Above any other settings like aperture, shutter speed, or ISO, and regardless of what camera brand you use, the one thing that will most greatly affect the final look of your images is the focal length you shoot with.

Considering what kind of subject you are trying to capture or what kind of images you want to make, making the right decision when it comes to picking a focal length is crucial.

In this article, I want to share my experience, discussing the strengths and limitations of each focal length and tell you more about which one I prefer depending on the light and location. All that to, hopefully, help you decide which one you want to try out or commit to for a long period of time.

At the end, I will also address burning questions like cropping vs. zooming, APS-C vs. Full Frame, and zoom vs. prime.

24mm and below

Starting with ultra-wide focal lengths at 24mm and below, honestly, I almost never use them, so I don’t have a lot of insights. It is wide—very wide—good for landscapes and architecture, but also useful when you're in tighter spaces, making them look bigger than they are or when walking in a forest. It comes with a lot of distortion, so you have to be careful when placing elements or people close to the edges of the frame. Things can start to look funny—in a bad way—pretty quickly.

I think these ultra-wide focal lengths work well when you have interesting skies or are shooting around sunrise or sunset, but they can create way too much negative space when it’s overcast, resulting in a huge portion of the frame covered by low-texture grey clouds.

It’s also very difficult to come up with a clean composition unless you find yourself in a very open, minimalistic environment.

I personally have never owned a prime lens of any of these focal lengths. I only shoot at 24mm when using my big 24-70 zoom, which is almost never because of how heavy it is.

It’s really not the look I’m drawn to. I’m not a big fan of the unrealistic feel that comes with such wide-angle lenses. It works very well in picturesque locations, but maybe I’m more attracted to the act of making everyday scenes look great than taking wide shots of the craziest mountain under a sunset.

28mm

Next is 28mm, which is pretty dear to my heart. It’s a very immersive focal length, popular for its use in documentary and street photography. Its wide angle makes it very suitable for establishing shots to give a whole idea of the location you're at, but it’s also great for tighter spaces like narrow streets or markets. It’s much more realistic than the ultra-wide angles mentioned earlier, and with its low amount of distortion, it’s often used in street photography with a “fill the frame” approach. You can play with your framing, placing subjects and different elements all around the frame, making the whole scene multi-layered and more interesting to look at.

I personally like using it when I’m shooting in my town and when the weather is great. The light, being widely available, creates interesting patterns when peeking through buildings, which you can capture with the width of 28mm. I’d be happy to use a 28mm when traveling or when visiting new places, but I find myself quite uninspired when shooting familiar locations under a grey sky. Everything looks a bit similar, lacking the depth that light can create, and I can’t help but think that 28mm is too wide in such situations.

It’s also quite difficult to find simple, minimal, clean compositions with a 28mm because of how wide it is, unless you’re in a place that is naturally minimal with very low visual noise.

I usually pick it up when I decide to shoot with my Ricoh GRIII, or with my Sony camera when I’m playing around with the kids, when I go to a new location, or shoot locally with good light. 28mm is a typical “right in the action, up close” street photography lens. We see many photographers from New York, London, and other big cities using a 28mm in busy streets, but I’m less drawn to that style of shooting lately, and there are almost no areas like that in Hiroshima anyway.

One last thing about 28mm: I think that in my personal photography journey, it’s the focal length that was instrumental in helping me get better at composing. Almost two years ago, I committed to using my GRIII exclusively for several months. Since 28mm is wide, you really have to think, try, and fail at your compositions if you want to get something nice, and that really fast-tracked my progress.

35mm

Now, 35mm—I'll also include 40mm in this section as it’s gaining popularity, and 40mm is much closer to 35mm than it is to 50mm. It’s almost the perfect documentary focal length, whether you're capturing street scenes or your everyday life. It’s wide enough to still be considered a wide lens, but you can be more selective in your compositions than with a 28mm. It’s an extremely versatile focal length that you can default to in almost any shooting scenario or style. I don’t do a lot of them, but I love it for environmental portraits, and I like how you can capture scenes with a 35mm. You can photograph a landscape, position some still elements or human subjects, and capture how they interact with each other, making the whole scene interesting to look at. And by the way, when I refer to a "scape," I’m talking about a landscape, cityscape, or streetscape.

Similarly to the 28mm, I like shooting with a 35mm when walking in my city and when the weather is good, playing with the light to create patterns. But again, it’s a bit difficult for me to use when it’s overcast. When I’m traveling, regardless of the weather, 35mm is still my go-to lens because it lets me capture larger scenes but also focus more on some details, either natively or by cropping in post.

