Do you gravitate toward a non-"normal" angle of view? How did you discover it?

[ProfessorC1983]

I was just watching @Greg Davis latest video on Edward Weston's camera kit () which I greatly enjoyed all around -- but the one tidbit that stuck out to me was that Weston thought the 12" focal length on his triple convertible lens (about a 56 degree angle of view or "normal" FL on 8x10 if my math is right) was "violently wide-angle" and he strongly preferred the 21" FL, which equates to ~34 degrees or quite narrow indeed, for the vast majority of his images.

This reminded me of a line in AA's The Camera, on p.57 in my copy: "I do not find the normal lens especially desirable, functionally or aesthetically. ... I frequently find that the "normal" concepts and performances are not as exciting as those that make an acceptable departure from the expected reality."

I'm wondering how common this viewpoint is, and if you're one of those drawn to composing images in a wider or narrower angle of view, how did you discover it and what creative potential did it unlock? One exercise I've thought about, when I'm on walks without a camera, is to carry around a few different accessory viewfinders of "short" and "long" focal lengths and practice composing images at different angles to see what I'm drawn toward. Has anyone had luck with that approach in learning to "see" differently?

 

[ic-racer]

How are you defining "normal" in your post?

 

[ProfessorC1983]

I suppose I'm thinking of AA's definition earlier in that section -- where "normal" is an angle of view around 50-55 degrees, "long" being <40 degrees and "short" being >65 degrees.

 

[MattKing]

One of the challenges inherent in discussions about "normal" is that aspect ratio has a big influence on field of view, and field of view has a big influence on what seems "normal".
I have interchangeable lens cameras in a number of formats, and I have (probably) too many lenses.
Amongst the lenses I have, there are considerably more shorter focal length lenses than longer focal length lenses.
35mm is my "standard" focal length in 135.
55mm is my standard focal length in 6x4.5.
etc.

 

[AnselMortensen]

I've always tended to be a longer lens guy.
My first camera was a Nikon F Photomic with a 200mm off-brand lens.
I tend to isolate details, with a flatter perspective.
That being said, in the last year or so, I've found myself doing the one lens, one film thing with my F3HP and a 50mm f1.4....and my Speed Graphic with a 150mm....and my 500C/M with the 80mm.
Not sure why....but I guess tastes change.

 

[ic-racer]

In 35mm format my least favorite is 50mm lens. I have a box of them that I don't use.

 

[Kino]

I tend to think of 35mm as the "normal" focal length for 35mm. I can appreciate 50mm, but it seems too constricted for anything less than 20 feet away.

:Like Matt, I tend to favor the wider angle lenses on any format.

 

[Sirius Glass]

When I earned my master's degree I bought a 35mm lens and a 70mm to 207mm zoom. I soon found the 35mm lens was too close to the 50mm lens and I traded it in for a 38mm lens. A year or two later I bought a 21mm lens. I knew that the choice of lens moved the subject closer or further from the subject, and I quickly learned that I could also change the perspective.

 

[awty]

and I have (probably) too many lenses..

Is that even possible?

I will usually have at least have 3 different focal lengths and choose the one that best suites the scene. Yesterday I had only 2 and needed a 75 degree lens. Had myself hard against a barb wire fence, no wonder all my shirts have tears.
I tend to prefer a wider aspect ratio on wider lenses, but am not chained to that.

 

[MattKing]

Is that even possible?

When combined with too many cameras, it certainly is!

 

[Horatio]

I'm using a short zoom (28-85 Nikkor) until I figure out which focal length I prefer. My F2 has a 24mm lens, in case 28mm is not wide enough.

 

[guangong]

For 35 mm cameras I have accumulated lenses from 15mm to 400mm. Various lenses have their occasional use, but most pictures are taken with 35'or 50 ( tied for first place) and 90. Most of my medium format cameras have fixed lenses in the 80 to 100mm range, depending on Frame format. With the Hasseblad most taken with 60 or 80 and occasionally 150. I can adapt others lenses up to 400mm, but again only for very specific needs.
Since I have a weakness for folders, the lenses of those cameras range from 40 to 50 for 35mm and 75 to 80mm for 6x6.
If you believe weird distortions or converging lines or flat perspective make a good picture, go for it! While slightly off topic, many photographers would have been much better if the photographer used their feet rather than their zoom lens.

 

[Helge]

If possible I take most of my photos with a short tele.
The compression epitomizes the 2d nature of a photograph and emphasizes the important, pulling things together in a composition and cutting distractions out.
Longer tele, makes the compression too obvious often and kind of distracting, apart from being cumbersome to use in a human scale environment.

The things keeping me from doing that is the distance often required to get the desired composition. And the shallow DoF, which can be desirable with certain subjects, but is mostly in the way, because it lowers your shutter speed when you stop down to get rid of it.

Not to say I don’t like wides, they can be wonderful. But I shoot most on close to normal lenses, however blasé and trite it is, because they provide a nice compromise and cheap, light and compact access to speed when you need it.

