It looks like everywhere I look, the 50mm focal length is my centre point, my home base with the 35mm close behind. The 35 is more commonly used, but not the lens I seem to have in ridiculous numbers.
From a series of images taken at 35mm, the right lens for the job.
I have always wanted the 40mm to be my “one” lens, because “all great cinematographers/street photographers use them”, which is a wild exaggeration borne of chasing and finding what I wanted to hear. There are a lot of cinematographers that use various forms of this not wide nor long 40mm lens, but there are also lot of reasons for that, not least of which is realistic lens choice available to them ana habits borne of early influences.
Does a few millimetres either way really make a difference?
My lens testing for video has revealed what I probably already knew, that the Spectrum 50, Panasonic 50, Hope 25 (MFT 50), Sirui 24 anamorphic (50 tall~35 wide) and cropped or not Pana 35 are all exceptional. I have other options, but 50mm seems to be the fulcrum of my search.
Problem is, I feel I like the 40 to 45mm for general purpose shooting finding 50mm a little tight, or does it really matter? The 1.8x crop GH5s turns the Hope 25 into a 45 equivalent, the Olympus 25 is actually wider than marked, so its then a 40mm-ish and the Pana 35 with some stabilising applied is close to a 40, but to be honest I rarely notice.
This could all be in my mind and possibly an experienced shooter should be immune to minor lens restrictions and make what they have work. I always claim to.
We can adapt to what we have, I do it all the time when I miss judge a job, so is the need for a few millimetres wider or longer a thing and considering I use several different formats and shapes with varying levels of stabilising etc applied, is it mostly a pointless expectation anyway?
Taken with the equivalent to a 60mm, I always feel this lens makes a difference to a standard 50, but does it really? Possibly the specific lens ads more opinion than the focal length alone?
Maybe, instead of chasing that “one” perfect focal length with a desire to restrict myself, to identify myself by it, I could be the “any lens will do” guy?
40mm is the true, mathematical* standard lens on 35mm format, but lenses rarely hit their focal length number perfectly anyway. The true measure of a standard lens is a lens that matches your, the users vision best.
I am suspicious I am a short tele user by preference in anything other than street photography, where I tend to sit on 30-35mm and the 50, which is the very bottom of the portrait range should possibly be my standard. It suits many video shooters and in video in particular the frame is more controlled, so the exact focal length can be attended to. All you really do through lens choice is choose your compression and distortion, the framing is more controlled.
Logically, if I am working toward interview and documentary work, a 50 and something much wider make more sense? The 40mm with its more relaxed look may sit in a space that is neither one nor the other.
Are the 35 and 50 better combined especially if 2 or more cams are usually used and true wide angels can be employed for fluid work?
If I am honest with myself, 50-60 and 28-35mm probably sit better with me, the one lens thing is needlessly restrictive.
A desert island, one lens only kit might suit the 40mm, but the reality is I would choose a two lens kit if I had the choice and I do.
Maybe this is the failing of the 40mm, it cannot be a faux wide or long lens, only a wide standard. Maybe it is too un-opinionated it risks being irrelevant?
So, what do I have if I use a 50mm over a 40mm?
Framing, usually based on frame width, which is more. format thing anyway, is basically the same, just slightly more naturally compressed, has a hair less depth of field and more working distance, something MFT format changes anyway.
If I use the 35mm, there is the possibility of the mildest wide angle distortion, a touch more depth and less compression but otherwise same-same.
So, two ways of getting the same shot, both close to the same as 40mm, but more obviously different to each other.
This brings up the other thought, that if the 40mm becomes ground zero, but is then not perfect for every desired shot, where to from there? Is a 40 and 60 or 40 and 28 ideal? This suddenly starts to look like a three lens kit. I noticed when the Vespid 40 was on my radar, that the 21mm was also softly included in my thinking**.
Taken with a 30mm equivalent, wider than usual, but I realise I use it like a 35.
Maybe the right answer, the one I have been using for years and the one that fate seems to be pushing me towards, even if I think I know the real answer, is the 35 and 50 as my perfect lens. Ironically a full frame camera and 35mm crops perfectly to 50mm in APS-C, and a 1.33x anamorphic 24mm on MFT is a 50/35 combination (45/30 on the GH5s), a lens I have two of, so a pair or more of one-lens-that-are-actually-two options.
Shit, I could even use a zoom………..***
*The measured diagonal of the sensor area (42mm).
** The logic was a 40mm for full and MFT format, then several other focal lengths between the various formats from 21 to 80mm. So much for the one lens ideal.
***Turns out when I use a standard zoom, I tend to hover around 28 and 70mm!