View Full Version : Why all the 50mm
Chaz Photos
01-07-2009, 15:30
I note lots getting or wanting a 50mm lens
When we only had film bodies then this was the standard lens as 50mm lens on a 35mm body was as near to the field of view of our eyes.
AS most have sensors that are smaller then full frame with 1.5 or 1.6 crop at least then to get the same field of view you need a 35mm. so if you have smaller sensor like 4/3 it be wider still.
So a 50 mm on a Nikon is a 75mm and on Canon its 80mm
Why are you not all getting 35mm’s?
would you feel better if i said i sold my 50mm several months ago and have now replaced it with a 28mm [on a nikon crop sensor] ;)
Some of us have FX sensors...
Plus 50mm is a very cheap and easy design to manufacture, so image quality is often very good.
Coupled with very fast max apertures, it makes for a very good and versatile lens.
I also find that 35mm on FX-format is more 'standard-view' than 50mm, so 35mm was always my standard lens back in the day...and a 35mm f/2 still sits on my Leica M6...
Chaz Photos
01-07-2009, 15:35
would you feel better if i said i sold my 50mm several months ago and have now replaced it with a 28mm [on a nikon crop sensor] ;)
not make me fell better at all juat wanting to try and understand if everyone know why they want a 50mm I guess you found out why not to have one :clap::clap:
I'd say the main reason is simply cost, simple as that, the 50 costs about £80, where as the 35 costs £220! (on canon's at least).
classcams
01-07-2009, 15:37
50mm are easier to design. A wide angle uses more elements, so it is more difficult to design. So 50mm are better quality.
I'd say the main reason is simply cost, simple as that, the 50 costs about £80, where as the 35 costs £220! (on canon's at least).
Yep. Cheap way to get fast glass!
I agree with Arkady,
Its cheap (i paid 80 for my 1.8 nikon)
Its fast at 1.8
It comes with a cool sounding name "nifty fifty"
i guess if you can find a name for the 35 i may be tempted:lol:
I'd say the main reason is simply cost, simple as that, the 50 costs about £80, where as the 35 costs £220! (on canon's at least).
Bit more than that...
Nikon
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1028370
Canon
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=12813
not make me fell better at all juat wanting to try and understand if everyone know why they want a 50mm I guess you found out why not to have one :clap::clap:
well several reasons - firstly, I had bought a 50-150 f2.8 DX lens, which I used a lot over the 50 1.8 and secondly, I really wasnt making any use of the wider aperture, so decided to sell it with a body I was selling. However, I still wanted a Prime lens for portraits and stuff, and after looking around and chatting to fellow nikon users, finaly opted for a 28 as ftting the bill nicely - wider than the 50, so better for full length shots and still very useable if I ever go FF. Do I miss the F1.8? Nope, not one iota ;)
However, I DO think getting F1.8 or even F1.4 in such a relatively cheap et optically sound lens is the reason for many people ;)
cannockwolf
01-07-2009, 15:47
Bit more than that...
Nikon
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1028370
Canon
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=12813
those are 1.4's the cheap ones are 1.8's (even though for 1.4 thats still cheap
Bit more than that...
Nikon
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1028370
Canon
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=12813
I was just quoting off the cheapest price shown on camerapricebuster (although I didn't look who was selling it).
Chaz Photos
01-07-2009, 15:56
Some of us have FX sensors...
Plus 50mm is a very cheap and easy design to manufacture, so image quality is often very good.
Coupled with very fast max apertures, it makes for a very good and versatile lens.
I also find that 35mm on FX-format is more 'standard-view' than 50mm, so 35mm was always my standard lens back in the day...and a 35mm f/2 still sits on my Leica M6...
I did say on smaller sensor and ref to full 35mm in my statement to film.
Because a lens is cheap is not a reason to buy for me, I can see it being good for portrait work but as already said not so good for full length shots unless you get long way back.
For perspective it would be a good buy on Head and shoulders
I note lots getting or wanting a 50mm lens
When we only had film bodies then this was the standard lens as 50mm lens on a 35mm body was as near to the field of view of our eyes.
AS most have sensors that are smaller then full frame with 1.5 or 1.6 crop at least then to get the same field of view you need a 35mm. so if you have smaller sensor like 4/3 it be wider still.
So a 50 mm on a Nikon is a 75mm and on Canon its 80mm
Why are you not all getting 35mm’s?
I've just go a Pentax-A 50mm f2 for £22.70. Now that's cheap.
Just to clarify a point a 50mm lens on a crop sensor still gives the same prospective as it would on a FF sensor, the field of view will be smaller but the prospective is the same. It will still be close to the prospective of the human eye.
fashion accessory - just to say "nifty fifty"
does my nut in
Chaz Photos
01-07-2009, 16:09
I've just go a Pentax-A 50mm f2 for £22.70. Now that's cheap.
Just to clarify a point a 50mm lens on a crop sensor still gives the same prospective as it would on a FF sensor, the field of view will be smaller but the prospective is the same. It will still be close to the prospective of the human eye.