 

[David Allen]

Irrespective of format, my favourite lens is always something equivalent to a range between 30mm - 35mm lens on a 35mm camera.

 

[gone]

Anything wider than 85 mm is a wide lens to me. 135 is my preferred focal length as a walk around lens and for portraits, but I just don't like toting the things, so usually end up w/ a 90. The longer focal length lenses are just too long when mounted on the camera. Zooms are out of fashion these days, but I took some great photos w/ them.

It's amazing to see the cameras that Weston used!

 

[Luckless]

I typically reach for tighter longer lenses.

Most of my work tends to be along the lines of sports and wildlife, which are slightly difficult subjects to 'step up closer to' in most cases, and wider shots that are 99% things other than the main subject of interest only work so well in a very limited number of cases.

Also comes down to composition control and isolation. A wide lens is more likely to include more distracting elements at the edge of the frame.

 

[Sirius Glass]

When I earned my master's degree I bought a 35mm lens and a 70mm to 207mm zoom. I soon found the 35mm lens was too close to the 50mm lens and I traded it in for a 38mm lens. A year or two later I bought a 21mm lens. I knew that the choice of lens moved the subject closer or further from the subject, and I quickly learned that I could also change the perspective.

I started with this and I still do it most of the time.

I typically reach for tighter longer lenses.

Most of my work tends to be along the lines of sports and wildlife, which are slightly difficult subjects to 'step up closer to' in most cases, and wider shots that are 99% things other than the main subject of interest only work so well in a very limited number of cases.

Also comes down to composition control and isolation. A wide lens is more likely to include more distracting elements at the edge of the frame.

For 35mm I have a 20mm to 35mm Nikon AF zoom, 28mm to 200mm Nikon AF zoom, 28mm to 300mm Tamron AF zoom, 20mm AF Nikon, 28mm Nikon PC, and a 50mm Nikon AF lenses.

I use the wide angle and very wide angle lenses to capture the composition and on occasion I use them for the perspective, but not often.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I've been doing a bit of playing with "normal" length lenses, in part because one of my favorite cameras only has a normal lens that cannot be changed (Rolleiflex). Working within that constraint taught me about being a better photographer. I don't do that much tele work, with the exception of my digital camera, where I have a long-ish zoom that I can use for wildlife and travel stuff. There are certain "normal" lenses for specific cameras that I do love - the 110mm for my RZ67 (although it is a slightly long "normal" for the format), the aforementioned 80mm on the Rolleiflex, a 210mm for 4x5. Doing large format stuff, however, I do tend to go a little longer than "normal" - something in the 11" range on 5x7, and 14" on 8x10.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I started with this and I still do it most of the time.


For 35mm I have a 20mm to 35mm Nikon AF zoom, 28mm to 200mm Nikon AF zoom, 28mm to 300mm Tamron AF zoom, 20mm AF Nikon, 28mm Nikon PC, and a 50mm Nikon AF lenses.

I use the wide angle and very wide angle lenses to capture the composition and on occasion I use them for the perspective, but not often.

Most of my photographs are with the normal or near normal lens.

 

[Down Under]

I traveled around Indonesia in 1993 with a Nikkormat FT2 and a 50/2 Nikkor - and did some of the best 'people pics' I hae ever taken in my 60+ years of photography. It didn't do great things for landscapes and as usual I tended to shoot too many rice fields, mountains and pretty rivers babbling through visas of coconut palms. None of which I looked at after I returned home, but the images I took of Indonesians doing what they do during their days, still fascinate (and I have sold a fair few as stock images). So.

However, on returning home I went back to my old stand-bys, the 35/2 and 28/2.8 Nikkors. Two 28/2.8 D Nikkors are almost permanently on my digital Nikons. I have an ancient 55/3.5 micro Nikkor and I use this occasionally for ultra close close-ups or copying when I want to keep something on film. Otherwise, the wide angles do it all for me. A 135/3.5 and a 300/4.5 sit idle in their cases.

My four Rolleis have 75/3.5 Planars, Tessars and Xenars. Ditto my Zeiss Netter and Voigtlander Perkeo I, 80/3.5s. All fixed lenses, so I live with them and do what I do with that 'standard' (to me that means 'average') view on 120 roll film.

Anecdotal, yes. We all tend to 'see' images as we see them, we see things in our own different (and unique) ways, and we use the lenses that best record what we visualise. That is the fun of photography...

 

[Arthurwg]

With MF, my go-to lens is 60mm. With 35, I mostly shoot 24mm. If I need longer I use an 85mm lens.

 

[Vaughn]

I began photographing in the redwoods -- rather tight scenes. This and chance (which lens showed up first) has led me to favor the wide-side of normal. For 8x10, that is 300mm, but lately a 250mm also...and a 360mm on 11x14. Even the 5x7 has been seeing an 180mm on it more often than the 210mm. I do have longer lenses (19" and 24") which see some use when out in the open.