Rethinking focal length conventions

Started 7 months ago | Discussions thread
OP f1point4andbethere Regular Member • Posts: 446
Re: Rethinking focal length conventions

mcslsk wrote:

Not sure what the point is. As a rule of thump, a prime kit should contain lenses that double the focal lenght. So 24,50,100,200. Or 15,30,60,120. Or 20,40,80,160, as in your example. The difference in perspective between a 35 and a 40mm is very small. Even smaller is the difference between an 80 and an 85. As to speed, f1.4 will result in big and heavy (and expensive) lenses. What for? If you do statistics on your 20 years: What is the percantage of images shot a f1.4 overall? Me, I am rarely taking images at 1.4 or 1.8. People like things to be in focus - and not just the eyes My FF prime kit consists of Voigtländer 15f4.5, 21f3.5, Sigma 24f3.5, Sigma 35f2, Sigma 65f2 and FE85f1.8. Still hoping for a reasonabley good and small Sigma 135f2.8 or f3.5.

I'm glad you asked...

I actually ran my statistics on 30 wedding, and it turns out I shoot wide open pretty much all the time, with f1.4 being by far my most used aperture:

 f1point4andbethere's gear list:f1point4andbethere's gear list
Sony a7 III Sony a1 Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Sigma 20mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Sigma 135mm F1.8 Art +3 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow