>Going too close with it results in distorted pictures which is fine as an artistic choice but it's not the choice most people want to make.

Most people are used to seeing smartphone photos now, which (until recently) only had a wider FOV. I think stylistically, candid/general portrait photography is changing, and I think environmental portraits are much more in vogue than tighter framing with longer focal lengths. 24/28/35mm portraits seem to be more popular than 85+mm.

Just my view, feel free to agree/disagree.

I think people are making this choice because they just want to get the picture, not because they want the picture to look this way. People have always struggled to get selfies to look good, partly because it is hard to make people look good with the camera so close.

It used to be pretty common in ye olde dates for studio photographers to use 85 or even 105mm lenses to get flatter fields and a little distance from the subject.

We aren't talking about studio or generally professional photography are we... But yes, the longer the lens the more emotional distance. A wide lens puts the viewer right in the middle of the action.

I’ve never heard someone talk about “emotional distance” as being related to focal length and to be honest it doesn’t have the ring of truth.

Longer focal lengths don’t even create physical distance. What happens is that people sometimes choose to step farther away when using a longer focal length, but you don’t have to do that.

Common hobbyist wisdom is that you use a longer lens to make the subject feel closer without coming closer. This is subtly wrong. In the eye of the viewer the distance eliminated through focal length is felt in a different way. If you want a photo that takes you back to being close to someone, come close and use a wider lens.

You're personally excited about wide-angle lenses and you seem to be convinced that everyone else will feel the same way about them, for candids of friends and family, and I just don't think that's true. You say that longer lenses create "emotional distance" but this is, to be honest, one of the most horeshit photography opinions I've heard. The lens doesn't create emotional anything, it just changes what you get in the frame.

I like the way the photos in the article look. They're not your style.

I’ve spent time with a lot of other hobby photographers and there’s always a few people with preferences like yours, but it’s never been a majority, and most photographers I’ve met have the humility to recognize that their own personal choices aren’t automatically the right choices for others.

> Who cares. If you fail to capture a memorable moment because you were busy looking into the viewfinder focusing and framing, you fail, period. Very hard to do with a wide lens.

Framing is not a problem that goes away if you use wide-angle lens. You can shoot wide and crop later, but all you're doing is changing when you're making the framing decisions, and the crop-later approach has the disadvantage that when you crop, it's too late to reframe. Framing is not easier with wide-angle lenses versus normal lenses. It's easier to get something in-frame, but harder to keep something out.

There's no "default" lens which is right for everyone or every circumstance.

I'm also not sure why it would take me longer to frame or focus with a 50mm lens. For candids, I almost always use an autofocus camera these days. It focuses at the touch of a button.

> Wow. A prime of 90mm poses way too many constraints to work with.

I've been using a 90mm equivalent for a long, long time. It's my go-to lens for when a friend who's a makeup artist or costume designer wants a good picture of their work, or when somebody wants a simple portrait, and I think it's easy to work with.

Maybe I just got used to working within those constraints. And maybe... just maybe... you got used to working with the constraints of a 35mm lens, and you've forgotten what it felt like when you were first dealing with those constraints.

I've done a lot of personal with 35mm, 50mm, and 90mm equivalent primes. There's a reason why people who get a set of three prime lenses most often get three lenses in this range or something similar--like 28mm, 45mm, 110mm.

It's easy to fall in love with the look of a wide-angle lens and then get disillusioned with it. You find that you're including too much stuff in-frame that you don't want, or you find that you're shooting too close to people and they look distorted. That's why I recommend that people spend some time with a wide-angle lens before deciding if they want to purchase a camera with a fixed wide-angle lens, like the Ricoh GR III. The Ricoh GR III is like $900 and forces you to use a 28mm perspective or crop in post--not everyone is going to like that.

Well, more than anything I wanted to present an alternative viewpoint. The author presented his as if it's the only way.

I arrived at my understanding after years of learning about photography and experience of doing it not professionally, taking tends of thousands of photos of all sorts of subjects. I think the point about emotional distance is under-appreciated.

Of course, this author (and I don't know why) clearly wanted to create the distance--you can see it by frequent use of monochrome/sepia coloring that mimics the nostalgic look of old photos. However, this was left unsaid, and someone may miss this factor when choosing the lens based on this article.

> Framing is not a problem that goes away if you use wide-angle lens. ... It's easier to get something in-frame, but harder to keep something out.

The core task is different IMO. When you are enjoying family time, especially with children, it's more important to 1) get something in frame in any way possible fast while 2) still being in the moment yourself than with other types of photography. If you are shooting children as models that's different, sure.

> I'm also not sure why it would take me longer to frame or focus with a 50mm lens. For candids, I almost always use an autofocus camera these days. It focuses at the touch of a button.

If you haven't tried wide-all-the-time, try. I shot a lot wide (20-28mm), 40-50mm and 75mm. With wider lenses I often shot from the hip with subsecond time between the moment and the shot, and got interesting dynamic frames (and I rarely crop). It just doesn't happen already at ~40mm, even if I spam shoot, I need to see the frame.

As to focus, you don't even need to focus many ~25mm lenses if you shoot with moderately closed aperture (just leave it around 5m~infinity). A longer lens makes it much easier for subject to be off, I have to make sure focus is right and a compact camera's autofocus is rarely reliable enough in low light to capture action. Remember that this is candid family shots, there's no proper lighting.

And 75mm, while great for street portraits or casual fashion, is additionally unusable as a main driver for candid family shots since in a random room you often can't back far enough away to capture enough of the action. In the circumstances described it's easier to come closer rather than opposite.

I thought 40-50mm would be a nice middle ground, but it doesn't give the really pronounced separation, bokeh and aesthetics of longer lenses like 75mm yet it does make things more challenging in all regards for no good (to me) reason. I find it OK for street shots but now I am more informed about its limitations in other scenarios.

