# What's your favorite focal length and why?



## SquarePeg

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?


----------



## jcdeboever

SquarePeg said:


> 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?


On film, it's 50mm. Focal length on the full frame is just enough reach and allows me to foot zoom in tight while maintaining focus. Plus it's light. So I guess reach, close focus distance, weight, and micro contrast of a prime.  28mm where I want more in the frame is my second choice. 

On digital crop sensor, it has recently become the xf50-140 for image isolation at f/2.8 and image render, amazing piece of glass. Xf 16mm 1.4 when I want more in the frame is my second choice, excellent isolation and micro contrast. 

All the other focal lengths are specific grabs or take alongs for me.


----------



## Trever1t

Depends on what I'm shooting eh? Portraiture I'll try to go 85-135 as room allows but some awesome effect can be had with wider lenses. 

Knowing what focal length (and aperture) do and how they interplay and effect the outcome is very powerful knowledge.


----------



## smoke665

SquarePeg said:


> What's your current favorite focal length? Why?



Depends on the scene. I love my Pentax 35, 50 & 70 primes, also like my 50-200 zoom, though it's a little slow for some things. My Sigma 100-300 apparently has problems, it's just not sharp enough, so I see it being replaced before long.


----------



## tirediron

All of them.  At one time or another.


----------



## Gary A.

Generally, anything but normal, (50mm on FF), the better for me. 

To generalize, I tend to see photography as storytelling. I try to use focal lengths as adjectives, to highlight subject(s) as I see and to emphasise how I tell the story. Adjectives heighten the detail and drama in a written story.  So too for focal lengths, the further away from normal/50mm the greater the optical drama.


----------



## webestang64

(All 35mm film cameras)......Pentax I like 50mm and 135mm. Canon EOS I like 20-35 wide zoom (no distortion curve).


----------



## 480sparky

'Favorite' focal length is a metric I do not care to track.  Any more than my 'favorite' ISO, 'favorite' white balance, 'favorite' focus distance, 'favorite' filter, 'favorite' pre-set, 'favorite' exposure method etc etc etc.


----------



## SCraig

Don't know.  Somewhere between 50mm and 500mm, very seldom less than that.


----------



## SquarePeg

480sparky said:


> 'Favorite' focal length is a metric I do not care to track.  Any more than my 'favorite' ISO, 'favorite' white balance, 'favorite' focus distance, 'favorite' filter, 'favorite' pre-set, 'favorite' exposure method etc etc etc.



So why respond?


----------



## 480sparky

SquarePeg said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Favorite' focal length is a metric I do not care to track.  Any more than my 'favorite' ISO, 'favorite' white balance, 'favorite' focus distance, 'favorite' filter, 'favorite' pre-set, 'favorite' exposure method etc etc etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why respond?
Click to expand...


The question was posed.  I'm not responsible if you don't like, care for, or even understand my response.


----------



## benhasajeep

Favorite was 300mm.  But now I have longer lenses and I suspect it will move to one of them.  Personally I like wildlife the best.  So, the bigger lenses get all the love.  The shorter ones are for "work" or seems that way.  They don't get the love.   hahahaha


----------



## JPI

At the moment a 105 mac, good for shooting critters in the tide pools, good for some landscape and just a fun lens. Working toward a 200-500 for the offshore wildlife.


----------



## ronlane

At the moment it is probably the 85mm, but in 2 weeks it will be a 300mm as football is about to start back up. YEAH!!!!!!


----------



## table1349

For me, while not necessarily my favorite, my most used is in the 300-400mm range followed by the 70-200mm range.  Perhaps that is because I love shooting sports as much as I do.  The only thing that makes a range a favorite for me is if it works for what I am shooting.  It's just these days I love shooting sports more than anything else.


----------



## Peeb

I like my extremes:  16mm and 500mm.  Looking at a 1.4x TC to push to long end up to 700mm.

I also like to walk around with my nifty 50 and force myself to really think!


----------



## Derrel

I own a bunch of primes...but I mostly use a 70-200 or an 80-200 or a 70-300 or a 28-200, on full-frame. I do tend to like the longer focal lengths much,much more so than the shorter lenses.


