Quite timely for me Alex as I have been reflecting on the very subject. 10 years or so ago in my early 60's I became a teenager again when I discovered street photography. 24-28mm seemed the way to go and I enjoyed going around street markets and other busy places taking images of people at close range without them being aware of it. A close range "hipster" described my style. However after several years I became bored and demotivated as I felt I was just repeating myself over and over. More recently the covid years completely flattened my photomojo. Now that its returned I am still interested in street but have extended my range and changed my style somewhat. I have reminded myself that one of the reasons why I got into street was the discovery of the late Vivian Maier's work. She did pretty well with a standard Rolleiflex most of her working life. In her later years when she was able to purchase a Leica I believe she stuck with the standard lens. So my main lenses now are the 35mm, 50mm and 90mm. Each has their purpose. So photographically I have grown up to be the 73 year old I actually am. 😀
I like the most to use 50mm in Full frame terms. I love doing woodland photography. That 50mm focal length for me creates the feeling of "being in the scene", being ""connected to that little peace of nature". I like to convey that feeling also to the viewer of my images. When I shoot portraits (mostly headshots) I do like to use 75mm in full frame terms. You can get in close (connect with the person) without being intrusive for the person. I do have some other focal lengths but rarely use them. They only collect dust. Yes 50mm and 75mm are my primes.
Maybe due to my severe myopia, I'm drawn to lenses that let me focus on a small area. Even with my glasses on, it's hard to fully appreciate a big view. My favorite lens is a 24-105 and my most common focal length for landscapes is 40-60mm. I enjoy natural macro photography with my 100mm macro, and my 100-500 for wildlife and even landscape details. Yeah, I'm pretty introspective. I never thought about lens choice in terms of personality, though. I think one's personality drives one's choice of subject, and it's the subject that drives lens selection.
Back in the day (late 80s) I bought and used my Olympus 135mm f2.8 lens for landscape photography a lot! Basically, I was in my ‘minimalist period’ then. I started to ‘see’ very quickly at this field-of-view (around 19 degrees) the landscape elements - isolating individual features and only take ‘clean’ images! Luckily, a few image publications and awards on the way! Today, the new generation photographers call this type or genre ‘Minimalist Photography’ - but back in the day, we called this ‘True Art of Composition’, without distracting clutter! Remember the adage …. ‘The best zoom lens, is your feet!’
I'm still happy with my Micro Nikkor 55/3.5. Use it both on digital and film Nikon bodies. Think of it as a generic 50mm but with shorter focusing distance. Not a dedicated macro shooter, but sometimes I want to be really close to capture specific detail. Yes, it's also doable with 28mm or wider, but usually don't like the "look".
I'm just super-comfortable using a 135 f/1.8 for my street photography. I feel like I know that lens inside and out. I'm a shy introvert so it allows me to stay unnoticed (usually) which IMO gives me a more natural, candid reaction... or I guess LACK of reaction is a better way of saying it. If they don't know I'm there, that means whatever I get is the genuine person doing what they would be doing if I wasn't there to begin with, sticking a camera in their face. It just feels more pure to me.
I found it enlightening to examining the focal lengths I used over a long time with just one zoom lens (in my case, a standard 24-70mm). Bridge or Lightroom make it easy to quickly tabulate what focal lengths you use most frequently. The results surprised me and influenced what prime lens focal lengths I should acquire.
I must admit that this video maybe the first video, where you had me flummoxed. I have a lot of lenses and never have I thought that one fits a personality type. For me they just do a job of creating the kind of photo I want at that time and using the best focal length to achieve creating that story. Maybe I am being a dullard (nothing unusual in that).
Thank you! It's such a relief to watch a video about lenses that doesn't go into yawn-inducing technical detail. Personally I stumbled across the Fuji XF23mm a couple of years ago (approx 35mm equiv) and it's barely left my camera since. It just feels so natural to me, the images are spacious and give everything room to breathe but without feeling too distant. I love finding scenes of stillness and calm in amongst all the busyness and rush of life, this lens just seems to be perfect for that.
Phenomenal portrait at 6:28. A makeshift studio, of sorts. The model is there and yet not there, in a way. The pastel sky blue of her outfit, it's soft texture. The red bricks and somewhat post-apocalyptic (I'm reaching a bit) atmosphere. Her gorgeous red hair (echoing the color of the bricks) and her pale alabaster skin.
Thanks - that was actualy right outside the front door to my old studio. I'd see that bit of wall every single day and it was just crying out for me to photograph it!
My favorite channel for spending precious quiet moment and listening to an awesome sharer full of insights and full of empathy. Loved how you went through the lenses, so different from techies. Am so grateful!
Hi Alex, this is such an eye opener that a photographer's preferred focal length correlates with his/her personality type. That's behaviour (choice of photographic subject) intersecting with neurobiology (pleasure centres in the brain lighting up). Intriguing! Your insights are amazing! Thinking of the subjects that I am drawn to and looking at my best photos, I am certainly the contemplative type, who is innately drawn to the details of my subjects. The larger picture bores me. However, I have recently retired and I find myself increasingly drawn to wide primes that capture subjects in their context. Perhaps that is a compensatory behaviour, i.e., I am reliving my teenage years and pretending I was a social butterfly rather than a shy loner.
On full frame, I personally prefer a nice fast 40mm for general purpose "walk around" documentary type photography. 35mm always felt too wide, and 50mm always felt too tight, whereas I keep finding myself landing back on a nice fast 40 as it just seems to match the way I see, at least in the sense of walking around taking photos of stuff. When taking portraits though, that's a whole other thing. For that, it's all about perspective control, then composition, so I'll pick the shooting distance that gives me the perspective that is best for that person, then through the use of either a 24-70 or 70-200 choose the composition that I want. If shooting APS-C, 24mm is a really good starting point for general purpose, and a 24-105 is great for portraits.
I'm with you on this. Always felt the 50 was never wide enough where I couldn't back up and have settled on 40 for my walk around, as a well balanced lens choice.
I came to use 40mm by chance whilst looking to purchase a 35mm and love this ‘in between’ focal length more than either 35mm or 50mm. I like that it doesn’t add anything distracting to the photograph like the distortion from wide angle lenses or the compression from telephoto lenses. It just shows the world as it is. Of course I then add my own distractions when playing around with the exposure and contrast during the edit.
I wreacked my Voightländer 35 1.2 and got a used 40mm 1.2 ASPH as a replacement and now i feel like i could hotglue it to my camera. 35 is a bit to wide and 50 is a bit to long. i have allways been changing back and forth but now i dont. havent touched my camera backpack in month coz i didnt need the lenses inside.
@@spidermann5000 40mm is a focal length for me that feels ‘just right’. I had borrowed a 50mm f2 APO for a few months but ultimately didn’t like the clinical sharpness or the shallower depth of field compared to my 40mm. The Voight 40mm f1.2 certainly has a nice balance of stopped down sharpness (not too sharp) and wider f-stop vintage film lens vibe.
@@creative_cozmic... and it turns the camer into a night vision device if needed. The only lens im interested now is the SE version. The 35 1.2 SE just turned everything out of focus into beautifull bokeh and i miss that at times. The Aspherica on the other hand does not require sharpening or dehazing like the SE does wide open it also does not lens flare. The only real issue i got is that focus peaking in bright daylight indicates bright surfaces as in focus and that i tent to shoot at a brighter aperature then needed. All in all a lens that will do great if you do your part. Just dont drop it!😅
Joel Meyerowitz is right. All along my photographic experience, I clutched at a light telephoto lens. That has been a cringy 'Pro-Tessar' 3.2/85mm on the obsolete going Zeiss Contaflex in 1967, and have been fine 85mm lenses from Asahi Pentax and Nikon since the 1970s UNTIL NOW, completed by a telephoto zoom lens 80-200mm from 1972 until now. But, according to you, especially in my youth, I enjoyed experimenting with fisheye 180 degrees and superwide angles of view from 94 up to 110 degrees (20 > 15 mm) in 35mm format. Now, with digital half format, my favourites are a 55mm macro lens with crop factor 1.5x = 82,5 mm equivalent, and a 105mm macro lens (157.5 mm equivalent), so I use a telephoto lens but at the same can get as close as my intention is. My personality is 'light telephoto'; this means mostly keeping somebody at bay, but sometimes getting closer.
Thank you for this I started with a 50mm on my Canon AT-1, then zooms on my Canons 7D and 5D Mk II, then back to primes on my Fujifilms (28mm/50mm/85mm - 35mm equiv), and finally, a 50mm on my Leica. But recently I bought a 28mm for my Leica when I went on vacation back in August, and I have a new found appreciation of viewing the world through that perspective (and even taking portraits). But I still stick to my 50 when I want to "single out" a subject.
very cool, it never occurred to me why I enjoy tele and macro lenses and the connection between my introspective personality and the need to zero in on one object and to have as little distraction as possible
You always show the soul of photography, and just invite viewers to feel, not to think about toolpath. Even in "technical" topic you go few steps aside. What an unusual view on length(angle) choice. Illustrated by a wide range of your photographs, from "clicks", to documentary, to experiments, to fine art.
