The irony of a man from Wales not being able pronounce place's names is not lost on me. I think a lot about my focal length for the same reason. I want to carry as few lenses and do as few lens changes as humanly possible, nothing sucks the fun out of a shooting experience like needing to fumble around to change a lens out.
Your mic can crackle all it wants, because you and your contents are so awesome that I never hear the crackle unless you point them out. Outstanding images. Your compositions have inspired me to become a better photographer. Thank you.
Don’t envy you dealing with location sound like this on your own. It’s kind of a miracle it works as well as it does. There’s a reason why even on modest pro video shoots one would have a dedicated sound person. TBH I think yours sounds great for the format.
I shoot Sony and moved to Voigtlander lenses a while ago, 15mm, 40mm 1.2, APO 35 and APO 50. Really love the feel and look of them. I think you will like them too as you are wanting something with a little more work to get your photos without going to film. This is a good in between. Great images without going full manual film and without going full AI autofocus.
I have the Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 35mm 2.0 Aspherical which are an excellent Lens, compact, light and built like a tank with outstanding optical image quality, I can very highly recommend this Lens ! I can also very highly recommend the Voigtländer Macro APO-Lanthar 65mm 2.0 Aspherical !
I totally know what you mean in terms of focal length! I shot with a Canon M50 with a Sigma 30mm 1.4 for a solid year and never ever felt the need to change lenses. I was dialled right in! Now I’m using a Nikon full frame with the Z 24-70mm F4 and it’s taking time to get used to…which sounds counter-intuitive!
Regarding your search.... Honestly you shouldn't go for 2 primes if those primes are 35mm and 50mm. Most people won't bother changing lenses for less than 2x their focal length. It's why you did not use 40mm. Most times the difference between 35mm and 50mm is a few steps. If it were me, I would go with 35mm for a 1 lens solution (although I have been shooting 28mm because part of me wants to buy a Leica Q2). If I were going with a 2 lens solution - I would be tempted to go 35mm, and either 85mm, or maybe even 90mm macro (as it gives additional options).
I find it all interesting, James, when it is well thought out and comes from people such as yourself who have a boatload of experience, and success to back it all up. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and your images. Always a pleasure.
13:32 "One prime setup" And this is why you should never try a Hasselblad 500C/M (or later) medium format film camera with a 1:3.5/60mm Zeiss lens. Never! ...or should you? 😀
13:21 Please don't stop talking about this. I often struggle to find a focal length that I like, bouncing between 35, 50, and 85mm. I prefer slightly longer focal lengths, but with everyone saying "35mm is the lens every photographer should own" I have found its both inspiring and challenging to shoot on a focal length that isn't my preferred setup. The compositions and ultimately the decision making process over the last few videos have been fascinating to watch and has helped in my own experimentation. Please keep updating on your evaluation criteria as its a useful framework for self-evaluations. Cheers.
Hi James, I don't often comment upon UA-cam videos and have admired your videos for ages. However, I'm totally uninspired by a lot of your Denmark photos. I don't think I would ever show a lot of these if I took them. You did have all that magnificent grass around the lighthouse which looked amazing. Focal length? you're right, it's a bit meh.
Fantastic trip! :D I'm in Lanzarote now and all I see on the big epic locations are concrete mixers, telephone poles and rusty trash cans... Thanks for opening my eyes 😂
James, thanks for the thoughts and the evaluation! For my part, I can tell you that I am NOT getting bored - quite the contrary! I am asking myself the same thing from time to time. And I think one of the reasons why it's so hard to answer this very question is exactly because these focal lengths are relatively similar - contrast to a wide-anglee and a telephoto, which are worlds apart. It seems to me we are optimizing in a very narrow space (in terms of optical appearance) and that just gets harder and harder the more narrow the space is. 🙂
They are piers I believe ( re your bridge question). Not boring at all to consider focal lengths. You don’t get such a good understanding of the effect on focal lengths on perspective and the feel of photos so much by always using zooms. Particularly interesting to examine if you prefer a selection of primes for the other benefits they bring including something more joyful in there use. Difficult to explain to anyone who doesn’t get it!
While you may think you are needlesly obsessing about 35, 40 or 50mm, all great artists have artistic phases. In 30 years time someone will say: ah yes, this is from his 40mm period. :p
40 mm is my favorite focal length also. My previous most favorite lens was the Zeiss Batis 40 f2. My current most favorite is the Sony 50 f1.2. I would prefer the Sony to be 40 mm, but I am acquiescing 50 mm to get the f1.2 aperture, which is beyond incredible. Either way, you can't go wrong with either lens. That said, there is no way to "test which focal length one prefers" when using a zoom lens. The whole point of the single focal length "prime" lens is to restrict the user to one focal length. Once restricted, most photographers quickly begin to "see" compositions in that focal length. As a result, most photographers do not feel "constricted" by the one focal length, as all their pre-visualized compositions are already in that focal length. It is not possible to mimic the effect a prime lens has on the photographer with a zoom. Furthermore, doing post-shoot database analysis of the most frequent focal lengths used at a given location is also not a good measure of one's "favorite" focal length, as those analyses do not take into account the subject matter and the fact that it is not possible to emulate the pre-visualization changes that occur when using a prime lens. All the best.