----------



## Derrel

480sparky said:


> 'Favorite' focal length is a metric I do not care to track.  Any more than my 'favorite' ISO, 'favorite' white balance, 'favorite' focus distance, 'favorite' filter, 'favorite' pre-set, 'favorite' exposure method etc etc etc.



Some  of my EXIF info data points from **one day** at the Oregon coast, Nikon FX camera...note that I carried the AF-Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 ED~IF, hence the high number of 180mm shots. I also had the Tamron AF-SP macro with me...so, 29 frames with it.


----------



## 480sparky

Derrel said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Favorite' focal length is a metric I do not care to track.  Any more than my 'favorite' ISO, 'favorite' white balance, 'favorite' focus distance, 'favorite' filter, 'favorite' pre-set, 'favorite' exposure method etc etc etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some  of my EXIF info data points from **one day** at the Oregon coast, Nikon FX camera...
> 
> View attachment 144234
Click to expand...


Which data set is your favorite?


----------



## Derrel

480sparky said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Favorite' focal length is a metric I do not care to track.  Any more than my 'favorite' ISO, 'favorite' white balance, 'favorite' focus distance, 'favorite' filter, 'favorite' pre-set, 'favorite' exposure method etc etc etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some  of my EXIF info data points from **one day** at the Oregon coast, Nikon FX camera...
> 
> View attachment 144234
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which data set is your favorite?
Click to expand...


As most experienced shooters know, a zoom lens is often used at its widest and its shortest settings. Looking carefully at the above 894 shots, and 57 different focal lengths, considering the lenses I HAD WITH ME, it's easy to see that there are a few trends...I had the 28-200, 70-210,70-300,85/1.8 AF-S G prime,90 Tamron macro,180/2.8 prime, and a 50mm/1.8.

45,50,and 52mm: a total of 39 frames in that narrow zone.

120,122,124,135mm: A total of 3,7,13,and 24 frames, in that area....I've noticed  this trend for years.

150,155,165, 170mm: Note the clustering of image here, in this focal length range. A total of 4,7,20,and 23 frames.

180mm: 82 frames or about 1 of 11 frames over the 894 pictures. Why? The 180/2.8 ED is a superb lens on the D610. SUPER-crisp!

200mm: the long end of the 28-200 zoom,most likely...116 frames at 200mm oput of 894 all day.

300mm: the loing end of the longest zoom, the 70-300...and at the Oregon Coast beaches, where "reach" and "whale watching at Boiler Bay" go hand in hand...132 frames.

The 7,800mm two shots?? Likely a mis-entered data from a non CPU lens...I have no idea...


----------



## fmw

Peg, I'm a wide angle fan.  My 50-230 zoom is buried in the camera bag.  I rarely use it.  I like the perspective I get close to the subject.  You can isolate a subject just as well as you can with a telephoto, you just need to get closer.  Most of the images I post here are made with wide angle lenses.  I'm new to the Fuji system and my 14 f2.8 is the one that I keep mounted on the camera.  I use that and the 18-55 pretty regularly.  My 60 stays in the studio for product shots.  

It is all a matter of photographic styles.  Most of the images you post seem to be landscapes and sports.  The long zoom is ideal for the sports.  You may want to try something shorter for the landscapes.  You have 18mm in your zoom.  Perhaps 14 or 16 would be something to try.  If you don't have wide angle then there is no way to discover what you can do with it.


----------



## SquarePeg

fmw said:


> Peg, I'm a wide angle fan.  My 50-230 zoom is buried in the camera bag.  I rarely use it.  I like the perspective I get close to the subject.  You can isolate a subject just as well as you can with a telephoto, you just need to get closer.  Most of the images I post here are made with wide angle lenses.  I'm new to the Fuji system and my 14 f2.8 is the one that I keep mounted on the camera.  I use that and the 18-55 pretty regularly.  My 60 stays in the studio for product shots.
> 
> It is all a matter of photographic styles.  Most of the images you post seem to be landscapes and sports.  The long zoom is ideal for the sports.  You may want to try something shorter for the landscapes.  You have 18mm in your zoom.  Perhaps 14 or 16 would be something to try.  If you don't have wide angle then there is no way to discover what you can do with it.



