Your favourite focal length

What is your favourite focal length, optical design/scheme (Sonnar, Tessar), if you know. How did you end up taking photos with it?

Today, the 27mm Fuji (40mm equivalent) based solely on weight.

Statistically speaking, based on metadata in Lightroom, over half of my images of scenery are taken at 50 mm, whether with a zoom lens (24-70/2.8) or prime. About 90% are taken between 35 mm and 90 mm. Of late, my favorite landscape lens is a manual Loxia 50/2, with a Zeiss Planar design. For street or walk-about, it would be a prime 25 mm or 35 mm lens, with a Distagon formula. Sonnar lenses are generally longer than "normal", 85 mm and up. Distagon lenses perform better on mirrorless cameras than symmetrical Planar or Biogon wide angle lenses, which have elements too close to the focal plane.

 

Tessar lenses are sharp enough in the center, but not as good toward the edges. They are generally slower, typically f/4 maximum. Leitz Elmar lenses have a similar design, but the optical center is in front of the middle element rather than behind as in the Tessar.

 

Why did I settle on the Loxia lenses? They have good color, consistent across the line, high contrast and excellent sharpness, corner-to-corner. Manual lenses have a distinct advantage for scenery, since they can be focused exactly where required, without the non-linear action of focus-by-wire.

 

Sony A7Riii + Loxia 35/2 @ f/5.6

If I am going to go about with just one lens on my 35mm film equipment, it's a decent bet that I'll be shooting a 35mm f3.5. It's way more my "normal" lens than my 50s. I don't own any zoom lenses, I used my brother's 28 to 85 for a while. He offered to give it to me, but no, he could keep it. Number two on the list? OMG, I really have to think about that. OK, just because it's mounted on one of my cameras at the moment, I'll go 100 f2.8. I've had both lenses since forever. That's back to the 70s. Number three is my 20mm f2.8. It's the lens that makes me really think about what I'm doing. #4 - 28mm f2.0. A great lens for gatherings.

 

Design - They are all Canon FD breach locks.

Tessar lenses are sharp enough in the center, but not as good toward the edges. They are generally slower, typically f/4 maximum. Leitz Elmar lenses have a similar design, but the optical center is in front of the middle element rather than behind as in the Tessar.

 

I've only seen f/4 or slower Tessar type lenses in large format.

 

All my medium format Tessars and Tessar-type lenses are f/3.5, and f/2.8 lenses are faster.

 

All the ones I have in 35mm are f/2.8. The only sort-of exception to that is my collapsible Elmar at f/3.5, but IIRC the Elmar isn't a Tessar design.

 

To be fair, I've never seen a Tessar faster than f/2.8 with any image circle size.

 

Of course, I have a handful of Tessar-type lenses that cover 4x5 and are f/4.5 and slower. I honestly don't pay a lot of attention to LF lens speeds since I'm always on a tripod and at moderately close distances even "slow" lenses have very little DOF wide open(or at moderate apertures like f/16 for that matter)...that's why we use swings and tilts.

 

BTW, as far as a favorite focal length-I hover between "normalish" lenses(50mm in 35mm, 80mm in 6x6, 150mm in 4x5) and 24mm in 35mm...

Come to think, the Rollei Tessar was f/3.5, and it's close relative Elmar 50 evolved to f/2.8. The larger point is that a 4/3 lens has very limited ability to correct field flatness and aberrations. The "Eagle's Eye" as it was known in the 1890s, was an improved version of the Cooke Triplet, and considered innovative at the time. With advancements in lens coatings, 18 element designs suffer a loss of only about 1/4 stop, which means engineers can correct problems ever more effectively.

 

I got along nicely for 40 years with a kit consisting of 35, 50 and 90 mm lenses - which were the only ones well suited for a Leica M2. Now that I have options ranging from 16 mm to 400 mm, I still feel comfortable in the 35/50/90 zone. Thanks to precise, magnified focusing in the Sony, my biggest change is a propensity to use f/5.6 or wider rather than f/8 and smaller. I can afford to take diffraction seriously.

Tessar lenses are sharp enough in the center, but not as good toward the edges.

Now I use Pentax 40/2.8 limited (Tessar pancake) lens which has very flat focal curvature and border sharpness is litarally the same as center sharpness on APS camera (was proved by photozone or optical limits site). The color reachness and contast (pop) is head and shoulders above Nikkor 50/1.4 AI-S I think on par with loxia family.

50mm, not beating 35 by much I use them both quite a lot. The specific lens is the 50mm Leica Summicron (non ASPH one).