I see it as being a movie director, where you cast a certain actor to play a certain role because they each bring their own way of playing the scene. In that sense, I kind of see it as: -ultra wide angle → Jim Carey, the goofy guy that imprints wackiness into his scenes -wide angle → Dustin Hoffman, can be fun and easy going as much as pragmatic and down to earth -standard angle → Meryl Streep, the professional that gets the job done and brings balance and naturality to the scene -macro → Keanu Reeves, the lone guy who is fascinated by the different patterns made by the foam in his morning coffe -short telephoto → Al Pacino, the serious guy that brings character and intensity into the scene -long telephoto → Arnold Schwarzenegger, whatever he sets his eye into, nothing will stand in his way; sheer focus
Since you asked.... My entrée as a pubescent lad into photography afforded only the nifty-fifty. As a ol-codger I reentered using many various vintage lenses of varying focal lengths. My eye seems to favor 135mm. Last year I purchased a very good AF 135 and I'm over the moon. Oooey-goooey bokeh and sharp as a tack.
The “Perfectionist”- PC or Perspective Control - SHIFT Lenses The “God complex”- Same PC lenses, but TILT to make things look miniature in nature as if you are Lording over them The “Painter/Artist”- Some of the older Helios / or Pancolor lenses that produce a dreamy swirl or painterly watercolor background effect The “Voyeur”- 1000mm+ lenses The “Upside Down”- Reverse Macro lenses The “Indecisive/wait and see”- Zoom lenses
My perspective is different on this topic. I haven't been choosing the wrong lens (for 30 years), I've been buying, using, selling at a loss and buying a different lens that would make me a better photographer (for 30 years) LOL. I have thoroughly enjoyed my journey with photography but I agree, when I was younger I definitely swayed more towards the ultra wide angles and also the zoomiest zooms 😁 I'm about to turn 50 and ironically the fl I use most often now is a 50mm, the other...a 35. Great video Alex, it really made me think!
I spent a year or two as a working photographer and 25 years as a news cameraman. I wanted to be a photographer but I couldn’t make it work. Jobs were just very hard to get. I made a living with video but photography was always my first love. I don’t think about lenses much. That’s the truth. Far too many people let their new lens dictate their pictures. The other side of that is people who have a ‘walk around lens’ and wander aimlessly around taking random pictures with it. I don’t do either. I just have this picture in my mind’s eye of what I want to shoot. In my photography days, my favourite lens was a fisheye but I spent most of my time shooting with an 85mm. When I travelled, I used a 28mm more than anything (the only other lens I carried was the 85). Nowadays, I find shooting with a 28mm difficult. I know people who can shoot better pictures with a phone than I can with a 28mm. The fact is that my mind’s eye is 85mm. I start with a concept and I shoot it. There are, of course, times when I will go somewhere special with the specific intention of photographing it but with no clear idea of what I’m going to do until I get there. But nine times out of ten, I will use a short tele to pick out the interesting details.
After 44 years of both a professional and as a hobby photographer using Cameras from 35mm to 6x6cm and 4"5" to 5"7" formats, I have ended up with this set of Lenses for "full frame"-mirrorless Cameras, 14mm 1.8, 24mm 1.4, 35mm 2.0, 55mm 1.8, 65mm 2.0 Macro and 135mm 1.8, a great set of Lenses I am very happy with. I do not like the 50mm focal length, any Lens shorter or longer, so 45mm and shorter and 55mm and longer ! I have used a lot of Lenses with different focal length, I have fx found out that 20mm and 28mm are not for me. I often go with just one Lens, it can be any of my Lenses, but it is most often either the 35mm or the 65mm Macro Lens. I do nature, landscape, wildlife, macro, street/urban/architecture, portrait and more... If I landed on a desert island, then I want my Macro Lens, the most versatile Lens that can be used for nearly anything. My photography are often in a slow pace, I go around the subject to find the right and and the best light. I use manual shutter time, manual aperture, manual ISO and in at least 99% of all photography I use manual focusing, so my soul feels more connected to the Camera, the Lens and the subject, have a nice day and may the light be with you.
I'm in trouble. I'm almost 70 and still mostly using 24/28mm lens. I've got some hustling to do to get to "The Old Fuddy Duddy". Maybe this can replace Myers-riggs for photographers. :P Seriously, I enjoyed your characterizations of lens and how they might fit one's personality. A refreshing change from the idea an XXmm lens is the "ideal" for a particular type of photography.
I have at most times my multitool standard zoom lens with me....which gives me a lot of possibilities in one lens and if I want to dive deeper into a subject, then I use a more specialised lens from wide to tele for whatever genre I am after..... Tank you Alex, I enjoy your inspirational videos immensely!
I tried the 135mm/2.0 and found a new friend! The photos are often taken outdoors. Then I just can step back a little for portraits and take a step forward for details. Maybe not so easy indoors. This lens was a very pleasant surprice!
Alex, you have a take on things that I so enjoy. One would think this kind of subject has been done to death, but you made it brand new with your perspective. Thank youuuu for another great watch that has me laughing at myself and nodding. I’m a fan of the 35 and 50 (crop sensor) lenses for exactly the reasons you suggest. Now, where are my comfy slippers 🤭
When I was a teenager, I didn’t have much money. I bought a Hanimex-Practica Super TL. It was made in East Germany and came with a 50mm f/1.8 Meyer Orestan lens made in the old Zeiss factory in the GDR. It as really a great camera and the lens was quite good. Later, I was able to get a Vivitar 135mm lens, but I still shot all my photos with the 50 well into college. When I left college, got a job and could afford better kit, I went Nikon and most of them came in a package, also with a 50 f/1,8. I bought many other lenses, but I still gravitate to the 50. I just love the old “nifty fifty.”
I like them all. Or at least I haven’t decide what I like. So I tend to use zooms out of fear I will otherwise choose the wrong prime for the moment. Unfortunately, I lean toward perfection rather than artistic expression. I think I would be more artistic if I chose one lens (doesn’t matter which one), leave all the others at home, and just explore the world through that single focal length. Will I miss some shots? Yes. Will I get more shots I would otherwise not see? Yes. Thanks for the insights.
After considering your comments, and thinking of the what and how in my photography.... I think I fall into the 35 ~ 105 bracket. Most of my film cameras wear a 50 mm most of the time. My D-7200 is seen with its 18 ~ 140 kit lens. The odd duck of film cameras is my Cannon Elan7ne.... it has a 28 ~300. But mostly I am closer to my subjects then the 300 is good for. I never really thought of the "personality" fit of lens and photographer. You made me think... once again. That is why I keep coming back.! Your subject, the lady in the blue with the white fluffy skirt, ( 0:24 and again at 8:41 ).... sweet. I just liked that shot.
Wow!! The perspective applies to me except have a narrow view of life . I can’t take in too much at one time , easily over stimulated . Therefore I love my 85mm on my 90d… great job !!
Thank you this was refreshing to watch. Nothing about you must use this lens for this situation etc. Use the lens for what you want to convey and see the world as. I just a Hobbyist so I put a lens on that suits my mood of the day. But my favorite focal lengths are 20mm, 40mm, then 120mm(ffe) macros work (still learning this one but always something I admired), and a 100-400 (ffe 200-800 can't afford the 100-400 for my ff yet).
I'm not a one lens personality. Focal length does not make perspective, distance does. Our prejudices about focal lengths stem from stereotypical distances at which we use lenses. I see a shot, and walk to a viewpoint (angle to subject, including distance) that will make the shot. Then focal length, i.e. angle of view, becomes a way of cropping in camera.
I have a 23mm (35mm FFE) that I use to get close in crowded situations, but my natural lengths are 33mm (50mm) and, especially, the 75mm (110mm FFE) - was the 85 until I upgraded to the 75mm pro, amazing lens. I like to find the detail others would miss and that lens lets me pick it out and reach it, even in a busy room or station.
Interesting topic indeed. I already thought of which lens fits my personality and when I do a portrait I mostly think of what light fits the personality (and face) of my model..... But I must admit having never thought of which lens fits the personality of my model. Definitely something to ponder. Lens choice is usually driven by the concept of the photo I want to make. At my 40 I am starting to really appreciate the nifty 50, but still love the 16 for portraits as much as I love the 85, 135 or even 200. Another great video, keep it up!
Coming back into Photography at the end of Covid, I made the press photographer’s 70-200 my daily driver out of necessity as it was so hard to get close to people. But…I find more and more I’d like to get into interaction through the lens, I’d like to get more of those shots where the subject is looking into the lens and they’re working to say something with their eyes.
Wonderful way of discussing this topic, Alex. I looked at a lot of images trying to decide what lens was for me, and I was surprised to find that I had these strong reactions to different focal lengths in the 24-50 range: some felt quite comfortable, just "right," whereas others felt "wrong" -- too truncated, or something. How should that be, when I didn't even know what "focal length" was a month before that exploration began? But I had somehow internalized a way of looking at the world to the point that I felt these strong emotions. I know for sure that people have different favorites, so I don't think that I am "right" -- each to their own. But for whatever reason, for me, it just so happens that the 50 mm and 24 mm (35mm and 16mm on my APS-C Fuji camera) lenses feel "correct" and the 28, 35, and 40 mm feel "off." Even when I could acknowledge the image taken with one of these "not-me" focal lengths seemed very good, beautiful or whatever its goal, it still had a troubling "wrongness" to it, it provoked some sort of itch or yearning or dissatisfaction. How interesting! With lenses outside the 24-50 range, though, my feelings aren't as strong - these lenses feel alien but not in any "disturbing" way. Extreme wide angle, macro, long telephoto lenses -- they just feel like lenses trying to do their job, or maybe "tricks." I like portraits done with telephoto lenses and am working on getting better at them, but I feel differently about those images. They feel like technical achievements rather than personal expressions. That's not to say that EVERY image I take with my 24mm lens comes directly from my heart, just that if an image does feel that way to me, then it must have been taken with either the 50 or the 24. Well, that's how it is right now anyway! Who's to say that this all won't change in a few years!
I used to use a 28 1.8 for almost everything (aside from really far away stuff, obviously). I love the look of wide angle with bokeh, and I love how close up people are distorted - it makes you feel like a part of the scene. These days, I much prefer something like an 85, or a 105, or even a 135 … for street photography 😅 the distance kind of matches up to how am now - much more distant, detached. I can observe from a distant, safely. Edit: I wrote this comment before watching this video. Turns out you and I had pretty much the exactly same rationale for why we used wide angles :) Edit 2: Now I’m 2/3 through your video and holy crap, it’s crazy how similar your thinking is to mine …
When I first started out in photography in the 1980s, I had three prime lenses: 24, 35 and 50mm (those were the days when anything less than 28mm was considered really wide!). I tended to use the 35mm for 95% of my photos. The 50mm never, ever got used - it just didn't suit my 'view of the world'. These days, I still have a 35mm prime (50mm approx on crop sensor) but I only tend to use it as a special treat or if I need the bokeh. So mostly I use a range of zooms - 10-20, 17-35, 24-85 and 55-300 and if I have plenty of time at the event I will deliberately switch lenses and go and retake shots, just to give an alternative perspective. I recently photographed a vintage car rally, and the shots range from brutal close-ups using the 10mm, up to more traditional action shots using the long tele zoom, giving a pleasingly varied range of images to share with the drivers after the event. I don't know what this says about my personality - complex and confused perhaps?!? 😂
Thanks for this very insightful video! I plan to consider this in future when I'm choosing which focal length to use for a subject. It's helpful to think about your own motivations - for example, when writing an artist's statement to accompany images you're submitting to a juried show. Recently I've been all about macro; I like feeling connected to the natural world by focusing on often-overlooked tiny plants and their seed pods. I also like to use a telephoto to look at creatures from a distance without disturbing them. Both macro and telephoto are ways to glimpse nature doing its own thing. Thanks again for getting me thinking!!
Yay Alex! You got me with the second image - the juxtaposed buildings. You've got my favourite element in it - a 'hidden' surprise. Viz, the two people in the window. Call me naive, but i like the jolt from the initial apprehension of an image to the second hit when a detail compliments or usurps in the role of subject. Nice one.
Great idea: so I think now, at 66, I "am" a 70 - 200 mm / f 2,8 NIKON zoom lens. Which I use mostly at open aperture. It means cropping while I shoot, starting rather wide with 70 mm, closing in, stopping perhaps at 150 mm. Or start right away with 200 mm and the nice bokeh. 50 mm is sometimes nice for its light weight and versatility - but if I had to chose just one lens, it would be the zoom.
Somehow my comment got lost. I went on to say about "teenage-wide angle" as you know we use what is needed for what we're trying to get. My father was the first serious photographer to photograph Mardi Gras in the French Quarter and in B&W, starting in 1954 with two Contaxes and wide-angle lenses, and a light meter. Graduating to a Nikon F in 1969, with that wonderful "seeing eye dog" (through the lens metering for those not familiar with the old term) he continued to photograph until finally tiring of it in 1989. That archive alone numbers some 40-50 thousand images by estimate! In the early 70's someone told Diane Arbus she should photograph Mardi Gras, and my father met her there. He photographing with his wide-angle lens, capturing souls as he'd say, and she as he said, terrified of the horrors of the masses in the street, photographing from a balcony with a medium telephoto! We NEVER see any of her Mardi Gras images because "the right tool for the job" is NOT a telephoto, and you can't be terrified and capture the Bosch-like horrors of Mardi Gras with a telephoto! What souls can you possibly hope to see into if you're not looking into their eyes intimately? So, in that case wide angle is not the teenager but the quickened and ruthless eye of the "Soul Police" something my father's old college buddy James Leo Herlihy, once referred to him as being.
I have had bad eyesight for my whole life. I think that is why I love my lensbaby composer. You get to focus on one point and everything else is just a blur.
My favourite was the boring 50mm. But now it is 28mm for me. I have the Ricoh gr3 and the gr3x, fantastic little cameras. Spent the day editing in lightroom, and was amazed by the quality of the optical performance of these cameras.
Used a Nik or 105mm as my everyday lense in late 70’s and early 80’s for black& white mostly of people but from a distance so I could watch with out being in the center of everything going on and could get the candid shots. Was still doing my own developing and printing then.
A lens is a tool of the photographer, during the last five years photographing different types of events both indoors and outdoors, I found myself using lenses from a Pentax fisheye zoom to the host of primes up to the 77mm f 1.8 and 85mm f 1.4. Depending upon the photo I was looking to create I used the lens that best suited my subjects. I worked by myself so every photo fell on me. Each event l packed a camera bag with as many lens that I required for that event.
The thing is that the lens that fits my personality is a 50mm, but indoors it can be a bit tight if you want to capture more than two people. Also, I love the bokeh of an 85 in the f/1.4-2.2 zone.
I honestly don't know if it has anything to do with my personality, it's more that I stepped up to my first DSLR about four years ago which came with a 55-300mm zoom that felt overwhelming and I struggled with it at anything over 200mm on my initial outings with it. A friend who had a similar model camera let me try his with a brilliant little 35mm on it and I loved it immediately. Four years later still I only own two lenses. The zoom does get used for everything from landscape to a bit of wildlife, but if I just want to run out with one thing, the 35mm is like my favorite pair of boots - familiar, comfortable and natural.
Informative 10mins on lens useful on both photography and cinematography (lens psychology) useful for many genres (incl non human like pet photography) depends on the content (food). Useful content.
I have so many vintage lenses , I just look at them and would love to get adapters to fit the modern DSLR cameras. Mix it up and see what the images come out like
Just stop looking at them lenses and take pictures through them ;). If you have the money, then buy a modern mirrorless that has focus peaking to help you easily focus. You don't need fast lenses because you have an electronically amplified viewfinder. If you go over 30MP (for full frame) photosite density then several brands leave the AA filter out (Canon keeps it) and so you get the "native" lens performance in your raw file. What you see rendered from that depends on your raw processing software. Loads of adapters avail, out there. I'm a content European continental but use Adorama's or B&H's website often as repository. And in some cases bought from them, when the article was not available on this side of the big pond.
Hi Alex, i know you are a south african, so you will know when i say i live in Ermelo, Mpumalanga highveld, and what i found is i tend to gravitate towards my 24-70mm f2.8 most of the time, i use it for portraits, nature and what ever els is available to shoot, i rarely use the 35 or 50 primes, or the 80-200 or 150-500, or even any of my other lenses, i just love the 24-70. I have been thinking a lot about getting a 105 art lens but I'll still see about that.
Really don't feel to have one lens of my own, but on the other hand I know exactly what my lenses are. I have twelve lenses, but four of them, two focal lenghts, covers 96-97% of my photography, according to Lightroom. Three normal lenses, Olympus 25/1.2 , Canon 50/1.2 and 50/1.8 plus one short telephoto Olympus 45/1.2. I shoot only people and I always try to fill the frame, or at least be close to that. My friends say I'm hyper social, I call myself extrovert. But I love being close to my subject, physically and mentally and pick my lenses to take photos like that.
Interesting perspective as always. I come from the "right tool for the job" perspective. When I look at a lens, I feel what I want to shoot. If I pick up a 200-600mm zoom, it's birds in flight. A 600mm for wildlife. If I pick up 35mm, it's time for street photography. If I pick up an 85mm, it's time for portraits, connecting with people. Picking up a 70-200mm it's time for the grand kids soccer games or dogs running in the backyard. ... I do think about the character of a lens in terms of sharpness, softness in the corners, vignette, CA, bokeh, color, contrast. You have inverted this reality for me. I'll have to think about it for a while.
I photograph a bit of a varied subject matter so use either mid range lenses for photographing people at events, or telephoto lens like the 100-400 or a 150-600mm ( which is still not enough ) for vintage aircraft. It's only recently I've used the 50mm on my full frame camera and it's very different having to move about so much more to get to photograph people but it's interesting. Thanks for the video, look forward to the next one :)
Square ..another awesome video Alex playing the Devils Advocate eh ? ...in answer to your question I am a square ...I have the personality of the Yashicamat 635 with a Yashikor 80mm 3.5..
I don't know my favourite lens yet but I'm one of those weirdos who prefers to photograph primarily with my phone where I have the choice of 13/26/77mm ... and I really like this triple.
To me, 20-21mm (f2.5 or 2.8) for wide angle, 45-50-55mm (some of this measure in f1.7, 1.8 or 2.0) and a 90mm f2.8 macro or 135mm f2.8. I don't need more than 3 lenses for whatever I want to shot.
My lens choices seem to indicate that I'm a bit lazy. My 40mm f2.8 pancake is small and light, and I use it most of the time because everything else I have is heavier. I also don't like to be noticed. My crop frame camera with the pancake on it is quite unobtrusive, so people don't notice it, and by extension, don't notice me. On holiday I take a 17-50mm f2.8, because I don't like changing lenses if I can help it, and holiday snaps are different from what I shoot for fun: I need to get more landscape in to show my family.
The lens I use, the lens I am drawn too? The more important question is whose story or what story am I telling. Is it my story that I want to tell? Is it the Models story? I have done projects with a "normal" lens when I was trying to tell a story from the viewpoint of a person sat on a bench; however, that lenses characteristics were not normal in any way, the way it renders was special/magical in my opinion. I have used wide angle and telephoto and macro lenses to tell different stories. What lens do you have available, can impact choice. Luckily today, most photographers have access to good affordable zooms that cover many focal lengths without the compromises of the past. Even entry level smart phones have 3 or 4 lenses built in If I was stuck with a single focal length it would be in around 50mm eqv, in the F/1.4 - F/2.0 range. As perspective is very similar and framing (at least for me) can be done without even raising the camera to my eye
It’s funny because I love 35 and 100. 100mm is very close for Documentary Family Photography, but as a prime lens it’s so nice. A 28-70 sounds nice but I’m not going for mirrorless for a while. 35 seems a nice balance between 28 and 50.
I've been a 50mm die hard for more than a decade but recently added 40mm to that obsession. Saying that, for commercial work outside of the studio its 16-35mm and 70-200mm.
Alex, I love all the photos you took in your youth. They are so grungey and all your subjects look like rockstars. If you made a book out of them, I would buy it :)
I'm about to restart my photography journey. I've been acquiring older used gear in great shape. I have to stop buying and start shooting (it's difficult for me). Three cameras and many lenses. I'm suffering from failure to launch. I suppose that deep down it's a fear of the unknown. I'm 64 years old now. Last year I took a lengthy solo journey around the world visiting the Philippines, Cambodia, Thailand, India, and Egypt. Using my phone I captured thousands of incredible images. What is my disconnect with using a "real" camera?
Interesting discussion, but the best lens for me is the one that best allows me to get the results I want for the shot at hand--it's absurd to limit oneself to one single FL, nor do I favor one FL or even FL range, although I can leave a 70-200 f/2.8 mounted for hours as I can usually go long enough to declutter a scene or wide enough to provide context (great for woodlands). That's why I feel fortunate to have have multiple lenses and cameras. If I restricted myself to one genre (such as street with a 28/35/50 or portraiture with an 85/105/135), I'd quickly get bored. In "135-format equivalent" FLs (not a fan of the "FF" term), I just got a 12mm (121.7° AoV) f/2 rectilinear lens that I'm really looking forward to exploiting (there are cases where even my 16's 107° isn't quite wide enough, plus the 12 has a virtually zero minimum focusing distance and unlimited DoF if you stop down a bit). I've got virtually every FL covered up to 800mm (where a 3° AoV allows me to really isolate details and get shots without live subjects being aware). That includes a 50 f/0.95 and multiple macro lenses, so there's virtually no situation where I don't have the right tool for the job. A tilt/shift would be nice, although I can replicate that reasonably well with DxO ViewPoint 4 and I like to keep my pack small (one of the many advantages of MFT is that I can easily carry all I need in a small sling pack). I do have some primes but I'm a huge advocate of zooms, as they free you from compromising your composition just because you have to get the shot now or can't effectively change your position. Obviously, which lens(es) you need depends on your artistic goals and I always like to keep my options open as I never know what may inspire me. Maybe you'd interpret that as multiple personality disorder in the context of your premise, but I prefer to think of myself as a photographic improvisational multi-instrumentalist!
Something must be deeply wrong with me. Coz I ... well ... I still like more or less the full range of them. Yep, from fisheye to super-telephoto. This incredible playground opened there, it was one of the things that got me into photography in the first place, when I was a teenager, and it has kind of stayed with me ever since. Okay, that plus light and moment and composition and subject and ... yeah ... also a bit the gear, I should think. How shallow I must be ... 😅 (Please don't take this to mean that I don't appreciate what happens on this channel, because I do.)
I cannot seem to connect with any single lens on its own, I constantly feel the need to switch. This may be because my first lens was a 14-180 kit lens and it was incredible at almost everything. SInce I moved up to the full frame Z series I have been using only primes, I have a 28, 40, 85, converted 50 1.4, converted 105 macro, converted helios 44-2... even a converted Carl Zeiss Jena 50. But every time I have any of them on, I long for another depending on the scene. How can I get rid of this mentality? How can I stop myself from always having two to three other options in my pocket and constantly changing them? Thank you
I’m drawn to ultra-wide. In fact I suffer withdrawal symptoms if I don’t have one with me. Everything else seems claustrophobic by comparison. I’m also a Taurus and have been known to be attracted to all-you-can-eat buffets. Does that fit, do you think?
So your age is your lens choice. 90mm at aged 90, so you can see the image. 🤣 Seriously, I never did understand the fish eye view, and don't go below 28mm, as a rule. I seem to see things these days as 50mm, and North to South of that range. When young, I did more with telephoto range, and still enjoy it, now and then. Now I am into the street photography, so it is mostly 50mm to 60mm, some 35mm and 28mm, with the special days when I find the urge, the 90mm. Some of the best advice for photographers was offered by Henri Cartier-Bresson, in simple one or two lines. - Loren Schwiderski
To me it feels like.. Like a teenager or a drunk person; the wideangle lens speaks more about themselves than the object of interest. ”Look at me! I can do this!” A macro lens speaks more to and about the object. More like a therapist. ”How do you feel, small? Let’s make you large.”
It's a toss up between the 23mm Fuji (35mm) or the 18mm Fuji (28mm). I've used Nikons for years and I liked the same lenses but I have recently taken up with Fuji.
Until it was was stollen from me I loved a 20-35 mm 2.8 lens from Tokina and was a breakthrough for me that always love close ups lens with very closed POV. I will by me another 20-35 that I called once my signature lens that helped me to view the world larger...
42 years old and was going to go photograph a punk show tonight with my 55mm but decided to be lame and stay home. Can't stop laughing at my preferred length being the old fuddy duddy. 😂
Quite timely for me Alex as I have been reflecting on the very subject. 10 years or so ago in my early 60's I became a teenager again when I discovered street photography. 24-28mm seemed the way to go and I enjoyed going around street markets and other busy places taking images of people at close range without them being aware of it. A close range "hipster" described my style. However after several years I became bored and demotivated as I felt I was just repeating myself over and over. More recently the covid years completely flattened my photomojo. Now that its returned I am still interested in street but have extended my range and changed my style somewhat. I have reminded myself that one of the reasons why I got into street was the discovery of the late Vivian Maier's work. She did pretty well with a standard Rolleiflex most of her working life. In her later years when she was able to purchase a Leica I believe she stuck with the standard lens. So my main lenses now are the 35mm, 50mm and 90mm. Each has their purpose. So photographically I have grown up to be the 73 year old I actually am. 😀
I like the most to use 50mm in Full frame terms.
I love doing woodland photography.
That 50mm focal length for me creates the feeling of "being in the scene", being ""connected to that little peace of nature".
I like to convey that feeling also to the viewer of my images.
When I shoot portraits (mostly headshots) I do like to use 75mm in full frame terms.
You can get in close (connect with the person) without being intrusive for the person.
I do have some other focal lengths but rarely use them. They only collect dust.
Yes 50mm and 75mm are my primes.
Maybe due to my severe myopia, I'm drawn to lenses that let me focus on a small area. Even with my glasses on, it's hard to fully appreciate a big view. My favorite lens is a 24-105 and my most common focal length for landscapes is 40-60mm.
I enjoy natural macro photography with my 100mm macro, and my 100-500 for wildlife and even landscape details. Yeah, I'm pretty introspective. I never thought about lens choice in terms of personality, though. I think one's personality drives one's choice of subject, and it's the subject that drives lens selection.
Best "discussion" about how to choose a lense! Thanks for combining the idea of lense personality. That makes the decision much easier what to chose.
Back in the day (late 80s) I bought and used my Olympus 135mm f2.8 lens for landscape photography a lot! Basically, I was in my ‘minimalist period’ then. I started to ‘see’ very quickly at this field-of-view (around 19 degrees) the landscape elements - isolating individual features and only take ‘clean’ images! Luckily, a few image publications and awards on the way!
Today, the new generation photographers call this type or genre ‘Minimalist Photography’ - but back in the day, we called this ‘True Art of Composition’, without distracting clutter!
Remember the adage …. ‘The best zoom lens, is your feet!’
I'm still happy with my Micro Nikkor 55/3.5. Use it both on digital and film Nikon bodies. Think of it as a generic 50mm but with shorter focusing distance. Not a dedicated macro shooter, but sometimes I want to be really close to capture specific detail. Yes, it's also doable with 28mm or wider, but usually don't like the "look".
I'm just super-comfortable using a 135 f/1.8 for my street photography. I feel like I know that lens inside and out. I'm a shy introvert so it allows me to stay unnoticed (usually) which IMO gives me a more natural, candid reaction... or I guess LACK of reaction is a better way of saying it. If they don't know I'm there, that means whatever I get is the genuine person doing what they would be doing if I wasn't there to begin with, sticking a camera in their face. It just feels more pure to me.
The interaction with the subject is what makes it interesting f9r m3. Coming in hot with my 8-16mm fisheye lens
I found it enlightening to examining the focal lengths I used over a long time with just one zoom lens (in my case, a standard 24-70mm). Bridge or Lightroom make it easy to quickly tabulate what focal lengths you use most frequently. The results surprised me and influenced what prime lens focal lengths I should acquire.
I must admit that this video maybe the first video, where you had me flummoxed. I have a lot of lenses and never have I thought that one fits a personality type. For me they just do a job of creating the kind of photo I want at that time and using the best focal length to achieve creating that story. Maybe I am being a dullard (nothing unusual in that).
Thank you! It's such a relief to watch a video about lenses that doesn't go into yawn-inducing technical detail. Personally I stumbled across the Fuji XF23mm a couple of years ago (approx 35mm equiv) and it's barely left my camera since. It just feels so natural to me, the images are spacious and give everything room to breathe but without feeling too distant. I love finding scenes of stillness and calm in amongst all the busyness and rush of life, this lens just seems to be perfect for that.
You're very welcome!
Phenomenal portrait at 6:28. A makeshift studio, of sorts. The model is there and yet not there, in a way. The pastel sky blue of her outfit, it's soft texture. The red bricks and somewhat post-apocalyptic (I'm reaching a bit) atmosphere. Her gorgeous red hair (echoing the color of the bricks) and her pale alabaster skin.
Thanks - that was actualy right outside the front door to my old studio. I'd see that bit of wall every single day and it was just crying out for me to photograph it!
My favorite channel for spending precious quiet moment and listening to an awesome sharer full of insights and full of empathy. Loved how you went through the lenses, so different from techies. Am so grateful!
Hi Alex, this is such an eye opener that a photographer's preferred focal length correlates with his/her personality type. That's behaviour (choice of photographic subject) intersecting with neurobiology (pleasure centres in the brain lighting up). Intriguing!
Your insights are amazing! Thinking of the subjects that I am drawn to and looking at my best photos, I am certainly the contemplative type, who is innately drawn to the details of my subjects. The larger picture bores me. However, I have recently retired and I find myself increasingly drawn to wide primes that capture subjects in their context. Perhaps that is a compensatory behaviour, i.e., I am reliving my teenage years and pretending I was a social butterfly rather than a shy loner.
On full frame, I personally prefer a nice fast 40mm for general purpose "walk around" documentary type photography. 35mm always felt too wide, and 50mm always felt too tight, whereas I keep finding myself landing back on a nice fast 40 as it just seems to match the way I see, at least in the sense of walking around taking photos of stuff. When taking portraits though, that's a whole other thing. For that, it's all about perspective control, then composition, so I'll pick the shooting distance that gives me the perspective that is best for that person, then through the use of either a 24-70 or 70-200 choose the composition that I want.
If shooting APS-C, 24mm is a really good starting point for general purpose, and a 24-105 is great for portraits.
I'm with you on this. Always felt the 50 was never wide enough where I couldn't back up and have settled on 40 for my walk around, as a well balanced lens choice.
I came to use 40mm by chance whilst looking to purchase a 35mm and love this ‘in between’ focal length more than either 35mm or 50mm. I like that it doesn’t add anything distracting to the photograph like the distortion from wide angle lenses or the compression from telephoto lenses. It just shows the world as it is. Of course I then add my own distractions when playing around with the exposure and contrast during the edit.
I wreacked my Voightländer 35 1.2 and got a used 40mm 1.2 ASPH as a replacement and now i feel like i could hotglue it to my camera. 35 is a bit to wide and 50 is a bit to long. i have allways been changing back and forth but now i dont. havent touched my camera backpack in month coz i didnt need the lenses inside.
@@spidermann5000 40mm is a focal length for me that feels ‘just right’. I had borrowed a 50mm f2 APO for a few months but ultimately didn’t like the clinical sharpness or the shallower depth of field compared to my 40mm. The Voight 40mm f1.2 certainly has a nice balance of stopped down sharpness (not too sharp) and wider f-stop vintage film lens vibe.
@@creative_cozmic... and it turns the camer into a night vision device if needed. The only lens im interested now is the SE version. The 35 1.2 SE just turned everything out of focus into beautifull bokeh and i miss that at times. The Aspherica on the other hand does not require sharpening or dehazing like the SE does wide open it also does not lens flare. The only real issue i got is that focus peaking in bright daylight indicates bright surfaces as in focus and that i tent to shoot at a brighter aperature then needed. All in all a lens that will do great if you do your part. Just dont drop it!😅
Joel Meyerowitz is right. All along my photographic experience, I clutched at a light telephoto lens. That has been a cringy 'Pro-Tessar' 3.2/85mm on the obsolete going Zeiss Contaflex in 1967, and have been fine 85mm lenses from Asahi Pentax and Nikon since the 1970s UNTIL NOW, completed by a telephoto zoom lens 80-200mm from 1972 until now. But, according to you, especially in my youth, I enjoyed experimenting with fisheye 180 degrees and superwide angles of view from 94 up to 110 degrees (20 > 15 mm) in 35mm format. Now, with digital half format, my favourites are a 55mm macro lens with crop factor 1.5x = 82,5 mm equivalent, and a 105mm macro lens (157.5 mm equivalent), so I use a telephoto lens but at the same can get as close as my intention is. My personality is 'light telephoto'; this means mostly keeping somebody at bay, but sometimes getting closer.
I love the 105micro look for close up and distance but agree with you on the wide angle look,fun and different.
Thank you for this I started with a 50mm on my Canon AT-1, then zooms on my Canons 7D and 5D Mk II, then back to primes on my Fujifilms (28mm/50mm/85mm - 35mm equiv), and finally, a 50mm on my Leica. But recently I bought a 28mm for my Leica when I went on vacation back in August, and I have a new found appreciation of viewing the world through that perspective (and even taking portraits). But I still stick to my 50 when I want to "single out" a subject.
very cool, it never occurred to me why I enjoy tele and macro lenses and the connection between my introspective personality and the need to zero in on one object and to have as little distraction as possible
You always show the soul of photography, and just invite viewers to feel, not to think about toolpath. Even in "technical" topic you go few steps aside. What an unusual view on length(angle) choice. Illustrated by a wide range of your photographs, from "clicks", to documentary, to experiments, to fine art.
Thank you.
I see it as being a movie director, where you cast a certain actor to play a certain role because they each bring their own way of playing the scene. In that sense, I kind of see it as:
-ultra wide angle → Jim Carey, the goofy guy that imprints wackiness into his scenes
-wide angle → Dustin Hoffman, can be fun and easy going as much as pragmatic and down to earth
-standard angle → Meryl Streep, the professional that gets the job done and brings balance and naturality to the scene
-macro → Keanu Reeves, the lone guy who is fascinated by the different patterns made by the foam in his morning coffe
-short telephoto → Al Pacino, the serious guy that brings character and intensity into the scene
-long telephoto → Arnold Schwarzenegger, whatever he sets his eye into, nothing will stand in his way; sheer focus
Since you asked.... My entrée as a pubescent lad into photography afforded only the nifty-fifty. As a ol-codger I reentered using many various vintage lenses of varying focal lengths. My eye seems to favor 135mm. Last year I purchased a very good AF 135 and I'm over the moon. Oooey-goooey bokeh and sharp as a tack.
The “Perfectionist”- PC or Perspective Control - SHIFT Lenses
The “God complex”- Same PC lenses, but TILT to make things look miniature in nature as if you are Lording over them
The “Painter/Artist”- Some of the older Helios / or Pancolor lenses that produce a dreamy swirl or painterly watercolor background effect
The “Voyeur”- 1000mm+ lenses
The “Upside Down”- Reverse Macro lenses
The “Indecisive/wait and see”- Zoom lenses
I love the trusty 28mm wideangle and the nifty 50, could be fully satisfied as a photographer with either of those focal lengths.
My perspective is different on this topic. I haven't been choosing the wrong lens (for 30 years), I've been buying, using, selling at a loss and buying a different lens that would make me a better photographer (for 30 years) LOL. I have thoroughly enjoyed my journey with photography but I agree, when I was younger I definitely swayed more towards the ultra wide angles and also the zoomiest zooms 😁
I'm about to turn 50 and ironically the fl I use most often now is a 50mm, the other...a 35. Great video Alex, it really made me think!
I spent a year or two as a working photographer and 25 years as a news cameraman. I wanted to be a photographer but I couldn’t make it work. Jobs were just very hard to get. I made a living with video but photography was always my first love.
I don’t think about lenses much. That’s the truth. Far too many people let their new lens dictate their pictures. The other side of that is people who have a ‘walk around lens’ and wander aimlessly around taking random pictures with it. I don’t do either. I just have this picture in my mind’s eye of what I want to shoot. In my photography days, my favourite lens was a fisheye but I spent most of my time shooting with an 85mm. When I travelled, I used a 28mm more than anything (the only other lens I carried was the 85). Nowadays, I find shooting with a 28mm difficult. I know people who can shoot better pictures with a phone than I can with a 28mm. The fact is that my mind’s eye is 85mm.
I start with a concept and I shoot it. There are, of course, times when I will go somewhere special with the specific intention of photographing it but with no clear idea of what I’m going to do until I get there. But nine times out of ten, I will use a short tele to pick out the interesting details.
After 44 years of both a professional and as a hobby photographer using Cameras from 35mm to 6x6cm and 4"5" to 5"7" formats, I have ended up with this set of Lenses for "full frame"-mirrorless Cameras, 14mm 1.8, 24mm 1.4, 35mm 2.0, 55mm 1.8, 65mm 2.0 Macro and 135mm 1.8, a great set of Lenses I am very happy with. I do not like the 50mm focal length, any Lens shorter or longer, so 45mm and shorter and 55mm and longer ! I have used a lot of Lenses with different focal length, I have fx found out that 20mm and 28mm are not for me. I often go with just one Lens, it can be any of my Lenses, but it is most often either the 35mm or the 65mm Macro Lens. I do nature, landscape, wildlife, macro, street/urban/architecture, portrait and more... If I landed on a desert island, then I want my Macro Lens, the most versatile Lens that can be used for nearly anything. My photography are often in a slow pace, I go around the subject to find the right and and the best light. I use manual shutter time, manual aperture, manual ISO and in at least 99% of all photography I use manual focusing, so my soul feels more connected to the Camera, the Lens and the subject, have a nice day and may the light be with you.
I'm in trouble. I'm almost 70 and still mostly using 24/28mm lens. I've got some hustling to do to get to "The Old Fuddy Duddy". Maybe this can replace Myers-riggs for photographers. :P Seriously, I enjoyed your characterizations of lens and how they might fit one's personality. A refreshing change from the idea an XXmm lens is the "ideal" for a particular type of photography.
I have at most times my multitool standard zoom lens with me....which gives me a lot of possibilities in one lens and if I want to dive deeper into a subject, then I use a more specialised lens from wide to tele for whatever genre I am after..... Tank you Alex, I enjoy your inspirational videos immensely!
Thanks for watching
I tried the 135mm/2.0 and found a new friend! The photos are often taken outdoors. Then I just can step back a little for portraits and take a step forward for details. Maybe not so easy indoors. This lens was a very pleasant surprice!
Alex, you have a take on things that I so enjoy. One would think this kind of subject has been done to death, but you made it brand new with your perspective. Thank youuuu for another great watch that has me laughing at myself and nodding. I’m a fan of the 35 and 50 (crop sensor) lenses for exactly the reasons you suggest. Now, where are my comfy slippers 🤭
Thank you for watching.
When I was a teenager, I didn’t have much money. I bought a Hanimex-Practica Super TL. It was made in East Germany and came with a 50mm f/1.8 Meyer Orestan lens made in the old Zeiss factory in the GDR. It as really a great camera and the lens was quite good. Later, I was able to get a Vivitar 135mm lens, but I still shot all my photos with the 50 well into college. When I left college, got a job and could afford better kit, I went Nikon and most of them came in a package, also with a 50 f/1,8. I bought many other lenses, but I still gravitate to the 50. I just love the old “nifty fifty.”
I like them all. Or at least I haven’t decide what I like. So I tend to use zooms out of fear I will otherwise choose the wrong prime for the moment. Unfortunately, I lean toward perfection rather than artistic expression. I think I would be more artistic if I chose one lens (doesn’t matter which one), leave all the others at home, and just explore the world through that single focal length. Will I miss some shots? Yes. Will I get more shots I would otherwise not see? Yes. Thanks for the insights.
After considering your comments, and thinking of the what and how in my photography.... I think I fall into the 35 ~ 105 bracket. Most of my film cameras wear a 50 mm most of the time. My D-7200 is seen with its 18 ~ 140 kit lens. The odd duck of film cameras is my Cannon Elan7ne.... it has a 28 ~300. But mostly I am closer to my subjects then the 300 is good for. I never really thought of the "personality" fit of lens and photographer. You made me think... once again. That is why I keep coming back.! Your subject, the lady in the blue with the white fluffy skirt, ( 0:24 and again at 8:41 ).... sweet. I just liked that shot.
Thank you
Wow!! The perspective applies to me except have a narrow view of life . I can’t take in too much at one time , easily over stimulated . Therefore I love my 85mm on my
90d… great job !!
This is one of you best videos so far. I absolutely love the thought you have put into this.
Wow, thank you!
Thank you this was refreshing to watch. Nothing about you must use this lens for this situation etc. Use the lens for what you want to convey and see the world as. I just a Hobbyist so I put a lens on that suits my mood of the day. But my favorite focal lengths are 20mm, 40mm, then 120mm(ffe) macros work (still learning this one but always something I admired), and a 100-400 (ffe 200-800 can't afford the 100-400 for my ff yet).
It can also be said that where you stand when you photograph your subject determines if the photo becomes a wide angle or a close up.
I'm not a one lens personality. Focal length does not make perspective, distance does. Our prejudices about focal lengths stem from stereotypical distances at which we use lenses. I see a shot, and walk to a viewpoint (angle to subject, including distance) that will make the shot. Then focal length, i.e. angle of view, becomes a way of cropping in camera.
I have a 23mm (35mm FFE) that I use to get close in crowded situations, but my natural lengths are 33mm (50mm) and, especially, the 75mm (110mm FFE) - was the 85 until I upgraded to the 75mm pro, amazing lens. I like to find the detail others would miss and that lens lets me pick it out and reach it, even in a busy room or station.
Interesting topic indeed. I already thought of which lens fits my personality and when I do a portrait I mostly think of what light fits the personality (and face) of my model..... But I must admit having never thought of which lens fits the personality of my model. Definitely something to ponder. Lens choice is usually driven by the concept of the photo I want to make. At my 40 I am starting to really appreciate the nifty 50, but still love the 16 for portraits as much as I love the 85, 135 or even 200. Another great video, keep it up!
Thanks for watching
Coming back into Photography at the end of Covid, I made the press photographer’s 70-200 my daily driver out of necessity as it was so hard to get close to people. But…I find more and more I’d like to get into interaction through the lens, I’d like to get more of those shots where the subject is looking into the lens and they’re working to say something with their eyes.
Wonderful way of discussing this topic, Alex.
I looked at a lot of images trying to decide what lens was for me, and I was surprised to find that I had these strong reactions to different focal lengths in the 24-50 range: some felt quite comfortable, just "right," whereas others felt "wrong" -- too truncated, or something. How should that be, when I didn't even know what "focal length" was a month before that exploration began? But I had somehow internalized a way of looking at the world to the point that I felt these strong emotions. I know for sure that people have different favorites, so I don't think that I am "right" -- each to their own. But for whatever reason, for me, it just so happens that the 50 mm and 24 mm (35mm and 16mm on my APS-C Fuji camera) lenses feel "correct" and the 28, 35, and 40 mm feel "off." Even when I could acknowledge the image taken with one of these "not-me" focal lengths seemed very good, beautiful or whatever its goal, it still had a troubling "wrongness" to it, it provoked some sort of itch or yearning or dissatisfaction. How interesting!
With lenses outside the 24-50 range, though, my feelings aren't as strong - these lenses feel alien but not in any "disturbing" way. Extreme wide angle, macro, long telephoto lenses -- they just feel like lenses trying to do their job, or maybe "tricks." I like portraits done with telephoto lenses and am working on getting better at them, but I feel differently about those images. They feel like technical achievements rather than personal expressions. That's not to say that EVERY image I take with my 24mm lens comes directly from my heart, just that if an image does feel that way to me, then it must have been taken with either the 50 or the 24.
Well, that's how it is right now anyway! Who's to say that this all won't change in a few years!
I used to use a 28 1.8 for almost everything (aside from really far away stuff, obviously). I love the look of wide angle with bokeh, and I love how close up people are distorted - it makes you feel like a part of the scene.
These days, I much prefer something like an 85, or a 105, or even a 135 … for street photography 😅 the distance kind of matches up to how am now - much more distant, detached. I can observe from a distant, safely.
Edit: I wrote this comment before watching this video. Turns out you and I had pretty much the exactly same rationale for why we used wide angles :)
Edit 2: Now I’m 2/3 through your video and holy crap, it’s crazy how similar your thinking is to mine …
😆
When I first started out in photography in the 1980s, I had three prime lenses: 24, 35 and 50mm (those were the days when anything less than 28mm was considered really wide!). I tended to use the 35mm for 95% of my photos. The 50mm never, ever got used - it just didn't suit my 'view of the world'. These days, I still have a 35mm prime (50mm approx on crop sensor) but I only tend to use it as a special treat or if I need the bokeh. So mostly I use a range of zooms - 10-20, 17-35, 24-85 and 55-300 and if I have plenty of time at the event I will deliberately switch lenses and go and retake shots, just to give an alternative perspective. I recently photographed a vintage car rally, and the shots range from brutal close-ups using the 10mm, up to more traditional action shots using the long tele zoom, giving a pleasingly varied range of images to share with the drivers after the event. I don't know what this says about my personality - complex and confused perhaps?!? 😂
Thanks for this very insightful video! I plan to consider this in future when I'm choosing which focal length to use for a subject. It's helpful to think about your own motivations - for example, when writing an artist's statement to accompany images you're submitting to a juried show. Recently I've been all about macro; I like feeling connected to the natural world by focusing on often-overlooked tiny plants and their seed pods. I also like to use a telephoto to look at creatures from a distance without disturbing them. Both macro and telephoto are ways to glimpse nature doing its own thing. Thanks again for getting me thinking!!
Thanks for watching
Yay Alex! You got me with the second image - the juxtaposed buildings. You've got my favourite element in it - a 'hidden' surprise. Viz, the two people in the window. Call me naive, but i like the jolt from the initial apprehension of an image to the second hit when a detail compliments or usurps in the role of subject. Nice one.
Thank you.
Thank you so much. A very handy way of looking at lenses
Great idea: so I think now, at 66, I "am" a 70 - 200 mm / f 2,8 NIKON zoom lens. Which I use mostly at open aperture. It means cropping while I shoot, starting rather wide with 70 mm, closing in, stopping perhaps at 150 mm. Or start right away with 200 mm and the nice bokeh.
50 mm is sometimes nice for its light weight and versatility - but if I had to chose just one lens, it would be the zoom.
Somehow my comment got lost. I went on to say about "teenage-wide angle" as you know we use what is needed for what we're trying to get. My father was the first serious photographer to photograph Mardi Gras in the French Quarter and in B&W, starting in 1954 with two Contaxes and wide-angle lenses, and a light meter. Graduating to a Nikon F in 1969, with that wonderful "seeing eye dog" (through the lens metering for those not familiar with the old term) he continued to photograph until finally tiring of it in 1989. That archive alone numbers some 40-50 thousand images by estimate! In the early 70's someone told Diane Arbus she should photograph Mardi Gras, and my father met her there. He photographing with his wide-angle lens, capturing souls as he'd say, and she as he said, terrified of the horrors of the masses in the street, photographing from a balcony with a medium telephoto! We NEVER see any of her Mardi Gras images because "the right tool for the job" is NOT a telephoto, and you can't be terrified and capture the Bosch-like horrors of Mardi Gras with a telephoto! What souls can you possibly hope to see into if you're not looking into their eyes intimately? So, in that case wide angle is not the teenager but the quickened and ruthless eye of the "Soul Police" something my father's old college buddy James Leo Herlihy, once referred to him as being.
I have had bad eyesight for my whole life. I think that is why I love my lensbaby composer. You get to focus on one point and everything else is just a blur.
My favourite was the boring 50mm. But now it is 28mm for me. I have the Ricoh gr3 and the gr3x, fantastic little cameras. Spent the day editing in lightroom, and was amazed by the quality of the optical performance of these cameras.
Used a Nik or 105mm as my everyday lense in late 70’s and early 80’s for black& white mostly of people but from a distance so I could watch with out being in the center of everything going on and could get the candid shots. Was still doing my own developing and printing then.
A lens is a tool of the photographer, during the last five years photographing different types of events both indoors and outdoors, I found myself using lenses from a Pentax fisheye zoom to the host of primes up to the 77mm f 1.8 and 85mm f 1.4. Depending upon the photo I was looking to create I used the lens that best suited my subjects. I worked by myself so every photo fell on me. Each event l packed a camera bag with as many lens that I required for that event.
I love using a standard prime lens the most.
They are so versatile, and simple.
However, I mostly use a 18-70mm because of it's convenience.
The thing is that the lens that fits my personality is a 50mm, but indoors it can be a bit tight if you want to capture more than two people. Also, I love the bokeh of an 85 in the f/1.4-2.2 zone.
I honestly don't know if it has anything to do with my personality, it's more that I stepped up to my first DSLR about four years ago which came with a 55-300mm zoom that felt overwhelming and I struggled with it at anything over 200mm on my initial outings with it. A friend who had a similar model camera let me try his with a brilliant little 35mm on it and I loved it immediately. Four years later still I only own two lenses. The zoom does get used for everything from landscape to a bit of wildlife, but if I just want to run out with one thing, the 35mm is like my favorite pair of boots - familiar, comfortable and natural.
Thanks Alex, love your perspective and thoughtfulness.
Thank you.
Informative 10mins on lens useful on both photography and cinematography (lens psychology) useful for many genres (incl non human like pet photography) depends on the content (food). Useful content.
I have so many vintage lenses , I just look at them and would love to get adapters to fit the modern DSLR cameras. Mix it up and see what the images come out like
Just stop looking at them lenses and take pictures through them ;). If you have the money, then buy a modern mirrorless that has focus peaking to help you easily focus. You don't need fast lenses because you have an electronically amplified viewfinder. If you go over 30MP (for full frame) photosite density then several brands leave the AA filter out (Canon keeps it) and so you get the "native" lens performance in your raw file. What you see rendered from that depends on your raw processing software.
Loads of adapters avail, out there. I'm a content European continental but use Adorama's or B&H's website often as repository. And in some cases bought from them, when the article was not available on this side of the big pond.
Hi Alex, i know you are a south african, so you will know when i say i live in Ermelo, Mpumalanga highveld, and what i found is i tend to gravitate towards my 24-70mm f2.8 most of the time, i use it for portraits, nature and what ever els is available to shoot, i rarely use the 35 or 50 primes, or the 80-200 or 150-500, or even any of my other lenses, i just love the 24-70. I have been thinking a lot about getting a 105 art lens but I'll still see about that.
Really don't feel to have one lens of my own, but on the other hand I know exactly what my lenses are. I have twelve lenses, but four of them, two focal lenghts, covers 96-97% of my photography, according to Lightroom. Three normal lenses, Olympus 25/1.2 , Canon 50/1.2 and 50/1.8 plus one short telephoto Olympus 45/1.2. I shoot only people and I always try to fill the frame, or at least be close to that. My friends say I'm hyper social, I call myself extrovert. But I love being close to my subject, physically and mentally and pick my lenses to take photos like that.
Interesting on how one's personality affects one's photography by looking at their favorite lens. Funny, it fits me fairly well.
Interesting perspective as always. I come from the "right tool for the job" perspective. When I look at a lens, I feel what I want to shoot. If I pick up a 200-600mm zoom, it's birds in flight. A 600mm for wildlife. If I pick up 35mm, it's time for street photography. If I pick up an 85mm, it's time for portraits, connecting with people. Picking up a 70-200mm it's time for the grand kids soccer games or dogs running in the backyard. ... I do think about the character of a lens in terms of sharpness, softness in the corners, vignette, CA, bokeh, color, contrast. You have inverted this reality for me. I'll have to think about it for a while.
Great advice!. Thanks for sharing your knowledge, soo practical and useful.
My pleasure!
I always went to the 35mm. To me it was more universal. You can get in close but still catch more on the sides.
I work in the studio with a 105mm and 60mm macros, 45mm and 85mm tilt shift lenses. I play outside with a 50mm f1.4 lens.
I photograph a bit of a varied subject matter so use either mid range lenses for photographing people at events, or telephoto lens like the 100-400 or a 150-600mm ( which is still not enough ) for vintage aircraft. It's only recently I've used the 50mm on my full frame camera and it's very different having to move about so much more to get to photograph people but it's interesting. Thanks for the video, look forward to the next one :)
Thank you
Thank you. All the best. 👍📷😎
Square ..another awesome video Alex playing the Devils Advocate eh ? ...in answer to your question I am a square ...I have the personality of the Yashicamat 635 with a Yashikor 80mm 3.5..
I don't know my favourite lens yet but I'm one of those weirdos who prefers to photograph primarily with my phone where I have the choice of 13/26/77mm ... and I really like this triple.
To me, 20-21mm (f2.5 or 2.8) for wide angle, 45-50-55mm (some of this measure in f1.7, 1.8 or 2.0) and a 90mm f2.8 macro or 135mm f2.8.
I don't need more than 3 lenses for whatever I want to shot.
Loving this film my friend
My lens choices seem to indicate that I'm a bit lazy. My 40mm f2.8 pancake is small and light, and I use it most of the time because everything else I have is heavier. I also don't like to be noticed. My crop frame camera with the pancake on it is quite unobtrusive, so people don't notice it, and by extension, don't notice me.
On holiday I take a 17-50mm f2.8, because I don't like changing lenses if I can help it, and holiday snaps are different from what I shoot for fun: I need to get more landscape in to show my family.
Help! I've got Multiple Personality Disorder! 😮
The lens I use, the lens I am drawn too?
The more important question is whose story or what story am I telling.
Is it my story that I want to tell? Is it the Models story?
I have done projects with a "normal" lens when I was trying to tell a story from the viewpoint of a person sat on a bench; however, that lenses characteristics were not normal in any way, the way it renders was special/magical in my opinion.
I have used wide angle and telephoto and macro lenses to tell different stories.
What lens do you have available, can impact choice. Luckily today, most photographers have access to good affordable zooms that cover many focal lengths without the compromises of the past. Even entry level smart phones have 3 or 4 lenses built in
If I was stuck with a single focal length it would be in around 50mm eqv, in the F/1.4 - F/2.0 range. As perspective is very similar and framing (at least for me) can be done without even raising the camera to my eye
It’s funny because I love 35 and 100. 100mm is very close for Documentary Family Photography, but as a prime lens it’s so nice. A 28-70 sounds nice but I’m not going for mirrorless for a while. 35 seems a nice balance between 28 and 50.
I've been a 50mm die hard for more than a decade but recently added 40mm to that obsession. Saying that, for commercial work outside of the studio its 16-35mm and 70-200mm.
Alex, I love all the photos you took in your youth. They are so grungey and all your subjects look like rockstars. If you made a book out of them, I would buy it :)
Wow, thank you
I'm about to restart my photography journey. I've been acquiring older used gear in great shape. I have to stop buying and start shooting (it's difficult for me). Three cameras and many lenses. I'm suffering from failure to launch. I suppose that deep down it's a fear of the unknown. I'm 64 years old now. Last year I took a lengthy solo journey around the world visiting the Philippines, Cambodia, Thailand, India, and Egypt. Using my phone I captured thousands of incredible images. What is my disconnect with using a "real" camera?
Interesting discussion, but the best lens for me is the one that best allows me to get the results I want for the shot at hand--it's absurd to limit oneself to one single FL, nor do I favor one FL or even FL range, although I can leave a 70-200 f/2.8 mounted for hours as I can usually go long enough to declutter a scene or wide enough to provide context (great for woodlands). That's why I feel fortunate to have have multiple lenses and cameras. If I restricted myself to one genre (such as street with a 28/35/50 or portraiture with an 85/105/135), I'd quickly get bored. In "135-format equivalent" FLs (not a fan of the "FF" term), I just got a 12mm (121.7° AoV) f/2 rectilinear lens that I'm really looking forward to exploiting (there are cases where even my 16's 107° isn't quite wide enough, plus the 12 has a virtually zero minimum focusing distance and unlimited DoF if you stop down a bit). I've got virtually every FL covered up to 800mm (where a 3° AoV allows me to really isolate details and get shots without live subjects being aware). That includes a 50 f/0.95 and multiple macro lenses, so there's virtually no situation where I don't have the right tool for the job. A tilt/shift would be nice, although I can replicate that reasonably well with DxO ViewPoint 4 and I like to keep my pack small (one of the many advantages of MFT is that I can easily carry all I need in a small sling pack). I do have some primes but I'm a huge advocate of zooms, as they free you from compromising your composition just because you have to get the shot now or can't effectively change your position.
Obviously, which lens(es) you need depends on your artistic goals and I always like to keep my options open as I never know what may inspire me. Maybe you'd interpret that as multiple personality disorder in the context of your premise, but I prefer to think of myself as a photographic improvisational multi-instrumentalist!
Something must be deeply wrong with me. Coz I ... well ... I still like more or less the full range of them. Yep, from fisheye to super-telephoto. This incredible playground opened there, it was one of the things that got me into photography in the first place, when I was a teenager, and it has kind of stayed with me ever since. Okay, that plus light and moment and composition and subject and ... yeah ... also a bit the gear, I should think. How shallow I must be ... 😅 (Please don't take this to mean that I don't appreciate what happens on this channel, because I do.)
great subject of a video! and very good question for people who are looking for a new lens, like me 🙂
Thanks for watching!
Wow! Well done! You said some things that are so true about me!😂
At 6:39 there's a formal looking photo of a young Alex Kilbee holding an ornament and a sweeping brush.
What is going on?
I cannot seem to connect with any single lens on its own, I constantly feel the need to switch. This may be because my first lens was a 14-180 kit lens and it was incredible at almost everything. SInce I moved up to the full frame Z series I have been using only primes, I have a 28, 40, 85, converted 50 1.4, converted 105 macro, converted helios 44-2... even a converted Carl Zeiss Jena 50. But every time I have any of them on, I long for another depending on the scene. How can I get rid of this mentality? How can I stop myself from always having two to three other options in my pocket and constantly changing them? Thank you
I’m drawn to ultra-wide. In fact I suffer withdrawal symptoms if I don’t have one with me. Everything else seems claustrophobic by comparison. I’m also a Taurus and have been known to be attracted to all-you-can-eat buffets. Does that fit, do you think?
My favorite wide angle are Canon 14; 24; & 28 tele 85 & 135
I love the 50mm...it's "normality" makes the images it captures free of conceit. There isn't an effect that stands between the viewer and the subject.
I live the 28-70mm f2 because I can never make up my mind about the best focal length for street photography
CCTV suits my personality as i like to be anonymous while photographing others. I am very shy
Probably the “low budget” type, make do with the limited range of lenses I have, that were selected to suit a specific environment.
So your age is your lens choice. 90mm at aged 90, so you can see the image. 🤣 Seriously, I never did understand the fish eye view, and don't go below 28mm, as a rule. I seem to see things these days as 50mm, and North to South of that range. When young, I did more with telephoto range, and still enjoy it, now and then. Now I am into the street photography, so it is mostly 50mm to 60mm, some 35mm and 28mm, with the special days when I find the urge, the 90mm. Some of the best advice for photographers was offered by Henri Cartier-Bresson, in simple one or two lines. - Loren Schwiderski
I am drawn to macro and tele lenses
To me it feels like.. Like a teenager or a drunk person; the wideangle lens speaks more about themselves than the object of interest. ”Look at me! I can do this!”
A macro lens speaks more to and about the object. More like a therapist. ”How do you feel, small? Let’s make you large.”
It's a toss up between the 23mm Fuji (35mm) or the 18mm Fuji (28mm). I've used Nikons for years and I liked the same lenses but I have recently taken up with Fuji.
50mm Tessar 2.8 and 55mm Super Takumar Multi Coated 1.8
Until it was was stollen from me I loved a 20-35 mm 2.8 lens from Tokina and was a breakthrough for me that always love close ups lens with very closed POV. I will by me another 20-35 that I called once my signature lens that helped me to view the world larger...
42 years old and was going to go photograph a punk show tonight with my 55mm but decided to be lame and stay home. Can't stop laughing at my preferred length being the old fuddy duddy. 😂
the telephoto lens: the distant observer, like a bird of prey darting down from the sky in a blink of the eye to snatch its prey