> I think the point about emotional distance is under-appreciated.

I think you’re presenting your personal aesthetic preferences as more universal than they really are. The wide angle lens gets you physically closer to a subject, not emotionally closer. It can be close and intimate, or your subjects can feel like you’re invading their personal space, or the pictures can end up looking a bit gonzo (think Vice Magazine). It’s not an automatic win, it’s just an artistic choice.

I just think here that “get closer to your subject to create an emotionally close picture” is a bit reductive, and typical of the kind of advice you’d see on hobbyist forums that fails to really explore what “emotional closeness” means in photographic terms.

> […] you can see it by frequent use of monochrome/sepia coloring that mimics the nostalgic look of old photos […]

I think the article is actually from 2002 and it’s just been updated. The author may have just shot those pictures on B&W film in the first place.

> When you are enjoying family time, especially with children, it's more important to 1) get something in frame in any way possible fast while 2) still being in the moment yourself than with other types of photography.

That’s important to you. I think Sontag would probably have something to say about the experience of trying to simultaneously (1) be present in the moment and (2) stay vigilant so you can capture the good moments on film. You are trying to participate in your family activities and produce photographic evidence of moments of connectedness that your family experiences. That desire, and your personal style, lead you to prefer wide angle lenses.

The catch is—not everyone takes pictures that way!

I got a new camera with a 50mm f/1.4 long ago, and promptly tested it by shooting two or three rolls of film with my family over a couple hours. If you shoot enough pictures, people may start to ignore the camera, which is what happened. I got the pictures I wanted—which are records of my family looks at home, when they are not posing themselves for a picture.

> If you haven't tried wide-all-the-time, try.

I’ve definitely tried it. The normal lens for one of my cameras got damaged, so I used mostly a wide lens with it for a couple years.

I’ve tried a lot of different equipment combinations, sometimes using rentals or used equipment. Some of my favorite pictures are ones I took of family members with a simple 35mm prime. Some are candids that I took with a 110mm prime and a tripod…

> As to focus, you don't even need to focus many ~25mm lenses if you shoot with moderately closed aperture […]

I have a prosumer DSLR from several years ago. It takes about 150ms to focus and take a picture, from when you press the button. This is fast enough, for sure. If you understand how AF works, and have a camera with a good AF implementation and enough AF sensors, it’s very fast.

> I thought 40-50mm would be a nice middle ground, but it doesn't give the really pronounced separation, bokeh and aesthetics of longer lenses like 75mm […]

It depends on your budget and which system you are using.

With a high budget, you can go for the “big glass” look, but with a more modest budget, the humble 50mm f/1.8 is available for under $200 and gives excellent bokeh / background separation. The difference is not so big—the 50mm f/1.8 has a 28mm aperture, and a high-end 85mm f/1.4 has a 60mm aperture. That’s about a factor of 2x difference in bokeh, but a 10x difference in price.

It sounds like this is just not your style, but it’s not like any one lens would work for everyone—just like getting a 28mm or 35mm equivalent wouldn’t solve everyone’s problems.

I use the term "emotional distance" (or lack thereof) to describe the feeling of being present/removed from the scene. There are other terms for it too. To argue that a wide close-up doesn't do it and a long lens does is like arguing that a sepia photo evokes less of a nostalgic feeling compared to "normal" color. Yes, people are individual but there's a baseline.

> Sontag

We are not talking about professional photographers here I think

> 50mm f/1.4

In my experience, a full-frame lens with these characteristics would either be huge and heavy or cost upwards from about US$500 new.

> 150ms to focus

In good light.

Vs 0ms for a wide lens.

> excellent bokeh

Maybe to you

> just like getting a 28mm or 35mm equivalent wouldn’t solve everyone’s problems

Just like getting a 35mm or 50mm wouldn't. Wide lenses have important advantages and longer lenses have objective limitations. I listed them to compensate for one-sided article. Apart from focal length affecting presence/emotional distance, which I suspect you genuinely haven't really thought about much, this is probably an empty argument...

> > Sontag

> We are not talking about professional photographers here I think

Sontag wrote essays which are collected in the 1977 book "On Photography" (and a followup in 2003, "Regarding the Pain of Others"). It's not specifically about professional photography, but about photography in general--family vacation pictures, crime scene photos, etc.

I like the essays because they provide some crucial insights to help me figure out questions like, "Why do I take pictures at all? What kind of pictures do I want to take? What purpose do these pictures serve? How should pictures represent my life?"

> In my experience, a full-frame lens with these characteristics would either be huge and heavy or cost upwards from about US$500 new.

This is easy enough to disprove by looking at the B&H catalog.

You can find large and bulky 50mm f/1.4 lenses. There are also small & light ones. Generally speaking, there are a lot of different lens designs out there, and normal primes have more variety than most. You can find expensive and bulky designs, or simple and light designs, with various tradeoffs.

For about the same price, you can get a 28mm f/2.8, which is typically larger, physically.

> In good light.

I have had problems with autofocus in poor light, when it's nighttime, and the lights are off, and I'm trying to take pictures of my cats. Anything less extreme and the autofocus works accurately and quickly.

Then again, if I tried to take a picture of my cats at night with a wide-angle lens, I'd never get the pictures I wanted.

> Apart from focal length affecting presence/emotional distance, which I suspect you genuinely haven't really thought about much,

Don't be rude.

I disagree with you. Saying that you suspect I "haven't really thought about [it]" is inappropriate.

You also expressed the mistaken suspicion that I hadn't ever used wide angle primes--perhaps, just perhaps, you can't explain away our disagreement by saying that I'm ignorant, or hypothesizing that I'd agree with you if I just spent the time to think about it.