What are your focal length combos, /p/? If you were to pick 2 or 3 prime lenses, what focal lengths got you covered?
Are you a 35/50 kind of guy? I feel like most people fall in that category.
I'm asking because I'm pretty curious about the sort of gaps in angles of view people are comfortable with.
So if you are a 35/50 person, would you be more likely to reach for a 28mm instead of a 20mm, for example.
I have aps-c equivalents of 50mm and 28mm now. I shoot with the 28mm 90% of the time and I'm selling the 50mm, it's too tele for me most of the time. I think 35mm and 24mm or 21mm will be my future duo, then maybe later I'll add a 50mm again for portrait stuff.
This is an interesting if often recurring (on /p/) topic, but you forgot to add the magic words "or 35mm equivalents" and have thus doomed the thread to arguments about crop factor, different image formats/sizes etc. I'll go with 20 and 50 for most situations.
50mm and 35mm. I prefer the latter, though.
>>2873914
well I'm more interested in the difference of angles of view within a set of preferences. but it seems people might be inclined to prefer only a single focal length
>>2873901
on a full frame film camera, for me the standard set up would be 28mm wide angle, 50mm normal, 85mm short tele.
this pretty much covers anything
I'm in the in the 35/85/135 or equivalent camp. 50mm is often too wide or too long for me when I try to compose.
24mm is a little hard to use as a daily driver because the WA distortion starts to complicate things.
20/35/85 for me. Once I'm over 100mm, I prefer zooms.
>>2873931
My man
I recently sold all my digital glass and changed brands, and now I'm carrying 35 and 85, which on my crop Nikon come out as roughly 52 and 127 I recall. I'm extremely happy with that setup, but would also do with those lenses on FF.
I've grown to like 50 range cause I have two on my rangefinders: 45mm on Yashica Lynx and an oddball 52 on my Fed 3.
On my main film SLR I have a 35-105 zoom with macro focusing on the longest end and it's always a huge pleasure to shoot with. Also I use the macro in the 105 end a huge lot for close-up portraits so whenever I'm too close to the subject I have no choice but to zoom in the 105mm and then be able to focus but not on any other focal lenght. It sounds like a burden but it has always brought me extremely interesting results.
All said, in an ideal world I would shoot have a 35 for wideish stuff, and then 50/85/either 105 or 135. If I had to dump one of those I'd happily dump the 50 - it's a mid-focal lenght lens with qualities of both 35 and 85 but it excels in neither department and generally lacks its own purpose.
Those 1.4 and 1.2 lenses tho
>>2873901
APS-C: 35mm, 70-200mm, 500mm
The longer the better.
I used to have a thing for wide angles, but then I grew up.
Anything below 35 outdoors has no use, unless shooting inside a crowd. Wide angles are indoors real estate lenses.
50 is nice as a normal lens. 35 might be quite wide, 80 is already very restricting.
I'll go 50/85/135
>>2873947
Literally what do you shoot with 500mm. (And that's 750 equivalent on aps-c)
I am honestly curious
>>2873949
Now, now, don't be flippant; like many here I may prefer 35mm, but 24mm has its uses. Pic related was 24mm and I had to get almost on the ground.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 5D Mark II Camera Software Capture One 7 Macintosh Photographer Photographer:Kolor-Pikker Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2013:08:21 12:15:55 Image Created 2013:08:21 12:15:55 Exposure Time 1/50 sec F-Number f/4.5 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/4.6 Exposure Bias 0 EV Subject Distance 0.00 m Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 24.00 mm Image Width 2904 Image Height 1915 Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto
>>2873950
Not him, but I used to shoot motorsports professionally and the 500mm was my bread and butter. I carried an FF body and a DX body and used it on both, sometimes even with a 1.4x teleconverter for almost 1000mm equivalent. The reach was nice for getting unusual angles.
Fun rangefinder facts
75mm is roughly half the field of view of a 35
90mm Is roughly half the FoV of a 40
24 and 40mm equiv.
Maybe i will add a 80-350mm equiv tele zoom to that.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:01:21 00:13:02
35, 50 and 100 are pretty much all I use anyway so I guess I'd be fine using only these
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5.1 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.8 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:06:06 04:43:01 Exposure Time 1/50 sec F-Number f/2.5 Lens Aperture f/2.5 Exposure Bias 0 EV Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
21/50 or 35/90 are nice
>>2873901
Right now I use 40 and 105mm equivalents with my Mamiya 645, I really want to get something wider for it though cause I'm getting tired of freelensing my Canon FD 55mm 1.2 in front of it for macro shots, a native Mamiya 55/2.8 would probably be cheaper and have less distortion than the Canon
14, 28, 50.
I like landscape, and I like getting close.
>>2873967
>rolling on the ground for a snapshit like that
why?
Always talking about 35mm equivalents: 28mm, 50mm, 75mm and 105 to 450mm zoom.
If any Id get rid of the nifty fifty (75mm) but I just can't.
24mm and 50mm, but I like the 85 a lot tho...
>>2873967
Yeah but this is a what would you prefer thread.
I mean I would prefer compact, robust 5-135mm and 100-3500mm zooms in my setup with stunning Leica-level image quality on all focal lenghts and adaptable to both 35mm and medium format cameras and... you get the idea.
But speaking of primes I find actuallly usable on 90% of the stuff I shoot, it's 35-50-85-105-135. Any longer or shorter I have zero or very little use.
To be clear, 28 or shorter just includes so terribly much in the frame in 90% of situations that it's a pain to shoot anything but snapshots on.
Then again I don't do nature photography.
What I meant by I used to think the wider the better is I wanted to fit everything into the frame everywhere, I even at one point wass looking for a 10-16mm zoom for my crop Canon. But the more I've photographed the more I've realised excluding things from the frame is the way to go, and longer focal lenghts do that easy.
I mostly shoot my 85 (127 equi.) now when including people in shots and 35 (52 equi) for when I need wider or when I'm going snapshooting.
>>2873950
Wildlife mostly with the occasional motorsports. Sometimes planespotting.
>>2873939
dis nigga right here
I have a 18-105mm and it's great. I'm getting a 35mm prime soon
100 MP camera
10mm lens
Crop the fuck out of everything
>>2873901
>muh nifty fifty
>hurr durr 35mm
please don't parrot this meme.
Friendly Suggestion: focus on one type of photography and narrow down the list of gear you want to acquire accordingly.
Each type of photography has it's own unique gear requirements, OP.
Someone who shoots portraits will want a long focal length, like 85, 135, or 200mmm.
A person who shoots landscapes has no need for a 135mm, he's using an ultra wide angle 16-35mm or maybe a 15mm fisheye on a Ninja Nodal to create panoramas.
An architectural photographer needs a 17mm and 24mm tiltshifts, which run several thousand each.
Product photographer might use a 60 or 70mm macro lens.
Aviation and Nature photographers will need the biggest glass they can afford.
Sports photographers have other requirements.
And the list goes on.
>>2873967
>architectural exterior
>frame full of wires and signage and shit
>75% of image is sky
Amigo, gather up your pesos, we're building a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it.
>>2874725
I like the wires, I would probably have cropped out that sign myself
>>2874723
> I do what others tell me and you should too
ftfy
>>2874723
jesus youre a retard but you think youre on top of it and thats whats sad
landscapes without a tele? lol ok
35/60/180. I've got the 35 on my Fuji, and the other two on my Nikon. I'm big on tele lenses because it really brings you in close and intimate with a subject.
>>2874130
>rolling on the ground for a snapshit like that
crouching down is rolling on the ground now? and yes, I know it's a snapshit, otherwise I wouldn't post it here. The point is that it's good to have options.
>>2874725
>>2874730
The wires and sign are supposed to be there, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to frame them in.
Have another pic to trigger your autism.
>>2874744
/p/ ate the pic
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model PENTAX 645Z Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh) Photographer Konstantin_Kovalev Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 43 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 6187 Image Height 6179 Number of Bits Per Component 16, 16, 16 Compression Scheme Unknown Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 360 dpi Vertical Resolution 360 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2015:05:13 14:11:22 Exposure Time 1/200 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Not Defined ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias -0.3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 55.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1024 Image Height 1023 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Soft Subject Distance Range Distant View
>>2874744
>saying I like the pic is autism
you seem a bit thinskinned, bro
>>2873901
landscape/wildlife guy here.
35mm: 24mm, 80mm
MF: 50mm, 150mm
15mm, 50mm prime. I have a 20-40mm limited I shoot at 20mm about 99 % of the time.
20mm, 50mm and 150-600mm, on fool frame.
>>2875337
How is the 150-600? Sigma or Tamron?
I only have the 50-500 OS HSM Bigma because K-mount and too poor for that lovely D-FA 150-450.
It works quite well and the focus is excellent but gets soft after 300mm. Still usable at 400 but it's meh at 500mm.
20mm 35mm 50mm 135mm
35mm for everyday stuff
28mm + 75mm if I'm bringing 2 lenses
28/35/50
(my only camera is an X100...)
20mm, 50mm and 100mm.
>>2873901
50mm isn't tele at all on a full frame but you wouldn't know that because you have a piece of shit crop sensor and no idea what the fuck you're talking about you fucking imbecile
>>2874747
That is a really objectively bad photograph.
>>2876172
I never wrote the word "tele" anywhere on my post, nor did I imply anything to be "tele". I meant all the listed focal lengths exactly as they're listed in 35mm format. You stupid dumb motherfucker.
>>2876172
are you retarded? no where in that post was any of that implied you fucking illiterate shitstain
>>2876181
Kill yourself my man
>>2876181
Lol fuckin retard
>>2876172
dat projecting.
Currently running 23mm and 56mm on my Fuji. Next lens will be a wide, probably the 16mm. That won't be too far off from the 20mm + 35mm + 85mm trio that was my bread and butter on FF.
>>2873901
>Are you a 35/50 kind of guy? I feel like most people fall in that category.
No, that combination is dumb as fuck. You can just crop a 50 out of that 35 if you need it.
> If you were to pick 2 or 3 prime lenses, what focal lengths got you covered?
16mm
42mm
135mm
>>2876506
>No, that combination is dumb as fuck
not op, but I myself just assumed he meant 35/50 as EITHER and/or both
>>2873901
16/35/80/400 FF
>>2876506
a person of taste
40-45mm is widely under appreciated, closer to normal than the standard 50mm which always feels slightly too tele for me.
15-30mm f/2.8
24-70mm f/2.8
70-200mm f/2.8
Not really a prime guy, but I do bust out my 50mm f/1.2 every now and then. I'm so boring :(
started out shooting a lot at 27mm (the widest end of my 18-55 kit lens on fuji crop), later experimented a bit with 50mm but found it a bit narrow for street so I sold the lens, now shooting solely with a 18mm equivalent prime for street and I'm okay with getting ultra close, the lens has a close focus distance of 20cm too so it's very versatile.
I'm also very comfortable with 35mm on film SLRs, generally a wide angle guy but I've literally never used a focal length longer than 82.5 ff equivalent. maybe I'll try teles out when I move on to different types of photography other than street and documentary!
>>2876206
Sick setup, I think I'll get the 23mm at some point but I'm interested in the 18mm.
Thoughts?
>>2876178
>objectively
There is a subject.
It's decently exposed.
As a former industrial electrician, now HFC network engineer, I find it mildly interesting.
It may not be good, but it's not bad either.
You shouldn't critic a piece unless you have something to say.
>>2876710
Don't worry about it, I specifically picked those photos to trigger /p/. Its a joke on wires and stuff being in the frame, so I intentionally shot that building where a lot of wires are in the foreground.
For what it's worth, my city is undergoing massive reconstruction work, with most wires going underground, and many streets are already "cleaned up" in this manner.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model PENTAX 645Z Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh) Photographer Konstantin_Kovalev Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 43 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 360 dpi Vertical Resolution 360 dpi Image Created 2016-06-01T17:54:53+03:00 Exposure Time 1/200 sec F-Number f/9.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/9.0 Exposure Bias -1 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 55.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 900 Image Height 675 Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Soft Subject Distance Range Distant View
>>2873939
My nigger
My ideal kit would be 16-35, 50, and 70-200.
What I have? 28, 35-70, 50, 70-300. Meh
>>2877400
I have 16-45, 35 and 70-200
50mm is overrated.
24, 50, 105 or 135.
Though I like to travel with just a 35mm.
I have a 50 and a 105, fits almost all my needs.
APS-C shooter here, I leave my 35mm on most of the time
>>2873901
14mm (or wider)
35mm
500mm