I've owned the Tokina 11-16 for about 3 years now and I just don't use it.  I disliked it almost immediately and should have sold it long ago but a friend talked me into keeping it for a astro photography which I've still never attempted.  I don't see myself spending money on a wide angle at this point but tastes change so you never know.


----------



## benhasajeep

SquarePeg said:


> I've owned the Tokina 11-16 for about 3 years now and I just don't use it.  I disliked it almost immediately and should have sold it long ago but a friend talked me into keeping it for a astro photography which I've still never attempted.  I don't see myself spending money on a wide angle at this point but tastes change so you never know.



I have the Tokina 11-16.  Limited range but it's a good lens if you want wide on a crop sensor.  Built like a tank.  Feels like a Nikon.  Always liked that lens.  Kept 1 D300 just for it.


----------



## vintagesnaps

Figures Gary's anything but normal. I had to, you left that wide open.

135mm, 50mm. I suppose that's because of what I started out with and from doing sports and events. And taking pictures of whatever out and about. I think I like the way a telephoto can get you in closer than you really are.


----------



## fmw

SquarePeg said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peg, I'm a wide angle fan.  My 50-230 zoom is buried in the camera bag.  I rarely use it.  I like the perspective I get close to the subject.  You can isolate a subject just as well as you can with a telephoto, you just need to get closer.  Most of the images I post here are made with wide angle lenses.  I'm new to the Fuji system and my 14 f2.8 is the one that I keep mounted on the camera.  I use that and the 18-55 pretty regularly.  My 60 stays in the studio for product shots.
> 
> It is all a matter of photographic styles.  Most of the images you post seem to be landscapes and sports.  The long zoom is ideal for the sports.  You may want to try something shorter for the landscapes.  You have 18mm in your zoom.  Perhaps 14 or 16 would be something to try.  If you don't have wide angle then there is no way to discover what you can do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've owned the Tokina 11-16 for about 3 years now and I just don't use it.  I disliked it almost immediately and should have sold it long ago but a friend talked me into keeping it for a astro photography which I've still never attempted.  I don't see myself spending money on a wide angle at this point but tastes change so you never know.
Click to expand...


Then you're well enough equipped.   I guess you and wide angle aren't made for each other.


----------



## DanOstergren

50mm, 85mm and 100mm.


----------



## Derrel

DanOstergren said:


> 50mm, 85mm and 100mm.



But, doesn't every camera maker offer 50mm, 85mm, and 100mm lenses? I mean, aren't these the same focal lengths that have been used since the 1950's? I mean...aren't these like time-proven, dependable, reliable focal lengths for full-frame cameras, and also good on APS-C cameras too? Who wants that!


----------



## chuasam

90% of the time I use my 105mm f/1.4 now


----------



## DanOstergren

Derrel said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50mm, 85mm and 100mm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, doesn't every camera maker offer 50mm, 85mm, and 100mm lenses? I mean, aren't these the same focal lengths that have been used since the 1950's? I mean...aren't these like time-proven, dependable, reliable focal lengths for full-frame cameras, and also good on APS-C cameras too? Who wants that!
Click to expand...

These are simply my preferred focal lengths. Has nothing to do with what anyone else thinks, it has everything to do with my personal preferences and experience. I used to love 135mm, but through experience found that it isn't a focal length that is sensible even on a full frame camera. 100mm gives an equally effective focal length while also being much more easy to use indoors and outdoors. Same goes for 85mm; I could post two images, one shot with an 85mm and one shot with a 135mm, and guarantee that you wouldn't be able to figure out which lens was used without looking at the exif. Better yet, the 85mm is $700 cheaper. Honestly I could probably take 100mm off of my list because the 85mm still does the exact same job for hundreds of dollars less. 50mm is wide enough to make a big difference from 85mm though, which is also why it's a favorite of mine that's separate from the 85mm. 

So I guess I revise my list. 85mm and 50mm.


----------



## Frank F.

SquarePeg said:


> 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?




For me it changed with age and experience. Wide Angle Photos are much more difficult to compose than Tele photos.