The 35mm might not be wide enough for some people. It’s not a tight focal length, but it’s true that it cannot be considered a very wide lens. Because of its position between wide and tight, it can also be difficult to compose a clean frame in visually busy environments. 35mm and 40mm, even more so, are very close to how we perceive the world with our eyes, so they can look too normal. You don’t have any visual tricks like the compression of tighter lenses or the gigantic effect of ultra-wide ones.

I like to pick it up when exploring new places or shooting casually in my city, ideally with good light. It’s also a good lens to bring when hanging out with friends and family. And if I’m going on a trip where photography is not the priority and I’m only bringing one lens, it’s a 35mm.

35mm is a fantastic lens for what it is, and like the 28mm, it’s also good for learning and making progress on composition. A little bonus: usually, 35mm lenses are easy to make small and compact, so it’s an everyday lens in every aspect.

50mm

50mm is a focal length that is growing on me. It’s starting to get tight; you can focus more on subjects and even some details while keeping a realistic look because the compression you get at 50mm is not excessive. I like how you can approach photography with a process of elimination. It’s easier to get rid of undesired elements in the frame, not distract the viewer’s attention, and end up with a cleaner, easier-to-read composition. You can start getting into abstract territory, but it still maintains a certain amount of versatility. In wide-open spaces, you will still have a general idea of how the location looks as a whole.

All focal lengths will produce nice results in good light, but what I like about 50mm and anything above is how they look in less-than-ideal light. As I said, you can focus on subjects and details that can even look better in balanced lighting conditions. When going abstract, you can compose and add elements from your environment without being too tied to how good the light looks.

50mm can be a bit limiting. It’s not too tight, but it’s less versatile than 35mm, and you might find yourself a bit frustrated when visiting new places where you want to capture large and wide frames. That said, I traveled around Japan for two weeks once using only a 50mm, and I had a very good time. Maybe the nuance is that I was bringing my mom to places I’d been before at least once, so that may have played a role.

I love attaching a 50mm lens to my camera when I’m shooting locally and it’s overcast, or when I’m in the mood to capture aesthetically pleasing photos, making images with my environment rather than trying to document unusual events around me.

50mm is probably the focal length with which I’ve produced my best-looking images so far, but as I said, they are more beauty-focused than documentary, and I think it couldn’t be my only lens due to its limited versatility.

85mm

85mm is the lens I really started street photography with, or at least what I considered to be street photography at the time. I realized that it was not the best use of an 85mm in the streets, so I stopped using it. But anyway, you get more reach and more compression than with a 50mm, allowing you to really focus on small details and subjects. However, at this distance, you lose any sort of connection to them. It is very zoomed in, so it’s not ideal for tighter spaces, but you can use it to your advantage, focusing on details or shooting with an abstract approach. It's obviously good for sports, events, or weddings, but that’s not my area of expertise.

Like the 50mm, and the same goes for all the focal lengths above it, the 85mm performs well in good light. But when it’s overcast, and I don’t feel inspired to shoot at 35mm or 28mm, I tend to reach for tighter lenses and play with my environment like a painter would with different colors or brushes.

It’s a pretty niche focal length, so if you don’t use it on the side for weddings or portraits, the use cases for an 85mm can be limited.

When do I pick it up? Honestly, I haven’t touched my 85mm for more than 18 months because, as I mentioned before, I didn’t have the experience and used it for the wrong reasons—staying in my safe place and kind of sniping people from a distance. You can still do that with well-intentioned mind and produce fantastic work, even in the streets. I have a growing desire to pick it up again and dedicate more time to using it with a more abstract and detail-driven approach. Long focal lengths are also good for landscapes, so when it becomes more frequent for me to shoot landscapes, I will definitely reach for an 85mm or anything above.

I think you get it—it’s a lens that is easy to misuse in this TikTok street photography style. Fast and accurate autofocus on modern cameras has made it possible to shoot at f/1.8 across the street, nailing your focus without being seen. I’ve been there and done that, so I don’t want to be too harsh about it. Do your own experimenting if you want, and if you decide to pick up an 85mm, I’d recommend being selective with where you get your inspiration.

135mm and Above

With anything from 135mm and above, you really start to get a crazy amount of compression, making all the elements of your frame look closer to each other. You can end up with flatter, painting-like images that can almost look like a different art form than photography. You also get even more reach, letting you focus even more on details. Like the 85mm, these focal lengths are great for sports, wildlife, and events. If you find yourself in a city with long, straight streets, you can utilize the compression to get some pretty cool symmetrical shots.

