>>4331565I agree OP, although it's the focal length I use most (actually usually 45mm, close enough, same issues)
It's too long to actually get context/perspective or create emphasis on a subject.
It's too short to isolate a subject or to capture a subject you can't get right up to.
But at the same time, it's long enough to take portraits of people without making them look literally retarded, and it's wide enough that you aren't isolated to taking just portraits.
Further, I like 50mm (45mm) because it's a challenge. If you can take good pictures with 50mm, you can take good pictures. Any fucking idiot can take a nice portrait with a modern mainstream camera and a tele lens. My photography was held back for so long because I relied on that crutch. And anyone who's taken a photography class in high school or watched Youtube videos and practiced for a week can use a wide angle to take somewhat pleasing photos with a few canned techniques. It takes skill to actually take good pictures with 50mm.
>>4331577Sounds like you're in the same trap I was for my first year of photography. It's easy to use a ~80mm focal length to isolate subjects and make crazy bokeh or strong subject separation or whatever, etc, and then rely on simple compositional techniques like rule of thirds to make a pleasing image. As far as I've seen, people who like this sort of focal length most are starting to learn but are lacking skill. Once you internalize more advanced composition and learn to recognize stories/scenes/moments that have interesting appeal, photographers tend to start preferring 28-35mm.
Fucks who say they prefer 24mm are just fucking full of it, though, and are jerking themselves off, like "look at me I'm so fucking good at photography that even 28mm isn't wide enough!" when, really, 24mm is entirely a situational lens. It frankly works against composition and story telling, except for the cases it helps.