In a wide angle shot you have so many possibly conflicting elements and with a cheap wide angle you cannot really separate by blurring. At f/1.4 or f/1.8 you get some subject separation even at 20mm, but these lenses cost more than the whole bag of many amateurs.

What to do? Geometrical slow photography using a tripod and f/5.6 to f/22, depending on the diffraction limit of you camera.

Modern high pixel count cameras with small recording areas like 1/1.7 or 1 inch chips have their diffraction limit at f/4 or f/5.6.

With these it is much easier to get some separation on the long end of the usual zooms delivered with these cameras.

Tele means your frame will contain fewer elements so composition is much easier.

For beginners in film days a 1.8/50 was the lens delivered as a kit and I still recommend this on digital Crop sensors. Much less frustrating. Much easier to achieve a previsualised result.

In a film format body like the Nikon D3 or Nikon D600 which can today be bought very cheaply on eBay the 1.8/50 is more challenging but still a light Tele and you get loads of very good examples looking at the history of photography.

After that theoretical preface, I must say that my 1.4/105 Nikkor is my favourite lens at the moment, on crop as well as on film format (24*36 sqmm). Here the challenge is to use the razor blade thin focal plane to make your point. It is so easy to misfocus these shots. But: If you succeed it is all the more pleasing. Examples:















 



Having said that, after roughly one million photos taken in my life I feel confident to use all the lenses in my bag halways competently. All of them from 8mm to 300mm and the macros on crop or 24*36 and my monorail cameras.


----------



## gk fotografie

SquarePeg said:


> 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?



I've always been a big fan of wide angel/fish eye lenses and panorama photography.
Mid 1970's I discovered Dutch photographer Frits Rotgans, pioneer in panorama photography and builder of his own filmcameras. Short intro:






In the past 50 years every first or second lens I bought for a new reflexcamera was indeed a wide angel or a fish eye.
Through the years I've owned several Nikon superwide lenses, a 30mm Distagon for MF and a 47mm Super Angulon for LF. Never had a serious interest in telephoto lenses, but absolutely needed them as a pro.

I love to explore and experiment, this morning a 6,5mm fish eye arrived for my Fuji XE1, too bad Fuji has no real fisheye lenses for X-mount. Just a quick snapshot:


----------



## Frank F.

If I may point out that I also like my 1.4/35 Ai-S very much, esp as a "normal" lens for my D500. Why the D500? because she offers a very good ground glass, which Nikon took from the famous Nikon F6. Examples:


----------



## bribrius

No idea. I think of what i am trying to do sort through my lenses (most of which aren't that great) and think "hope this one will work". Sometimes it takes a couple trys.


----------



## Derrel

Which one is which? Nothing  was done to either image, except to check the little box, to apply Adobe Lightroom's automatic Lens Correction Profile for two different lenses. No highlight recovery was applied to tame the highlights on the ship's white superstructure. LOADS of smoke was in the air from two days-long

 forest fires in BC, Canada, and from two days-long forest fires raging in Oregon. Each original-sized posted image is 3,000 pixels wide, and is a straight, Lightroom conversion from a .NEF file.

Both are 180mm shots.


----------



## Frank F.

Derrel said:


> View attachment 144969
> 
> Which one is which? Nothing  was done to either image, except to check the little box, to apply Adobe Lightroom's automatic Lens Correction Profile for two different lenses. No highlight recovery was applied to get the highlights on the ship's white superstructure. LOADS of smoke was in the air from two days-longView attachment 144970 forest fires in BC, Canada, and from two days-long forest fires raging in Oregon. Each original-sized posted image is 3,000 pixels wide, and is a straight, Lightroom conversion from a .NEF file.
> 
> Both are 180mm shots.




Which is what?

You have two perspectives here and two lenses you say. Did you crop?


----------



## Frank F.

bribrius said:


> No idea. I think of what i am trying to do sort through my lenses (most of which aren't that great) and think "hope this one will work". Sometimes it takes a couple trys.




My strategy from the start was: few lenses but good ones. So my first choice was a 1.4/50 Zuiko in 1984.

Life it too short to waste it planning and composing shots with a lot of effort that in the end are technically flawed in a way that is unappealing.