As someone else below said, go out with a 28mm on an old Nikon crop-sensor DSLR. Then see how long you last before you run back to the car and grab your Sony and all its lenses. Try to get the sound fixed as we'd all love to hear you screaming while trying to cope with just the 28mm. ;-)
I got married on Ærø! Back when it was the cheapest, easiest place to get married in Europe. Amazing place. Only three letters in Ærø, two of which are not in the English alphabet. 😆
You have a fascination/fixation on focal lengths and I have one with aspect ratios lol. I like to shoot my images using the aspect ratio they will end up as. I'm not a shoot something and then crop it to a better image later, type photographer. If I was going to do that I might as well not bother framing up anything at all, just point in the general direction and crop it into an image later. That seems crazy to me 🤷♀I want to have as much of the image finalized in camera as possible. That's part of the reason I love digital over film. Each frame can be totally set up for the specific thing you're photographing. No more wishing you were using monochrome film when you're part way through a roll of colored slide film.
I'm also currently obsessing over which focal length is best for me. To me it is all about the perspective each lens produces rather than at which distance I can shoot from or having to move closer or further. 40mm or 50mm is currently the two I'm comparing but haven't made up my mind between the two. It can drive one insane! Or maybe there's and easier answer, there's not enough difference between the two, just choose one and go with it
I'm primarily a 50mm guy however there are certain locations where 35mm just feels right. The only way to stop comparing them is to only bring one lens with you. However, 50mm is still my desert island lens because I often shoot vertical orientation and I don't like 35mm shot vertically at all. 50mm is pleasing when shot horizontal or vertical and it's the lens I can pre visualise with the easiest.
I also use a Sony Alpha 7R IV and have over time settled on two primes, 35 mm and 50 mm. It wasn't a conscious thing, it just happened. I occasionally use a 16-28 mm zoom and even more rarely my 70-200 zoom. For me, the additional resolution means I can be a little more flexible over cropping during processing. Interesting video James.
Really don’t get your worries. Put on the 24-70 GM2 and you are golden. I tested against my Voigtlander 50mm f/2 apo and it’s really only slightly sharper. The 24-70 is not that much larger and heavier. That really seems like a case where we as humans just like to have a „problem“ to constantly think about.
Try the voigtländer 40mm. Not a perfect lense but a lot of character and a bit of that manual feeling you liked with the M11. I myself got an 50mm apo lanthar from voigtländer and consider it the best lense I have ever shot. Sadly it's a bit too sharp for portraiture work .... But then again there are ways to get rid of that sharpness when needed. Btw I don't think that the topic of focal length is a boring one. I think if you found your focal length and shoot with it, it will add a lot to your style and make your work more cohesive. Keep up the good videos! I really enjoy your channel!
Isn't that the one he has in his hand on the thumbnail of the video (around 1:18 in the video)? Not sure why he doesn't mention it. Great lens, by the way.
Primes lenses: 28mm, 50mm & 85mm hit the spot for me. I have a 70-300mm but hardly ever use it. All Nikon kit, all of it 10-20+ years old. Great video!
This is actually really helpful! Thank you! I want to buy panckake lens for sonny either 35mm(zeiss) 2.8 or 40mm 2.5 for sonny and I am thinking 35 will be better options also can save quite a lot getting 2nd hand one!
I'd really like to try the Zeiss Sonnar 35mm (and the 55mm also), as it features an optical design that was impossible to implement for SLR/DSLR cameras. Also, the 35mm is actually smaller than the 40mm f/2.5!
1:28 technically, they exist. sigma 18-35 f1.8 on a crop system 13:47 james i would like to suggest you to try something like 56mm, 58mm or 60mm (full frame). during my analogue times, i was using helios 58mm and never felt need for another lens, now i'm on digital without any lens equal to 58mm (except my kit zoom lens) and yearning to get a 35mm (56mm equivalent because im on crop sensor)
I've got Minolta and Helios 58mm lenses. Use them on my film cameras and also on my Sony A7RII. It's a great focal length. If they brought out an autofocus 58mm 1.4 lens I'd love it!
1:25 The closest is probably Pentax's 20-40mm Limited for APS-C (so 30-60mm equivalent). Nice and compact, and Pentax users covet the build quality of the Limited range, but the aperture is f2.8-f4.
I wasn't bored by this video I just did the same thing. I'm currently running with the r7 18mm-150mm kit lens. I looked at a hand full of photos on it and they're between 18-50mm. So I am currently looking at the canon RF 15-35mm f2.8L IS lens for my R7.
Mads shoots in Composition Priority mode; James, in Focal Length Priority. It’s such an interesting consideration how they each approach the topic and it’s making me reconsider the way I think. Thanks, gents!
The most entertaining 'boring' video I've ever watched. And inspiring for my own choice of lenses as well ... just go on with this stuff, James! Thanks a lot.
Maybe the problem is that the good primes in this range are all either 35mm or 50-55mm. If there was a really good 40mm f1.4, I bet that would be your “one prime setup.” (with all due respect, I’m not sure a voigtlander qualifies)
50mm is my favorite prime lens. I can do Landscape and Portrait with that same lens. Although my first venture with landscape and a 50mm was a complete failure. It did take some getting used to not having a zoom.
If you are looking for a prime setup, I think that a two prime setup (35 + 50 mm) is VERY different from using a zoom @ 35 and 50. Changing lens every third shot is somewhat tiring… And also, if you feel that you could have taken most of those images at any focal length in the 35-50 range, why have two lenses? A 40 mm should be a good compromise. (I think?) Come to think of it: Don’t you have a 27 mm on your Fujifilm X-Pro 3? That's a 40 mm equivalent. It should be able to test this theory.
