What is your favourite focal length ?

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 hours ago, Ernstk said:

My 'must have' lens too, also the 2.8/21 Elmarit M.

How do you find the ASPH Elmarit compares to the non asph?

Ernst

Realistically, differences so small that I would not have bothered to change except that my pre-ASPH was in really weak shape (I've glued the plastic focus tab back together 3 times now, and it was starting to a acquire some haze), and the ASPH is marginally more compact (E55 diameter vs. E60, plus no "Frankenstein Neck Bolt" pins for the lens hood). And an ASPH became available at a very good price.

ASPH (in rough order of obviousness)

- slightly more global (as opposed to micro) overall contrast (can lose detail in blacks or whites just a smidgen sooner)

- slightly pinker-blue color rendering vs. Canadian/Mandler yellow-green (minor 😰 ) - but easily fixable in digital WB selection. And actually helps, very slightly, in shooitng digital color under yellow indoor light (kind of like having a built-in 2%-of-an-80B filter). Matches my 50mm Summicron v.5.

- somewhat larger central area of very good resolution at f/2.8 - maybe 3/4ers of the way to the long ends of the picture (i.e. 14mm from center), vs. 3/5ths with the pre-ASPH (11mm from center).

- and the remaining - and still notable - fuzziness/streakiness in the corners at f/2.8 is "tighter," albeit not really landscape-grade until f/5.6-8. (but see lat. CA below)

- shows more lateral CA (green-magenta fringes on opposite sides of a very bright object against a very dark background, or vice-versa). A very minor amount (~1 pixel on M10), but the pre-ASPH was notable for producing virtually zero lat. CA (at the cost of some overall clarity). I think this was just one of the those optical-designer tradeoffs - "Let's make it crisper and clearer, even if that makes the CA crisper and clearer also." One click in Camera Raw gets rid of it.

[crons]

50mm.. a 35mm as a companion is needed. 

[justj]

14-400mm

[DadDadDaddyo]

"Favorite" isn't the same as "Most-Often-Used" for me. 

"Most Often Used" would be 50mm or 35mm. One or the other of these most often fits the purposes I'm chasing in making an image. I sort of "must" use one of them to make the shot work. 

But "Favorite" for me would be 90mm. When it's the right lens, I simply love the way it works, how it facilitates selection and framing, and simply, how images made at that focal length look.

I use 90mm for much more than portraits.

In landscapes, 90mm helps me battle the tendency to try and include everything (often too much) in a scene: often with a wide angle approach to landscape I find it too easy to lose the notion of a subject.  The work instead turns into a comprehensive project of fitting all of the various elements in a scene into the frame pleasingly. 

90mm let's me select an element or two in the scene and make it the central focus of an image, yet often, without over-isolating that element from its surroundings. It's contextual. If 35mm is compared to the human eye when viewing a scene, I'd compare 90mm to the act of "looking" at something in the scene, rather than looking at the whole scene with my eyes dancing around. I like it as a basis for starting to make an image. 

It feels like a treat to get to use the focal length I like, but I'll willingly, or at least, dutifully, use whatever focal length permits me to do what I'm setting out to do. 

Edited June 2, 2024 by DadDadDaddyo

[hansvons]

15 hours ago, DadDadDaddyo said:

If 35mm is compared to the human eye when viewing a scene, I'd compare 90mm to the act of "looking" at something in the scene, rather than looking at the whole scene with my eyes dancing around.

Good point.

[Markey]

15 hours ago, DadDadDaddyo said:

"Favorite" isn't the same as "Most-Often-Used" for me. 

"Most Often Used" would be 50mm or 35mm. One or the other of these most often fits the purposes I'm chasing in making an image. I sort of "must" use one of them to make the shot work. 

But "Favorite" for me would be 90mm. When it's the right lens, I simply love the way it works, how it facilitates selection and framing, and simply, how images made at that focal length look.

I use 90mm for much more than portraits.

In landscapes, 90mm helps me battle the tendency to try and include everything (often too much) in a scene: often with a wide angle approach to landscape I find it too easy to lose the notion of a subject.  The work instead turns into a comprehensive project of fitting all of the various elements in a scene into the frame pleasingly. 

90mm let's me select an element or two in the scene and make it the central focus of an image, yet often, without over-isolating that element from its surroundings. It's contextual. If 35mm is compared to the human eye when viewing a scene, I'd compare 90mm to the act of "looking" at something in the scene, rather than looking at the whole scene with my eyes dancing around. I like it as a basis for starting to make an image. 

It feels like a treat to get to use the focal length I like, but I'll willingly, or at least, dutifully, use whatever focal length permits me to do what I'm setting out to do. 

Exactly how I feel.

Well put.

[Ernstk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 6/2/2024 at 12:31 AM, adan said:

Realistically, differences so small that I would not have bothered to change except that my pre-ASPH was in really weak shape (I've glued the plastic focus tab back together 3 times now, and it was starting to a acquire some haze), and the ASPH is marginally more compact (E55 diameter vs. E60, plus no "Frankenstein Neck Bolt" pins for the lens hood). And an ASPH became available at a very good price.

ASPH (in rough order of obviousness)

- slightly more global (as opposed to micro) overall contrast (can lose detail in blacks or whites just a smidgen sooner)

- slightly pinker-blue color rendering vs. Canadian/Mandler yellow-green (minor 😰 ) - but easily fixable in digital WB selection. And actually helps, very slightly, in shooitng digital color under yellow indoor light (kind of like having a built-in 2%-of-an-80B filter). Matches my 50mm Summicron v.5.

