> 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.