on the 24-120, a much better lens.
Anyway, for me focal length is a composition tool, where I’ll change my geometry moving laterally, and then getting the frame I want with the zoom.
3 Likes
I see what you did there.
3 Likes
Teehee
1 Like
Everything you say is correct - how the image is presented: size, viewing distance, magnification - all of that will alter how the audience interacts with and perceives it. But at the moment the photographer is taking the image, a normal lens is basically just drawing a box around what you see with your eyes.
This finally clicked for me when I got a 40mm lens, and realized that what I saw in the viewfinder was almost the same as what I saw with my eye. No magnification or shrinking (unmagnification?). All the camera does is impose a frame around a bit of the world that is otherwise as you see it. As compared to a wide angle, which ‘shrinks’ your view of the world, or a telephoto, which magnifies it.
That doesn’t make it better or worse, but I think it’s an interesting distinction from wide and tele lenses.
2 Likes
Check your fl statistics, most zoom users only use the ends of the focal lengths despite believing they are freely choosing whats best for the composition.
3 Likes
This is key! A super-wide-angle is a “normal” focal length for wall-sized panoramas, whereas a 40ish lens is probably “normal” for an A3/A4 print on the wall, or a 5x9 print in your hand. These are “normal” in the sense that the print covers the same FOV as the original scene covered in front of the photographer.
On the other hand, a purposeful departure from normality is the special spice that can make a superwide/telephoto shot stand out. One beloved print of mine is of a blue tit (a small bird), printed as large as a human head. I think a large part of why that works is precisely because it is not normal.
2 Likes
I did that a few years ago on a few of my major photographic sojours, and it did reflect your hypothesis. Recently, I’ve been paying a bit more attention to my framing; will do that after this current trip and see where I end up. I’ll need to mark this day, so I can test the confirmation bias… 
3 Likes
I’m a little surprised how little this has been mentioned in this thread. We all know wide angle shots with small rocks in the foreground that look huge and mountains in the background that look tiny, giving the effect of great distance. On the other end are telephoto shots that stack layers of mountains or trees as if they are much closer together than in real life. Focal length does a lot more than just allow you to decide what to include/exclude from a composition. Your feet still have a role in composition, even with a zoom.
2 Likes
For sure. When I’m shooting with a zoom, I like to think it allows me to select the right focal length for the image I want, considering perspective, distance to subject, isolation vs compression etc.
But in practice, I suspect that in most cases for me that means: what is the right focal length for taking an image without moving 
2 Likes
It is a matter of practice, though. After a few years of mostly shooting primes, and previsualizing a lot, I am now more likely to zoom to 23-35mm than the focal length extremes.
3 Likes
Guilty as charged when I’m in a hurry or pressed for time, which is most of the time.
1 Like
I find that zooms also allow you to change your angle much better than primes. Squatting down and being able to take a photo close to the floor is a great opportunity to try out a different focal length, compared to a hip or eye level shot. When using telephotos I found that I often zoomed out a bit more when shooting close to the ground vs high up. It also helps you not having to move down while squatted or leaning down, which can help a lot depending on the terrain or what you’re trying to shoot.
3 Likes