- somewhat larger central area of very good resolution at f/2.8 - maybe 3/4ers of the way to the long ends of the picture (i.e. 14mm from center), vs. 3/5ths with the pre-ASPH (11mm from center).

- and the remaining - and still notable - fuzziness/streakiness in the corners at f/2.8 is "tighter," albeit not really landscape-grade until f/5.6-8. (but see lat. CA below)

- shows more lateral CA (green-magenta fringes on opposite sides of a very bright object against a very dark background, or vice-versa). A very minor amount (~1 pixel on M10), but the pre-ASPH was notable for producing virtually zero lat. CA (at the cost of some overall clarity). I think this was just one of the those optical-designer tradeoffs - "Let's make it crisper and clearer, even if that makes the CA crisper and clearer also." One click in Camera Raw gets rid of it.

Thank you for your detailed reply - very helpful.

Like yours, my non asph 2.8/21 is becoming a bit tired and worn out.

Ernst

[Jeff S]

On 5/24/2024 at 4:23 PM, downstairs said:

Summicron 40mm.  Gives 'attitude' without excess. 50mm is flat. 35 is a show-off.  I'm talking here about perspective.

Actually, you’re not; only when you move your feet.  

Jeff

[NigelG]

Like others - 50mm but only if I have a 28 in my pocket…

[pippy]

On 6/2/2024 at 3:58 PM, DadDadDaddyo said:

"Favorite" isn't the same as "Most-Often-Used" for me...

Same for me. Obviously 'the situation' will usually inform lens-f/l-choice but whereas I am usually shooting with 35mm and 28mm my personal Favourite is 40mm.

On which point;

On 5/24/2024 at 9:23 PM, downstairs said:

Summicron 40mm.  Gives 'attitude' without excess. 50mm is flat. 35 is a show-off.  I'm talking here about perspective.

This is a very common misunderstanding but, as has just been mentioned by Jeff in post #50, you are not.

Perspective doesn't change when using lenses of different focal lengths from the same place and shooting the same subject-matter. What does change / vary with f/length are angle-of-view and depth-of-field (at similar apertures). It is only when the positions of photographer and/or subject matter change that perspective changes.

Philip.

Edited June 3, 2024 by pippy

[Strmbrg]

It varies.
Mainly it varies over time, rather than it varies according to what I want to photograph.
For me, it really doesn't so much matter, I mount one of my three lenses (28, 50 and 90) - and after that I go around looking for what I can create with the lens that happens to be mounted.
🙂
But it seems that I most often have the 50 mounted. At least so far. I haven't had a lens interchangeable camera for more than six months. Before that I used a Q2 for nearly five years.

PS
My 28/2,8 is not at all so versatile as the Q"-lens. Much more restricted regarding both depth of field and close-distance.
Even those restrictions can be a good thing, because it means that I have to think more and be more creative inside it's restrictions.

[downstairs]

On 6/3/2024 at 8:27 PM, pippy said:

Same for me. Obviously 'the situation' will usually inform lens-f/l-choice but whereas I am usually shooting with 35mm and 28mm my personal Favourite is 40mm.

On which point;

This is a very common misunderstanding but, as has just been mentioned by Jeff in post #50, you are not.

Perspective doesn't change when using lenses of different focal lengths from the same place and shooting the same subject-matter. What does change / vary with f/length are angle-of-view and depth-of-field (at similar apertures). It is only when the positions of photographer and/or subject matter change that perspective changes.

Philip.

I get control of perspective with position. It's perspective which tells the viewer how far away the subject is.  Like use a 35 and stay within chatting distance of your subject. Or in my case, stay within arms reach of a tabletop still life.  CB

[Jeff S]

9 hours ago, downstairs said:

I get control of perspective with position. It's perspective which tells the viewer how far away the subject is.  Like use a 35 and stay within chatting distance of your subject. Or in my case, stay within arms reach of a tabletop still life.  CB

More importantly, perspective shows the relationship between near and far objects.  These relationships change as the photographer moves.

Jeff

[evikne]

I mostly identify myself as a 50mm guy. But in recent years I've started to use 35mm more and more. It's often more practical and can be used for everything, but more in a documentary way. I feel that 50mm can be used in a more artistic way.

[Ernstk]

11 minutes ago, evikne said:

I mostly identify myself as a 50mm guy. But in recent years I've started to use 35mm more and more. It's often more practical and can be used for everything, but more in a documentary way. I feel that 50mm can be used in a more artistic way.

I'm somewhat surprised to see someone use '50mm' and 'artistic' in the same sentence. (Unless it's a Noctilux perhaps)...

[evikne]

1 hour ago, Ernstk said:

I'm somewhat surprised to see someone use '50mm' and 'artistic' in the same sentence. (Unless it's a Noctilux perhaps)...

Even a 50mm Summilux or Summicron will have a better ability to play with depth of field, and more three-dimensionality than most 35mm lenses, which I think give a flatter view. And a 50mm can provide a more selective view (only including what I think is the most important).

Edited June 10, 2024 by evikne
clarifying

[Ernstk]

25 minutes ago, evikne said:

Even a 50mm Summilux or Summicron will have more ability for depth of field and three-dimensionality than most 35mm lenses, which I think give a flatter view. And a 50mm can provide a more selective view (only including what I think is the most important).

Are you saying that the 50mm has greater depth of field than the 35mm? Or the opposite?

[evikne]

1 hour ago, Ernstk said:

Are you saying that the 50mm has greater depth of field than the 35mm? Or the opposite?

The opposite of course, I probably expressed myself a little poorly. I meant more room to play with depth of field, i.e. to make it more shallow.

Edited June 10, 2024 by evikne