Originally posted by GeneV To each his own. I just found that looking over a lot of my zoom photos from early in my purchase of a Pentax digital SLR, far more of them were taken at around 50mm than 100mm.
Oh, it is indeed a personal preference thing. And like I said, my feelings are strongly influenced by the fact that I already have a 28 and 40 - if I had no primes at all, a 50 might make more sense to start with.
Still, there are a number of other factors here that are worth considering.
First, I wonder, what lens(es) were you using? If it was 18-55 and 50-200, then you get a way disproportionate number of images taken at 55 and 50 - basically, the images where you should have changed lenses but settled for what you had on. Also, if you tended to leave the 18-55 on because it was more generally useful, then who knows how many photos you simply didn't take, because the 18-55 wouldn't have cut it and it wasn't worth the bother to change. While you might still find more shots arondd 50 than 100, it might not be quite as big a discrepancy as the numbers initially suggest.
Now, if you were primarily using the 18-250 or something similar that includes both both 50mm and 100mm, then on the surface, more shots around 50 than around 100mm might seem significant.
I'd argue that's still a bit misleading, though. For one thing, you should consider how many of those shots at around 50mm really would have benefited that much from being shot with a prime, compared to the shots at 100mm. My 100mm-ish shots are almost all low light concert concert photos, or similar "performances" - something fast like a prime is practically a necessity. Whereas a lot of my shots around 50mm are landscapes.
But more importantly, as I alluded too before if I include 30-40mm as being "near 50", then I too would have lots of shots "near 50" - but so many more would be in that 30-40 range than actually *at* 50, that I'm way better off with a 35mm or 40mm prime than a 50mm. And given that one has a 35 or 40 (or the 31, or anything in that ballpark), the need for a 50 prime diminishes greatly.
So again, if you have no other other primes, then I would agree most people would be better off with a 50 than a 100. But I think most people are better off with a 35-ish prime than a 50, and if you've got that, then 100 makes a lot of sense as one's *second* prime. And if you do decide you want a 50, manual focus 50's that are a stop or faster than the 50 macro make more sense for many people.
Anyhow, again, everyone's needs and tastes are different, and it's certainly possible that many people would be better off with a 50mm prime than a 100mm prime for general use. But the issue *is* a bit more complicated than simply looking at the focal lengths at which you shoot with your zooms.