What is wrong with me? Or, a journey through focal lengths

Hi DPReview friends,

During this weekend, I have been working at a huge tourism exhibition here in Greece. Throughout my free time there, I've been taking pictures with my trusty X-T2. While there, I have come to a realisation.

I started photography with my phone years ago. I was comfortable with its focal length and got used to it. My first camera, an RX100 III was used mostly in its widest setting (24mm Full Frame equivalent) and in the beginning i was very happy and comfortable with that too. Then, starting to learn and read more about the art of photography, I started trying to only use the 35mm full frame equivalence.

I spent a year shooting at the 35mm equivalence and I got quite comfortable with it, to the extent that swapping my ILC Olympus with its extra lenses (which I hardly ever used) for the Fuji X100F was a no brainer.

But then, I tried the TCL and the WCL. Suddenly, the 28mm of the WCL was too wide for me. I hardly ever used it and sold it soon after. The TCL, however, just got to me. For the first time in my life, I was happy to use the 50mm FF equivalent focal length. This made me get the X-T2 and the 35mm f2 as my main lens.

After getting the 14mm for landscape, I found a great deal for the XF60mm f2.8. I have praised it highly elsewhere. I think it is a greatly underappreciated lens, especially for the amazing deals one can get for it. It takes a bit of practice to learn its AF, but can become quite quick after getting to know it.

I am now realising, that of all the focal lengths i've used, at the moment i'm most comfortable with the XF60mm, which is a whopping 90mm full frame equivalent, so much more than what I had been used to just recently.

What's wrong with me? Is it a matter of me being lazy? Is it just that I am just "made" to shoot more comfortably at longer focal lengths and should try to master them first? Or should I convince myself to go back to at least some more standard focal lengths such as the 35mm f2 or even struggle like hell to get comfortable with the 14mm f2.8 in order to unlock their great creative capabilities?

I know that in the end, it is my choice, but I would appreciate to read your opinions on this matter. Have you been where I am? Is it indeed laziness?

Unless you have a professional need or are taking a course that requires you to use different focal lengths to complete assignments, why not do whatever the heck you want?

If it suits you to use a particular focal length-- if you like the field of view from behind the camera and the images you get with it, then that is exactly what you should be using.  I am another fan of 85/90mm  equivalent. It's sometimes my favorite field of view and always one of my two favorites. I would use a fast 50mm  if I could have only one lens, a 40 and an fast or fairly fast 85 if I could only have two. Give me all three and I have all I need. Everything else is a special effect.

90mm is fine too. I am very fond of my own 60mm Fuji, though I would eventually like to have the 56mm f/1.2 as well.

You are crazy as a loon and must seek help immediately if not sooner! RELAX you are going through an evolution of finding out how you want to visualize the world in your photography. Different focal lengths depict the world differently. Longer focal lengths will eliminate distraction as wide angle lenses will accentuate distractions.

Ansel Adams, one of the greatest landscape photographers of our time - did not use wide angle much less ultra wide angle - his favorite lens for landscape was about a 60 mm equivalent FF lens. The focal length selections modulates the scene in may different ways, from lateral magnification to axial magnification to angle of view that will include or exclude of axis objects - which are often distractions to the main subject of the main focus of the scene.

So keep on your journey until you settle on your preferred vision of the world. I often used slightly longer than normal for landscape and I often use a normal (35 f1.4 on my Pro2) on landscape.

25 f1.4

And standing at approximately the same spot a little later on the same boring at 50 mm

Same peak - the "Great." But vastly different interpretations.

Find what you like - after all it is your vision.

I guess this 'fear' may be because I started with street photography? It felt like people suggested that going tele with street photography is the lazy, easy option, and that stuck in my head for photography in general.

I had no idea that Ansel Adams shot those focal lengths. I guess I always defaulted to expecting a wider FOV.

Mmmmm, so my next lens might be either the Mitakon 35mm f0.95 or the XF 90mm f2. Very different lesnes, both with their difficulties, but both appear to be excellent.

The 56mm is possibly the only lens in the Prime Fujifilm lineup that I am not that interested in. It is far too close to the XF 60mm and the XF 50mm and I prefer both of those for different reasons. I wouldn't give up size, weight and macro of the XF 60mm for the extra stops of the 56mm. At least not as I am now.

ViMa wrote:

I guess this 'fear' may be because I started with street photography? It felt like people suggested that going tele with street photography is the lazy, easy option, and that stuck in my head for photography in general.

Different styles require different visions which are better realized by different focal lengths. With street it is as much a function of operation room as anything. In the French Quarter of NOLA for example you don't have much room so if you have a longer lens - even a 50 (FF) can be too long people will keep walking between your shot and you! So a Fuji 50 - forget it. For street if will use the lens defined by the space I have.

Here is one with my 35 f1.4 on the Pro2. I was in a small boat - so if I used anything longer well I would have gotten wet :-(.

Pro2 X35 f1.4

However, at the track I have a lot more room so I often use my 56 f1.2

Pro2 56 f1.2

So a lot of which focal length works best has as much to do with working room as anything. Gary Winogrand normally used a 28 mm (FF) on his Leica but he roamed the streets of NYC - not much room to work.

I had no idea that Ansel Adams shot those focal lengths. I guess I always defaulted to expecting a wider FOV.

Mmmmm, so my next lens might be either the Mitakon 35mm f0.95 or the XF 90mm f2. Very different lesnes, both with their difficulties, but both appear to be excellent.

The 56mm is possibly the only lens in the Prime Fujifilm lineup that I am not that interested in. It is far too close to the XF 60mm and the XF 50mm and I prefer both of those for different reasons. I wouldn't give up size, weight and macro of the XF 60mm for the extra stops of the 56mm. At least not as I am now.

With landscape it really depends on your vision. Adams vision and style was to let the subject speak for itself which was realized by focusing on a subject symbolic of the larger landscape while cutting out any distractions from the larger landscape. That determined his choice of lens. Adams, Weston, Archer, White and others develop a group called F64 which redefined landscape style from the wide area pictorial style that dominated landscape the 1920's and 1930's. Adams image "Half Dome" was his first departure from the pictorial style where use a central isolated subject - the face of Half Dome - realize his vision of the Yosemite valley.

http://anseladams.com/new-modern-replica-monolith-face-half-dome/

This was the beginning of the style of Group F64 - and the concept of "visualization" of the image prior to snapping the shutter.  That is all the work is up front and little is left to chance.

Develop your own style.  Don't listen to anyone - including me - but keep exploring and keep asking questions.  As my mentor, Richard Kirstel offend said, understand the science, craft and art so you can devise your own methods to realize your own methods.

In terms of composition, larger focal lengths are easier to work with because there's less in the frame, so it's not surprising that you're most comfortable at 90mm.

Nothing wrong with you... The 85/90 is a "magic" focal length, at least of people... It is my favorite focal length to shoot with IF I have the space and time.

There's nothing wrong with trying to "balance" your lens choices to something that will suit you more or specific types of photography...