Originally Posted by
Drew Wiley
From a practical standpoint, the lens manufacturers already plotted this for us in terms of their given focal length selections in any given series. They mainly made what was in demand, and the abundance of certain focal lengths on the used market today largely reflects that convention. Why so many 90's, 150's, 180's, 210's ? When my brother went to Brooks photo academy, which was a somewhat expensive school and many had a limited personal budget, they'd tell the students to just get a 90 WA for architecture, and a 210 for portraiture and product shots; then after they had some serious income flowing in, branch out the selection if necessary. It was good advice, and involved not only useful angles of view relative to common projects, but consideration of realistic image circles for 4x5 film.
After awhile, one settles into a certain way of composing things. My own gravitation has been to longer lenses, and after about 10 years of using a 210, decided 250 was my own notion of "normal" (forget the diagonal rule - I'm speaking of the focal length I most often reached for as my preferred personal field of view). On a long backpacking trip, I think I could do almost anything I needed with just 200 and 300 Nikkor M's. But the past couple of decades, it has generally been 180, 250, and 360 Fuji A's. As I get deeper into my 70's, it's likely to be 6x9 roll film backs with 105, 200, and 300 Nikkor M's, or a 125 Fuji W instead of the 105M if I also have some 4x5 holders along. I'm not necessarily recommending this selection to others. We all see things a little differently, and this is just an example of how the ball detents in my own head seem to most comfortably click into position, at least with respect to 4x5 field camera usage. It just feels right for me personally.
Bookmarks