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...
> 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.
> 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...