Of the 35, 50 and 85 lenses most are quite decent and can be had for small money. When on a budget buy a used Mercedes not a new Fiat or Renault. That is what I did in my amateur days and what I still do when I have time to wait. Very economical and pleasing. Good zooms are quite expensive, even used. With only a few exceptions In the manual focus field.


----------



## Derrel

Which is the zoom lens shot and which is the fixed focal length lens shot?


----------



## SquarePeg

Derrel said:


> Which is the zoom lens shot and which is the fixed focal length lens shot?



Purely guessing...  the 2nd shot without the foliage on the left is the zoom.


----------



## Frank F.

Derrel said:


> Which is the zoom lens shot and which is the fixed focal length lens shot?




I do not think one can see the difference between Zoom and Prime. There are bad primes and great Zooms.

Primes of the same quality and speed are generally cheaper and smaller esp in the manual focus version.

I use primes because I can get them in 1.8 and 1.4 speed which is often unavailable as Zooms esp in film format 24*36 and because I like the drawing.

For subjects like sports I wish for a zoom. If I did sports professionally I would sure get a 70-210 kind of zoom.


----------



## BananaRepublic

SquarePeg said:


> I just can't get into the wider lenses lately.



Well you have lost weight lately


----------



## zombiesniper

500mm.
I shoot primarily wildlife and go figure birds just won't come to the studio.



Frank F. said:


> Primes of the same quality and speed are generally cheaper and smaller


Only true of shorter primes.


----------



## rexbobcat

85 probably. Was my first lens and "seeing" at that focal length comes second nature compared to others focal lengths now.


----------



## KmH

photographybyvanessa said:


> I have a love for my 135mm f2, its probably my favorite lens for capturing a head shot, this probably grew out of my love of my 85mm on my 7D. The 135 has a 9.5 degree field of view, the APC equivalent of a 135mm sits at just shy of the 85mm lens length.


So  - *Why is important focal length?*


----------



## Fred von den Berg

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.


----------



## davidharmier60

I used to do Airshows. And knew a guy who could get us onto almost any base. Usually kept a 70-210 on my AE-1 and a 28-105 on my EOS650. Never shot a heck of a lot on a 50 but in Canon I preferred the 1.8 to the 1.4. I have a real loose plan to get a Canon 40D body and an adapter to FD and one to Nikon.
Because I don't own an EF prime.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk


----------



## fmw

Frank F. said:


> 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

Fred von den Berg said:


> 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

fmw said:


> 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

SquarePeg said:


> 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

fmw said:


> 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

Derrel said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


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

SquarePeg said:


> 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

petrochemist said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Rick50

You do realize it depends on your subject. That makes this a silly question doesn't it?


----------



## SquarePeg

Rick50 said:


> You do realize it depends on your subject. That makes this a silly question doesn't it?



Of course your subject and the circumstances dictate your focal length.  The question is about your favorite focal length.  If the situation calls for it, I’ll use a WA but I like shooting better when I’m using a zoom or a long prime.  Sometimes the lens you like dictates your subjects and not vice versa.


----------



## photoflyer

Rick50 said:


> You do realize it depends on your subject. That makes this a silly question doesn't it?



I am sure the thread starter does realize this.  What makes forums interesting for me is replies that flush out the details of what may be a very broad question.  I often find replies that provide an insight I had not thought of.


----------



## baturn

500mm. Because I don't have 600mm.


----------



## Gary A.

fmw said:


> 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.


When I was working news, the 180mm went everywhere with me. The 180mm, 85mm and 20mm were most used lenses.






Nikkor 180mm, f/2.8


----------



## Rick50

SquarePeg said:


> Rick50 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize it depends on your subject. That makes this a silly question doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course your subject and the circumstances dictate your focal length.  The question is about your favorite focal length.  If the situation calls for it, I’ll use a WA but I like shooting better when I’m using a zoom or a long prime.  Sometimes the lens you like dictates your subjects and not vice versa.
Click to expand...


Yes, it works that way too. In this case I like 35mm on full frame for walking around as I can cover more subjects.


----------



## photoflyer

Now that is funny.  Reminds me of a truism:  "What does it take to make a man happy?  A little bit more than he has."


----------