As I mentioned before, tighter focal lengths can be a good option when the weather isn’t great.

We are deep into telephoto territory here, so it’s a pretty specialised range of focal lengths.

If you have a two-lens setup for travel, I can see a nice pairing between a 35mm prime for documentary and scenes, and a 70-200mm zoom lens for the reach and compression. The only thing is that those telephoto zoom lenses are usually not the lightest, so it depends on your willingness to carry heavy gear and the space in your bag.

My opinion on these telephoto focal lengths is similar to what I described for the 85mm. I think they require a bit more education and should be used in specific cases. I have no intention of getting a 70-200mm lens or a 135mm prime again, but I have my eye on the Sigma 90mm f/2.8. It would serve as both an 85mm and a 135mm when using crop mode.

Cropping vs. Zooming with Your Feet

I said that 35mm would be my only lens of choice if I had to choose one for the rest of my life. I'm cheating a little bit because I also consider the cropping abilities of a 35mm on modern high-megapixel cameras. A 35mm can be turned into a 52mm equivalent when using the APS-C crop mode on my main camera, the Sony a7CII. The resolution is impacted, but I’ve always found that it’s still plenty enough to be enjoyed on rather big screens and in decent-sized prints.

The thing with cropping in, whether in post or in-camera, is that you’re really able to mimic a tighter focal length. You lose some depth of field or bokeh capabilities—a 35mm f/2 cropped to 52mm turns into a 52mm f/3—but the compression, perspective, and field of view are the same as a native 52mm.

When you try to do the opposite—using a 52mm (assuming that such a lens exists) and mimicking a 35mm—the only way you can do it is by physically moving your body away from your subject. In some situations, moving away is not even possible. But if you can, the distance between the camera and the subject is not the same as before, and this is when the compression effect and perspective change. So regardless of how precise you are at making everything look as close as possible, it is literally impossible to have the same look as a 35mm lens using a 52mm.

In summary, 35mm cropped in = 52mm (only bokeh can be affected), but 52mm zoomed out with your feet ≠ 35mm.

APS-C vs Full Frame

We’re shifting a bit from the topic, but what I explained before about cropping and zooming makes me want to quickly address the APS-C vs Full Frame debate. As we saw, it is totally possible to replicate the Full Frame look with an APS-C camera. If you do your math correctly, and the gear that makes a 50mm f/2 Full Frame equivalent actually exists on an APS-C version, you will have the same look. So ultimately, it comes down to your preferences—whether it’s because of the lens lineup, attachment to a brand, or weight considerations. There is no right or wrong, no superior or inferior system.

Zoom vs Prime

We’ll finish up this video with the never-ending debate of prime vs zoom, and I may have a slightly unconventional opinion. If we were living in a world where a 24-70mm f/2.8—or even f/4—was as light and compact as a prime lens, I would 100% always have such a zoom lens attached to my camera. That said, it’s not what I would recommend to everyone, even in this fairytale world. I have acquired enough experience and knowledge that make me very intentional when I use a zoom lens. For me, it’s a set of prime lenses, and I approach every scene or shooting environment with that mindset. I analyze what I have in front of me and picture some potential frames in my head before deciding what focal length I will use. It seems complicated, but with experience, it is quite instinctive, and all that happens in a split second. A few years back, I couldn’t do that, and I made the common mistake of looking through the viewfinder and then zooming in and out randomly.

So here come the prime lenses. As of today, and not in this hypothetical world, they are smaller and lighter than zooms. They are also better optically, so those are obvious benefits associated with using prime lenses. But more so, I think they are good for their educational value. Using a 35mm prime for several months, then switching to a 50mm for another quite long period of time, is the way to go if you want to really understand focal lengths and how they impact your images. Maybe you don’t have the budget to start collecting prime lenses, or you know that you will feel like you’re missing out on something. I get that, and in such a case, using a zoom from the start is totally fine. My only advice would be to try as much as possible to be intentional with your focal length choice when shooting and also in post. Filter your photos in Lightroom by focal length to further understand which one you prefer and which one you are more naturally drawn to.

But yes, if you have the budget, get yourself a zoom and a prime. I would recommend 35mm, 40mm, or 50mm. Use the zoom when you are exploring and afraid of missing out. And when you are doing an everyday kind of photowalk in your local area, take the prime to make your setup lighter and easier to carry around, so you can take more photos.

Support me and this ad-free blog by having a look at my products below

Featured