The Loxia is not the sharpest 50 in Sony's lot, but is very good even at f/2, and has very low distortion. The 55/1.8 Sonnar is sharper, as is the 50/1.4 Planar. While the 55/1.8 is fairly compact, the 50/1.4 is a beast, 4.25" long, weighing 1.7 lbs (778 g). Both are primarily auto-focus. While you can focus them manually, the focus ring is connected only through the camera and is velocity sensitive - faster turn = greater action. If you turn too slowly, focus may not change at all, or jump unexpectedly. It's not a feature you want to use on a regular basis. Loxia lenses are strictly manual, only the aperture and (I believe) distance are transmitted to the camera. The action is long (90 degrees or more), and extremely smooth and well damped. If you like the way Leica lenses handle, you'll feel at home with Loxia. They're all metal, including the hood, and all use 52 mm filters.

 

I have a Summicron 50/2, version 2, which falls far short of the Loxia 50 in overall image quality and sharpness. 50 years is a long time in camera years.

The Loxia is not the sharpest 50 in Sony's lot, but is very good even at f/2, and has very low distortion.

Yes it is, I have examined all reviews about Loxia 50, the tens is beautiful lens with good drawing but my tiny Tessar is no slouch also. It is not f2 but optically in the high league too and has super fast AF. Also Loxia needs good hands and lighting knowlwdge, an unskilled photographer can ruin its potential easily.

The closest distance - my Pentax 40 limited.

 

My choice favorite lens depends almost entirely on the subject of the photo. Can't see how it would be otherwise, unless, of course, if you have a great photo opportunity and only one lens with you, then by default, it becomes your favorite lens!

I think its important when you set out to think you are using exactly the perfect camera/lens combo instead of wishing you'd brought something instead.

If I'm carrying one lens, I look for situations that favor that lens. One hammer, find the right nail. Even when I carry two or more lenses, I look first for what suits the lens mounted at the time. Either way helps develop your eye, the latter how the same scene would look through a different lens or from a different point of view before actually swapping lenses.

I really like the little old 40mm Pentax pancake. When used in conjunction with the belt clip it all makes for a tiny packaged SLR.

And it works well with the E6 stuff I’ve shot.

Makes for a great casual walk around film camera.

Edited October 29, 2018 by Moving On

Don't have one, as my standard lens is a standard zoom, and I zoom to whatever the scene calls for. So for these formats, the focal length is whatever the standard zoom is.

• m4/3 = 12-60
  
• DX = 18-140
  
• FX = 24-120 (if I get a FX kit)
  
• 35mm = 28-85, 35-105 (lens depends on which camera is used)
  

My only lenses that fit your question are larger formats where I don't have a standard zoom, and just use the normal lens:

• 6x6 = 80mm
  
• 4x5 = 150mm
  

Note that, the "favorite lens" changes based on what I am shooting. Each subject and situation has its own "favorite lens." So even though my generally favorite DX lens is the 18-140, it will and does change:

• For field sports (football, soccer and lacrosse), I use the 70-200.
  
• For baseball and softball, I use three lenses, the 18-140, 70-200 and 75-300. Though I would rather a longer 100-400 or 200-500 instead of the 75-300 for more reach.
  
• For tennis, I use two lenses, 18-140 and 75-300. Again, I would rather a longer 100-400 or 200-500 instead of the 75-300 for more reach.
   
  
• For gym sports (volleyball and basketball), the fast 35/1.8 or a 17-50/2.8.
   
  
• If I would shoot surfing, it would be my 500 mirror.
   
  
• For close up stuff, my 55 Micro.
  
• For family parties, I am considering using my 18-70, which is significantly lighter than the 18-140.
  

For those situations where my DX + 75-300 is not long enough, I plan to use the m4/3 + 70-300, to get the extra reach, without the extra bulk and weight of the 200-500.

I’d say you got it right with the first three, four, words..... ;)

REalistically, despite having a bunch of old pet lenses that I love and use, especially when I'm home, I most often have a shortish zoom. Until recently that was a 16-85, recently replaced by a 16-80, which (being faster, sharper, and not prone to aperture-lever malfunction) will, I hope, become a new favorite.

 

For sentimental favorites, I would probably have to go with the 35/2.8 PC, which I use often as a DX normal lens, but it does not usually get packed for travel.

Over the years I probably shot more with my PC-Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 than with any other single lens. but I love them all.o_O

 

 

Edited October 30, 2018 by JDMvW

24-135mm! But kidding aside, if I had just one lens, it would be a 50mm or equivalent for an APS-C camera. I only had a 50mm 1.4 from the mid 1980s up until around the turn of the millennium. After that, I built us a nice collection of prime lenses of pretty much every focal length from 16mm fisheye to 400mm tele. It was fun picking a lens, or a couple of them, for an outing and see what you can get within the limitations of that gear. But today zoom lenses are so good, and I enjoy the convenience of them. I think the switch from prime to zoom for me came with going from slide film to digital.

In thinking about this, I view it in a few ways.

 

I don't have one favorite, as I treat my lenses like tools in a tool box. I use whichever fits my needs/requirements best.

 

Or favorite is the default/GP lens that I keep on the camera and use most of the time.

So while I may like another lens better, it may not be the default/GP lens that gets used more.

 

Can a favorite lens be one that you like, even if you don't use it much or very little?

 

Here is an interesting wrinkle. I have a few lenses which the zoom or focus ring is sooooo smooth and easy to work, that it is a physical pleasure to use. They are not necessarily the optically best lens, but operationally, they feel good to use. And thus set the bar for other lenses to meet. Those of you who used some of the old manual lenses know what I mean. Like an old shoe, it is just comfortable to use, and the lens works with you, not against you.

On my full-frame, my 24-50mm lens gives me a reasonably wide to 'normal' perspective. This is my walk about lens. I use my 70-200mm lens (which I always carry for close-ups. I have macro and 400mm lenses that I use when needed.

24-135mm! But kidding aside, if I had just one lens, it would be a 50mm or equivalent for an APS-C camera. I only had a 50mm 1.4 from the mid 1980s up until around the turn of the millennium. After that, I built us a nice collection of prime lenses of pretty much every focal length from 16mm fisheye to 400mm tele. It was fun picking a lens, or a couple of them, for an outing and see what you can get within the limitations of that gear. But today zoom lenses are so good, and I enjoy the convenience of them. I think the switch from prime to zoom for me came with going from slide film to digital.

I also find myself a 50 - 55 mm guy! I do not fully understand wide angles, if I need to squeeze all the beautiful architecture on a narrow street or an interior - maybe... but I do not mostly like their character. So 50 and a longer focal primes! On Pentax aps camera I use 40.

Most of us use zoom lenses for flexibility and convenience. The question in this thread is how we use them. Adobe Lightroom, for one, reports grouped* statistics on the focal length to which zoom lenses are set, based on metadata communicated to the camera. This data can have a practical application, for example, when you need to decide what to carry and what to leave behind on a trip or vacation, or even what you put in your pockets stepping away from your car, when you don't want to schlepp the whole bag.

 

*Grouped data refers to an essential tool of statisticians whereby variable data is placed into non-overlapping ranges. It is not much use to separate 50 mm data from 51, or 52 when data in the range of, say, 50-55 mm yields a more representative tabulation. This applies to prime lenses too, because their focal lengths are nominal, rounded to the nearest traditional value.

35mm.

 

When I was young (7th and 8th grade) I borrowed my father's Canon VI with 35mm, 50mm, and 135mm lenses.

(I have hundreds of negatives from yearbook photography.)

 

I also used it in college years until I bought my Nikon FM with the AI 35/2.0, since I liked the 35mm on the Canon.

 

For indoors with flash, when you can't get back any farther, it worked well. I had (still have) a Vivitar 283

flash, which covers a 35mm lens.

 

For scenery pictures I also like it, as it gets about as much of the scene as I would like.

 

Later I got a used Nikon AI 35-70/3.5 zoom, which I used more than the 35/2.0. Well, at that time

we had my FM (black) and my wife's FM (chrome), one with slide film one with color negative film.

 

I also had (still have) an AI 24/2.8 for special occasions, along with the diffuser for the 283 flash.

My favorite use for that is Sequoia trees in California. Though usually still too tall.

Here is an interesting wrinkle. I have a few lenses which the zoom or focus ring is sooooo smooth and easy to work, that it is a physical pleasure to use. They are not necessarily the optically best lens, but operationally, they feel good to use. And thus set the bar for other lenses to meet. Those of you who used some of the old manual lenses know what I mean. Like an old shoe, it is just comfortable to use, and the lens works with you, not against you

Well said. I had several manual ones, I had modern Zeiss Planar 50 (which was discontinued a year ago) - very precision tool! Nikkor had ring much easies to turn, short focus throw, good too. But optically (and for its perspective, view), etc. I prefer something around 55 mm (on FF body). :rolleyes: