Rethinking focal length conventions

Started 7 months ago | Discussions thread
SteveinLouisville Senior Member • Posts: 1,155
I have a 35, a 40 and a 50mm prime

I use them for different things. The RF 35 is sharp, has IS and is a macro. I use it for landscapes, flowers and general purpose "almost" wide angle. The EF 40mm pancake is tiny, even with the RF adapter it is the smallest lens I have. It takes punchy, sharp pictures and the 2.8 aperture has never been a problem. My EF 50mm 1.4 is my low light lens. If I am somewhere where I can't use a flash and there is low light, I shoot with that.

Generally, I usually end up cropping anyway, so the focal length, per se, is less important than the specific reasons I am using the lens in the first place. Here is an example:

Shot with my 50 1.4 @ 1.4 in a super dark roller rink. A picture of my son, along with a screen shot showing how much I cropped it, then a FF uncropped photo of his mother while he was handing her his skates.

Focal length to me is not the determining factor, per se. The quality of the photo the lens produces is.

My son, showing the FF of the picture

My son, in the cropped photo

50mm uncropped

 SteveinLouisville's gear list:SteveinLouisville's gear list
Canon EOS RP Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM +5 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