If you’re after a setup based around primes and most of your favourite images were taken at 35mm, apart from some that were at 50mm… couldn’t you use the Leica Q2-type philosophy of putting a great 35mm lens on your high megapixel camera, then cropping a bit when needed?
My two prime set up is 24 & 35. Mostly be ause not many people make good 28 & 40 lenses so I just shoot off the back screen at arms length and it basically solves that problem. 😂
I'd say for me, if I was to do a prime setup for landscape, probably a 24, 35 and 50. If I'm looking for a more universal prime set up, then maybe a 35, 50 and 85 (85 being for portraits). I know that many people would say wide angle, and I'd agree to a point, but I think sometimes wide-angles are also over-used in landscape a bit. They have their place, but I'm starting to like the idea of going in a bit more a little more detail, rather than just trying to get the overall scene, and that's where something like a 24 or 35 I think comes in to play. They're still "wide" but they also let you isolate subjects a little more.
Over the decades, I have used the following focal length lenses as my one-lens solution on full-frame cameras: 21mm 24mm 28mm 35mm 40mm 45mm 50mm 55mm The 35mm is my personal favorite.
When I started to shoot landscape and street more seriously I quickly figured out that a 35mm prime most frequently gave me results resembling what I had envisioned with my naked eyes, so for a while it became my preferred focal length. I think it has the perfect balance between three-dimensionality of perspective and not feeling too close or too far to the subject. However, once I got a pancake 40mm lens (only f/2.8, but very sharp) and realized the size and weight made it much more practical for me to always have the camera on me, I have kind of abandoned the 35mm. It's a bit of a compromise, but as you said the difference is not huge, and the 40mm is much more workable as a single lens (with a 50mm lens, for instance, I would simply not be able to make most of the images I might make with the 35mm)
We just all need to be walking around with bolex style rotating front mounts with three primes suck on the front. Ok in theory someone could actually make that for something like F-mount or EF to M43rds...
I'm a big fan of my Voigtlander 50mm f/1.2 on my a7iv! If you want a "perfect" lens that fits with your recent trend of more analogue feeling, their 35mm f/2 APO and 50mm f/2 APO would suit your needs really well :D
I have the 1.2 35 and 50 (as stills editions) as well and I don't think there is much difference between those and the APOs from f/2 onwards. Just great lenses. 👍
Lovely photos, thank you. Not at all bored with thinking about focal length . For the reasons you articulated. What delivers or tends to produce the most pleasing , most "natural" images? And ,with this in mind ,can I limit my lens set to one or two ? Cheers.
Finally james smiled in the tumbnail! Its like a miracle Edit: im irish i wouldent know, but id like to see what the danish think of your pronounciation, Thank god i dont need pronounce foreign names of places often.
James, there is that "perfect lens" you are talking about, the Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Summilux 10-25mm f/1.7. Of course, you'd have to come back to the MFT side though. :) (Yes, I'm aware that it's not the same as "your" FF perfect lens but I couldn't miss an opportunity to "invite you back" to MFT Land). Love the content, enjoy the short and long trip videos. Thanks for sharing.
You mentioned about struggling to get a lone hut at 35-50mm, if you'd gone further back and zoomed in with a longer lens would it help isolate a hut more, or is it just something you can't get around? Not sure if there's something there to make a future video out of, I'm very much a newcomer to proper photography, thanks.
I've shot a lot of 40mm on the A7 series over the past ..... 7 years or so. I've ended up with the Voigtlander 40/1.2E since 2018/9 I think. I switch that out with the 35GM depending if I'm going to need AF or not and pair either with the Tamron 70-180mm if I think I might need the reach or shoot any panoramas. Again though, a lot of this depends on where I'm going & what I am going to be shooting. And obviously astro photography is a different kettle of fish altogether....... Still, focal length discussions are always interesting.
I think you're right, James. Well, Jutland seems to be 35 to 50 territory. West Stadil Fjord with its swamp/wetlands and the wonderful EE138 memorial site all benefit from the detail of those focal lengths. The beach huts, holiday cottages and Atlantic Wall in that extended region have the right amount of isolation while obviously showing the human interactions of the region. Your shots were lovely.
I forced myself to not be so distracted by the fried eggs you mentioned, and after paying attention to the content - I am sold on shooting more in the 35-50mm range. You have done really well in finding creative shots with the beach huts. My son has a good selection of prime lenses to borrow, so I can play around with 35, 40 or 50 without cheating or using any zoom. Cheers!
For me a "perfect" Lens are any prime Lens shorter or longer than 50mm focal length ! At the moment my most used Lens are a 35mm 2.0 manual focus Lens, the Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 35mm 2.0 Aspherical which I very highly can recommend ! I think for many a 35mm will be a "perfect" Lens, there are a reasons why millions of compact cameras through decades have been 35/38/40mm focal length. For "normal" and wide angle shots my most used two Lenses not are 14mm and 35mm, I do not use my 24mm Lens that often now, I go either extreme wide or moderate wide. My other Lenses are 55mm, 65mm Macro and 135mm. So for a "full" kit Landscape set of Lenses I will recommend 14mm, 24mm, 35mm, 55/60/65mm and 135mm.
I recently purchased a Fuji film camera and I've just upgraded to the XT5 and I still only have two lenses. I have a 23 mm and 35 mm which is 35 and 50mm and less is more sometimes having less lenses get you to create more and I'm really loving this experience and it's a bit of a throwback to when I started. Does that mean I miss having a wide-angle lens yes doesn't miss somethings because I don't have a zoom yes but I reckon I would still be shooting 90% of my work with these two lenses
Finding the perfect focal length will always be the dream and goal. This is what keeps me in this expensive hobby... We can be philosophers together talking about the perfect focal length! We love grouping things, maybe that's why we are interested in this topic? Instead of zooming around
Looks like the eggs on your jacket are rubbing onto your beard a little. The bridge in this video is also quite interesting in that it is 2 types of bridge in one. The parts closer to shore at either end are the "beam bridge" design, and the centre is of a "cable-stayed" construction.
The closest thing I can think of that would fulfill your criteria is using the Sigma 24-35 f/2 on a crop sensor body (or in crop mode). It's a big and bulky lens, and you'd have to adapt it, but that'd be right around what you're seeking.
Love your work mate! When are you coming to New Zealand? Do you exculsively shoot landscape? Or is there a place for portrait while shooting landscapes?
Although I'm a HUGE fan of the 35-50mm thing... A lot like Mads... it really doesn't matter to me. I want a shot, and I'll get what I want. I use macro and telephoto lenses a LOT... It's all about what I see NOW! That's why I carry a huge bag on my back on photo walks... even though I'm 62.
photography is art. art is such a very inter-personal thing within an artist. you would have your biases on the tools you use depending on the result you want. thats just how it is. anyone that forces you to use a tool just because they themselves like that tool, then they could just use it for themselves and thats great. i myself dont like focal lengthts more than 85. they make me feel claustrophobic. as if everything is closing in on me and it makes me feel uncomfortable. but thats just me. other shoot great photos with them and thats good for them. my main lens is a 11-16 crop. and i understand that its absurdly ridiculous to others but that lens almost do not leave my body. if i need a different lens i would grab my 50(crop) or borrow a 35(crop). its not about not trying out new things, i have variety of other lenses i could choose whenever i need them. its just, i do know myself enough that even if i shoot on a long lens, i wont like it either way and they would just end up taking unecessary space on my storage, never to be touched ever. so why bother... if i need them, sure i would use them. but i wont force myself to like them when i dont need to.
I cannot understand the idea of shooting all focal lenghts. Is it about being afraid to miss a shot or is it to show off to fellow photographers or custumors? Do pick one prime and take images. In your case I think a 35mm would be fine. With that Sony you have enough "croppability" to optimise the composition if needed. I use an apsc system (fujifilm). The most time I use only the 35mm f2 lens (+/-50mm equivalent). So I am not afraid to miss a shot or I do not want to show off an expensive kit. I like to take images with as less as equipment as possible. And iI like the 50mm focal lenght. I do shoot a lot of images during photo hikes. So weight etc. is important.
I thought your comment which suggested concern that the photographs would be of 'of huts' rather than 'about huts' was a terrific insight into what good photographers should aim for - about rather than of. Its what I took away anyway!
The irony of a man from Wales not being able pronounce place's names is not lost on me.
I think a lot about my focal length for the same reason. I want to carry as few lenses and do as few lens changes as humanly possible, nothing sucks the fun out of a shooting experience like needing to fumble around to change a lens out.
Your mic can crackle all it wants, because you and your contents are so awesome that I never hear the crackle unless you point them out. Outstanding images. Your compositions have inspired me to become a better photographer. Thank you.
Hi James, if you fancied dusting off your g9 then the lumix 10-25 f1.7 would be just the lens your after 😉
I was just thinking that…
Don’t envy you dealing with location sound like this on your own. It’s kind of a miracle it works as well as it does. There’s a reason why even on modest pro video shoots one would have a dedicated sound person. TBH I think yours sounds great for the format.
I shoot Sony and moved to Voigtlander lenses a while ago, 15mm, 40mm 1.2, APO 35 and APO 50. Really love the feel and look of them. I think you will like them too as you are wanting something with a little more work to get your photos without going to film. This is a good in between. Great images without going full manual film and without going full AI autofocus.
I have the Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 35mm 2.0 Aspherical which are an excellent Lens, compact, light and built like a tank with outstanding optical image quality, I can very highly recommend this Lens ! I can also very highly recommend the Voigtländer Macro APO-Lanthar 65mm 2.0 Aspherical !
2x camera set up - 20mm on one body, for interior, wide angle and vlogging and 50mm on another body - everything else
Makes me happy when James puts out a new video!
I totally know what you mean in terms of focal length!
I shot with a Canon M50 with a Sigma 30mm 1.4 for a solid year and never ever felt the need to change lenses. I was dialled right in!
Now I’m using a Nikon full frame with the Z 24-70mm F4 and it’s taking time to get used to…which sounds counter-intuitive!
Regarding your search.... Honestly you shouldn't go for 2 primes if those primes are 35mm and 50mm. Most people won't bother changing lenses for less than 2x their focal length. It's why you did not use 40mm. Most times the difference between 35mm and 50mm is a few steps. If it were me, I would go with 35mm for a 1 lens solution (although I have been shooting 28mm because part of me wants to buy a Leica Q2). If I were going with a 2 lens solution - I would be tempted to go 35mm, and either 85mm, or maybe even 90mm macro (as it gives additional options).
Agreed on that. Went that way more than a decade ago and haven't looked back. 👍
I agree, 35mm and 50mm are too close.
35/85 and 24/50 are very popular sets.
Are those suggestions for full frame? I’m new to this. For apsc what would you suggest
Thank you! I am very interested in the topic "35 / 50 mm prime"!
I find it all interesting, James, when it is well thought out and comes from people such as yourself who have a boatload of experience, and success to back it all up. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and your images. Always a pleasure.
13:32 "One prime setup" And this is why you should never try a Hasselblad 500C/M (or later) medium format film camera with a 1:3.5/60mm Zeiss lens. Never! ...or should you? 😀
Your videos are my comfort place
Don’t stop talking about the different focal lengths you are using because it has helped. I love it because it intrigues me
13:21 Please don't stop talking about this. I often struggle to find a focal length that I like, bouncing between 35, 50, and 85mm. I prefer slightly longer focal lengths, but with everyone saying "35mm is the lens every photographer should own" I have found its both inspiring and challenging to shoot on a focal length that isn't my preferred setup.
The compositions and ultimately the decision making process over the last few videos have been fascinating to watch and has helped in my own experimentation. Please keep updating on your evaluation criteria as its a useful framework for self-evaluations. Cheers.
What about the Tamron 2.8mm 20-40mm on a cropped sensor would be equivalent of 30-60 F4?
Hi James,
I don't often comment upon UA-cam videos and have admired your videos for ages. However, I'm totally uninspired by a lot of your Denmark photos. I don't think I would ever show a lot of these if I took them. You did have all that magnificent grass around the lighthouse which looked amazing.
Focal length? you're right, it's a bit meh.
Fantastic trip! :D I'm in Lanzarote now and all I see on the big epic locations are concrete mixers, telephone poles and rusty trash cans... Thanks for opening my eyes 😂
James, thanks for the thoughts and the evaluation! For my part, I can tell you that I am NOT getting bored - quite the contrary! I am asking myself the same thing from time to time. And I think one of the reasons why it's so hard to answer this very question is exactly because these focal lengths are relatively similar - contrast to a wide-anglee and a telephoto, which are worlds apart. It seems to me we are optimizing in a very narrow space (in terms of optical appearance) and that just gets harder and harder the more narrow the space is. 🙂
They are piers I believe ( re your bridge question). Not boring at all to consider focal lengths. You don’t get such a good understanding of the effect on focal lengths on perspective and the feel of photos so much by always using zooms. Particularly interesting to examine if you prefer a selection of primes for the other benefits they bring including something more joyful in there use. Difficult to explain to anyone who doesn’t get it!
While you may think you are needlesly obsessing about 35, 40 or 50mm, all great artists have artistic phases. In 30 years time someone will say: ah yes, this is from his 40mm period. :p
40 mm is my favorite focal length also. My previous most favorite lens was the Zeiss Batis 40 f2. My current most favorite is the Sony 50 f1.2. I would prefer the Sony to be 40 mm, but I am acquiescing 50 mm to get the f1.2 aperture, which is beyond incredible. Either way, you can't go wrong with either lens. That said, there is no way to "test which focal length one prefers" when using a zoom lens. The whole point of the single focal length "prime" lens is to restrict the user to one focal length. Once restricted, most photographers quickly begin to "see" compositions in that focal length. As a result, most photographers do not feel "constricted" by the one focal length, as all their pre-visualized compositions are already in that focal length. It is not possible to mimic the effect a prime lens has on the photographer with a zoom. Furthermore, doing post-shoot database analysis of the most frequent focal lengths used at a given location is also not a good measure of one's "favorite" focal length, as those analyses do not take into account the subject matter and the fact that it is not possible to emulate the pre-visualization changes that occur when using a prime lens. All the best.
As someone else below said, go out with a 28mm on an old Nikon crop-sensor DSLR. Then see how long you last before you run back to the car and grab your Sony and all its lenses. Try to get the sound fixed as we'd all love to hear you screaming while trying to cope with just the 28mm. ;-)
Why not a medium range zoom like the Sigma 24-70 or 28-70 F/2.8???
I got married on Ærø! Back when it was the cheapest, easiest place to get married in Europe. Amazing place. Only three letters in Ærø, two of which are not in the English alphabet. 😆
It's called "Øresundsbroen". Very close to where I live....
How did you get access to the island at the start of the bridge?
That's not Öresundsbron, Öresundsbron has traintrax going under =)
You have a fascination/fixation on focal lengths and I have one with aspect ratios lol. I like to shoot my images using the aspect ratio they will end up as. I'm not a shoot something and then crop it to a better image later, type photographer. If I was going to do that I might as well not bother framing up anything at all, just point in the general direction and crop it into an image later. That seems crazy to me 🤷♀I want to have as much of the image finalized in camera as possible. That's part of the reason I love digital over film. Each frame can be totally set up for the specific thing you're photographing. No more wishing you were using monochrome film when you're part way through a roll of colored slide film.
I really appreciate your videos. Your personality is a cheer:)
Hope you enjoyed the beauty of Denmark, despite the cold weather.
Sounds like you need just a 35mm and employ slight crops from time to time. On the other hand, a 24-70 might be better.
I'm also currently obsessing over which focal length is best for me. To me it is all about the perspective each lens produces rather than at which distance I can shoot from or having to move closer or further. 40mm or 50mm is currently the two I'm comparing but haven't made up my mind between the two. It can drive one insane! Or maybe there's and easier answer, there's not enough difference between the two, just choose one and go with it
Looking forward to your book!
I'm primarily a 50mm guy however there are certain locations where 35mm just feels right. The only way to stop comparing them is to only bring one lens with you. However, 50mm is still my desert island lens because I often shoot vertical orientation and I don't like 35mm shot vertically at all. 50mm is pleasing when shot horizontal or vertical and it's the lens I can pre visualise with the easiest.
That is interesting to me ,Jason. Your finding that 35mm does not work as well as 50mm in vertical orientation. I had not considered this. Cheers.
@@clarkejones8090 Hope it helps!
I also use a Sony Alpha 7R IV and have over time settled on two primes, 35 mm and 50 mm. It wasn't a conscious thing, it just happened. I occasionally use a 16-28 mm zoom and even more rarely my 70-200 zoom. For me, the additional resolution means I can be a little more flexible over cropping during processing. Interesting video James.
Your sense of what constitutes a good composition is amazing to me.
The things which support the bridge deck are called "Piers" - see also "Abutment"
Really don’t get your worries. Put on the 24-70 GM2 and you are golden. I tested against my Voigtlander 50mm f/2 apo and it’s really only slightly sharper. The 24-70 is not that much larger and heavier. That really seems like a case where we as humans just like to have a „problem“ to constantly think about.
Recently I got a vintage 28mm (Vivitar OM- £20- very sharp!) to use with my Fuji XT2. Works out at 42mm with the crop. Maybe worth a play?
Try the voigtländer 40mm. Not a perfect lense but a lot of character and a bit of that manual feeling you liked with the M11. I myself got an 50mm apo lanthar from voigtländer and consider it the best lense I have ever shot. Sadly it's a bit too sharp for portraiture work .... But then again there are ways to get rid of that sharpness when needed. Btw I don't think that the topic of focal length is a boring one. I think if you found your focal length and shoot with it, it will add a lot to your style and make your work more cohesive. Keep up the good videos! I really enjoy your channel!
Isn't that the one he has in his hand on the thumbnail of the video (around 1:18 in the video)? Not sure why he doesn't mention it. Great lens, by the way.
Voigtländer Nokton 40mm f1.2 is magic, if you spend a little time to learn its magical ways.
Primes lenses: 28mm, 50mm & 85mm hit the spot for me. I have a 70-300mm but hardly ever use it. All Nikon kit, all of it 10-20+ years old. Great video!
This is actually really helpful! Thank you! I want to buy panckake lens for sonny either 35mm(zeiss) 2.8 or 40mm 2.5 for sonny and I am thinking 35 will be better options also can save quite a lot getting 2nd hand one!
I'd really like to try the Zeiss Sonnar 35mm (and the 55mm also), as it features an optical design that was impossible to implement for SLR/DSLR cameras. Also, the 35mm is actually smaller than the 40mm f/2.5!
Just use the 35 and crop when needed.
1:28 technically, they exist. sigma 18-35 f1.8 on a crop system
13:47 james i would like to suggest you to try something like 56mm, 58mm or 60mm (full frame). during my analogue times, i was using helios 58mm and never felt need for another lens, now i'm on digital without any lens equal to 58mm (except my kit zoom lens) and yearning to get a 35mm (56mm equivalent because im on crop sensor)
I've got Minolta and Helios 58mm lenses. Use them on my film cameras and also on my Sony A7RII. It's a great focal length. If they brought out an autofocus 58mm 1.4 lens I'd love it!
I do think 40mm is the Goldilocks focal length. I just wish there were more 40 ish mm primes
Wait.... why would someone use a tripod on a boat....
Arms get tired I guess
Maybe shooting something on the same boat?
Wind
To keep the boat parts steady in the shots.
Because it’s much harder to use a tripod while swimming? 🤷♂️
The photo at 0:23 looks great! I think it's taken at 50mm if I'm not wrong.
1:25 The closest is probably Pentax's 20-40mm Limited for APS-C (so 30-60mm equivalent). Nice and compact, and Pentax users covet the build quality of the Limited range, but the aperture is f2.8-f4.
really well said by Mads at about 11:00.
I like around 40mm (27mm on my Fuji) and telephoto ranges. Not a great fan of wider. I'd love to get a Ricoh GR IIIx, but they are so expensive.
Bought only recently a Voigtländer 40mm f2 for Nikon F mount... love that lens!
I wasn't bored by this video I just did the same thing. I'm currently running with the r7 18mm-150mm kit lens. I looked at a hand full of photos on it and they're between 18-50mm. So I am currently looking at the canon RF 15-35mm f2.8L IS lens for my R7.
Mads shoots in Composition Priority mode; James, in Focal Length Priority. It’s such an interesting consideration how they each approach the topic and it’s making me reconsider the way I think. Thanks, gents!
The most entertaining 'boring' video I've ever watched.
And inspiring for my own choice of lenses as well ... just go on with this stuff, James!
Thanks a lot.
My favourite focal lenght is also 40mm, and I as well, will not shut up about it. I'm glad there's someone who as well, will not shut up about it.
On the subject of lenses, I find the Sony 28-60 to be a very workable lens. It’s very light and sharp, although a bit on the slow side.
Maybe the problem is that the good primes in this range are all either 35mm or 50-55mm. If there was a really good 40mm f1.4, I bet that would be your “one prime setup.” (with all due respect, I’m not sure a voigtlander qualifies)
I'm with Mads, I look for the picture, not the focal length. Good pictures as always.
50mm is my favorite prime lens. I can do Landscape and Portrait with that same lens. Although my first venture with landscape and a 50mm was a complete failure. It did take some getting used to not having a zoom.
If you are looking for a prime setup, I think that a two prime setup (35 + 50 mm) is VERY different from using a zoom @ 35 and 50. Changing lens every third shot is somewhat tiring… And also, if you feel that you could have taken most of those images at any focal length in the 35-50 range, why have two lenses? A 40 mm should be a good compromise. (I think?)
Come to think of it: Don’t you have a 27 mm on your Fujifilm X-Pro 3? That's a 40 mm equivalent. It should be able to test this theory.
There is a Zeiss 40mm f2 you should try that
If you’re after a setup based around primes and most of your favourite images were taken at 35mm, apart from some that were at 50mm… couldn’t you use the Leica Q2-type philosophy of putting a great 35mm lens on your high megapixel camera, then cropping a bit when needed?
My two prime set up is 24 & 35. Mostly be ause not many people make good 28 & 40 lenses so I just shoot off the back screen at arms length and it basically solves that problem. 😂
In case no one has said this… They are called bridge piers in the US; not sure if it’s the same in the UK.
Didn't notice the eggs before you mentioned them... after that, could not help myself but focus on it.... thank you for that...
Two prime is what I kinda do. I mostly shoot with my 35equiv and sometimes use a 50mm adapter.
My zoom hasn't been used much lately.
On a pier it is called "pilings." I would imagine the same nomenclature for a bridge over water.
I'd say for me, if I was to do a prime setup for landscape, probably a 24, 35 and 50. If I'm looking for a more universal prime set up, then maybe a 35, 50 and 85 (85 being for portraits). I know that many people would say wide angle, and I'd agree to a point, but I think sometimes wide-angles are also over-used in landscape a bit. They have their place, but I'm starting to like the idea of going in a bit more a little more detail, rather than just trying to get the overall scene, and that's where something like a 24 or 35 I think comes in to play. They're still "wide" but they also let you isolate subjects a little more.
Interesting topic. Can't wait to watch it
Over the decades, I have used the following focal length lenses as my one-lens solution on full-frame cameras:
21mm
24mm
28mm
35mm
40mm
45mm
50mm
55mm
The 35mm is my personal favorite.
I've been shooting primes mostly post pandemic. My most used is 50mm and 35mm
When I started to shoot landscape and street more seriously I quickly figured out that a 35mm prime most frequently gave me results resembling what I had envisioned with my naked eyes, so for a while it became my preferred focal length. I think it has the perfect balance between three-dimensionality of perspective and not feeling too close or too far to the subject. However, once I got a pancake 40mm lens (only f/2.8, but very sharp) and realized the size and weight made it much more practical for me to always have the camera on me, I have kind of abandoned the 35mm. It's a bit of a compromise, but as you said the difference is not huge, and the 40mm is much more workable as a single lens (with a 50mm lens, for instance, I would simply not be able to make most of the images I might make with the 35mm)
I do wish lenses like the tri-elmar 28-35-50 were more common. I'd like the structure of only having 3 specific focal lengths (i.e., not a true zoom)
We just all need to be walking around with bolex style rotating front mounts with three primes suck on the front. Ok in theory someone could actually make that for something like F-mount or EF to M43rds...
I'm a big fan of my Voigtlander 50mm f/1.2 on my a7iv! If you want a "perfect" lens that fits with your recent trend of more analogue feeling, their 35mm f/2 APO and 50mm f/2 APO would suit your needs really well :D
I have the 1.2 35 and 50 (as stills editions) as well and I don't think there is much difference between those and the APOs from f/2 onwards. Just great lenses. 👍
I'd even suggest the 40mm f/1.2. It's on my A7iii 99% of the time...
Lovely photos, thank you.
Not at all bored with thinking about focal length . For the reasons you articulated. What delivers or tends to produce the most pleasing , most "natural" images? And ,with this in mind ,can I limit my lens set to one or two ?
Cheers.
Finally james smiled in the tumbnail! Its like a miracle
Edit: im irish i wouldent know, but id like to see what the danish think of your pronounciation,
Thank god i dont need pronounce foreign names of places often.
So all you need is a Fuji X100V (full frame equiv 35mm) + the TCL adapter (full frame equiv 50mm). Nice compact setup.
Cannot make them fried eggs unseen. Thanks for the trip, James. Lovely!
James, there is that "perfect lens" you are talking about, the Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Summilux 10-25mm f/1.7. Of course, you'd have to come back to the MFT side though. :) (Yes, I'm aware that it's not the same as "your" FF perfect lens but I couldn't miss an opportunity to "invite you back" to MFT Land). Love the content, enjoy the short and long trip videos. Thanks for sharing.
You mentioned about struggling to get a lone hut at 35-50mm, if you'd gone further back and zoomed in with a longer lens would it help isolate a hut more, or is it just something you can't get around?
Not sure if there's something there to make a future video out of, I'm very much a newcomer to proper photography, thanks.
Love the video, just now watched it and that backround music is 10/10 my dude, I love it!
I wish someone would make for sony fit, something like the Leica Tri-Elmar-M 4/28-35-50mm, which isn't a zoom but has a really useful range
I think that lens is the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 for APSC cameras!
Does anyone know what Fjällräven jacket James is wearing?
I've shot a lot of 40mm on the A7 series over the past ..... 7 years or so. I've ended up with the Voigtlander 40/1.2E since 2018/9 I think. I switch that out with the 35GM depending if I'm going to need AF or not and pair either with the Tamron 70-180mm if I think I might need the reach or shoot any panoramas. Again though, a lot of this depends on where I'm going & what I am going to be shooting. And obviously astro photography is a different kettle of fish altogether.......
Still, focal length discussions are always interesting.
I think you're right, James. Well, Jutland seems to be 35 to 50 territory. West Stadil Fjord with its swamp/wetlands and the wonderful EE138 memorial site all benefit from the detail of those focal lengths.
The beach huts, holiday cottages and Atlantic Wall in that extended region have the right amount of isolation while obviously showing the human interactions of the region. Your shots were lovely.
I forced myself to not be so distracted by the fried eggs you mentioned, and after paying attention to the content - I am sold on shooting more in the 35-50mm range. You have done really well in finding creative shots with the beach huts. My son has a good selection of prime lenses to borrow, so I can play around with 35, 40 or 50 without cheating or using any zoom. Cheers!
For me a "perfect" Lens are any prime Lens shorter or longer than 50mm focal length ! At the moment my most used Lens are a 35mm 2.0 manual focus Lens, the Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 35mm 2.0 Aspherical which I very highly can recommend ! I think for many a 35mm will be a "perfect" Lens, there are a reasons why millions of compact cameras through decades have been 35/38/40mm focal length. For "normal" and wide angle shots my most used two Lenses not are 14mm and 35mm, I do not use my 24mm Lens that often now, I go either extreme wide or moderate wide. My other Lenses are 55mm, 65mm Macro and 135mm. So for a "full" kit Landscape set of Lenses I will recommend 14mm, 24mm, 35mm, 55/60/65mm and 135mm.
I recently purchased a Fuji film camera and I've just upgraded to the XT5 and I still only have two lenses. I have a 23 mm and 35 mm which is 35 and 50mm and less is more sometimes having less lenses get you to create more and I'm really loving this experience and it's a bit of a throwback to when I started. Does that mean I miss having a wide-angle lens yes doesn't miss somethings because I don't have a zoom yes but I reckon I would still be shooting 90% of my work with these two lenses
Love your presentation style with a mix of super education then fun and humor. Keep at it !!!
What about the aperture?
Finding the perfect focal length will always be the dream and goal. This is what keeps me in this expensive hobby... We can be philosophers together talking about the perfect focal length! We love grouping things, maybe that's why we are interested in this topic? Instead of zooming around
Looks like the eggs on your jacket are rubbing onto your beard a little.
The bridge in this video is also quite interesting in that it is 2 types of bridge in one. The parts closer to shore at either end are the "beam bridge" design, and the centre is of a "cable-stayed" construction.
The closest thing I can think of that would fulfill your criteria is using the Sigma 24-35 f/2 on a crop sensor body (or in crop mode). It's a big and bulky lens, and you'd have to adapt it, but that'd be right around what you're seeking.
Its not the same though. I get the crop factors but it’s different.
Great lens.
Love your work mate! When are you coming to New Zealand?
Do you exculsively shoot landscape? Or is there a place for portrait while shooting landscapes?
Although I'm a HUGE fan of the 35-50mm thing... A lot like Mads... it really doesn't matter to me. I want a shot, and I'll get what I want. I use macro and telephoto lenses a LOT... It's all about what I see NOW! That's why I carry a huge bag on my back on photo walks... even though I'm 62.
photography is art. art is such a very inter-personal thing within an artist. you would have your biases on the tools you use depending on the result you want. thats just how it is. anyone that forces you to use a tool just because they themselves like that tool, then they could just use it for themselves and thats great.
i myself dont like focal lengthts more than 85. they make me feel claustrophobic. as if everything is closing in on me and it makes me feel uncomfortable. but thats just me. other shoot great photos with them and thats good for them.
my main lens is a 11-16 crop. and i understand that its absurdly ridiculous to others but that lens almost do not leave my body. if i need a different lens i would grab my 50(crop) or borrow a 35(crop).
its not about not trying out new things, i have variety of other lenses i could choose whenever i need them. its just, i do know myself enough that even if i shoot on a long lens, i wont like it either way and they would just end up taking unecessary space on my storage, never to be touched ever. so why bother...
if i need them, sure i would use them. but i wont force myself to like them when i dont need to.
I cannot understand the idea of shooting all focal lenghts. Is it about being afraid to miss a shot or is it to show off to fellow photographers or custumors? Do pick one prime and take images. In your case I think a 35mm would be fine. With that Sony you have enough "croppability" to optimise the composition if needed. I use an apsc system (fujifilm). The most time I use only the 35mm f2 lens (+/-50mm equivalent). So I am not afraid to miss a shot or I do not want to show off an expensive kit. I like to take images with as less as equipment as possible. And iI like the 50mm focal lenght. I do shoot a lot of images during photo hikes. So weight etc. is important.
I thought your comment which suggested concern that the photographs would be of 'of huts' rather than 'about huts' was a terrific insight into what good photographers should aim for - about rather than of. Its what I took away anyway!
Nice one! What are the huts used for?
These pictures are mostly taken with plenty of light. Using a 35 prime is kind of weird imo when a 35 - 50 mm lense would give you more flexibility