I never mention perspective. Only field of view.
A lens will not change prospective only your position to the subject.
i dont want one, is there something wrong with me?
i dont want one, is there something wrong with me?
nope, same here - don't need one
Chaz Photos
01-07-2009, 16:12
nor me thats why I am asking
Got mine for shooting gigs, was the fastest lens for good money, simple as that.
Think I'm gonna go for a play now :)
I didn't need one either, but it's cheap & it's fun! I need to be a little more mobile when I'm using it too. ;)
For those of us who are new to photography, are still learning the ropes, I think that it's a good addition to the kit. From my point of view I wanted to try something different from the kit lens but as I am still learning how everything works and what type of pictures I like taking, I didn't want to (nor had the funds to) spend a lot at this point. I'd read a lot of good comments about the 'nifty fifty' so went along that route.
I think it's a case of each to his/her own I guess! :)
But saying that, if anyone wants to donate a 35mm my way then I'll more than happily take it off their hands!! :lol: (worth a try.....!)
I did say on smaller sensor and ref to full 35mm in my statement to film.
Because a lens is cheap is not a reason to buy for me, I can see it being good for portrait work but as already said not so good for full length shots unless you get long way back.
For perspective it would be a good buy on Head and shoulders
But for some it is. It's a very cheap way to get a decent quality prime lens into your bag.
I got mine for the amazing clarity and sharpness it offers as a prime. For £80 you cant beat it.
Also for the amazing DOF it can give wide open;
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c11/Williams25/Landscapes/IMG_6649.jpg
Chaz Photos
01-07-2009, 16:29
fabs Please do not alter a quote. Thank you
fabs Please do not alter a quote. Thank you
I did not alter a quote, I just used bold to highlight the specific part that I was answering.
I don't think there is anything wrong with putting the bit you are repying to in bold, saves confusion. To be honest I was about reply with the same, the main reason I bought the lens was the price.
Davec223
01-07-2009, 16:38
But for some it is. It's a very cheap way to get a decent quality prime lens into your bag.
I agree, although I do not use mine much, when I do I am always amazed at the results.
Chaz Photos
01-07-2009, 16:40
I did not alter a quote, I just used bold to highlight the specific part that I was answering.
That is altering it, if you wish to quote only that, then only quote that part
I made no emphases on this in my post as you make it look like I did
Thank you
i thought bolding the bit you wanted to reply to was standard practice..
just makes more sense to quote the whole lot so it doesnt lose context?
:popcorn::beer:
I got mine yesterday because I wanted a small versatile lens to take away on a trip, the fact is its a great little lens and I love it already.
:suspect:
What has sensor size got to do with whether somebody wants a 50mm or not.
Why are we not talking about 80mm or 105, what's the difference.
50 is good for some things that 105 isn't, and vice versa.
I like the 50 because it is at the wide point where distortion is tolerable, not so a 35mm, but then it depends what you are shooting doesn't it.
As the OP siad, the 50 was the standard portrait lens for a film camera, and with the cropped sensor the 50 becomes an 80 if you are back compairing focal lengths, the 35 becomes just over 50, hence the question being based round these focal lenghts.
mr_pants
01-07-2009, 17:18
That is altering it, if you wish to quote only that, then only quote that part
I made no emphases on this in my post as you make it look like I did
Thank you
Is it?... :lol:
swivelonit
01-07-2009, 17:32
I use the canon 60mm macro f2.8 this gives about 100mm equivalent on a 40D good for macro and portraits and quality is stunning! More pricey than a 50mm but as they say you get what you pay for.
namllihs
01-07-2009, 17:38
I don't tend to think of focal lengths as such, just which lens will get me the shot I want. I also use a 35mm body too, so am I getting 2 for the price of 1 each time I get a lens?
jordanogrady
01-07-2009, 17:50
I'd say the main reason is simply cost, simple as that, the 50 costs about £80, where as the 35 costs £220! (on canon's at least).
The 35mm are cheaper for nikon d40 AF. the 50mm goes for arround £260, and the 35mm goes for £160
Jordan
Snap_Happy
01-07-2009, 17:57
I bought mine as a good lens for indoor photography, as I seemed to be attending lots of weddings. For that it was a stunning buy, but also, the prime nature of it changes the way you photograph things which is an interesting variation and a great lesson in photography!
As the OP siad, the 50 was the standard portrait lens for a film camera, and with the cropped sensor the 50 becomes an 80 if you are back compairing focal lengths, the 35 becomes just over 50, hence the question being based round these focal lenghts.
I don't think he is, the suggestion is everyone should buy a lens that is similar to the angle of view to that of the eye, when clearly that will never be any kind of criteria for buying one.
I can only speak for myself but I won't be buying a 35mm for my crop camera to shoot portraits, whether its eye-like or not.
Chaz Photos
01-07-2009, 18:11
I don't think he is, the suggestion is everyone should buy a lens that is similar to the angle of view to that of the eye, when clearly that will never be any kind of criteria for buying one.
I can only speak for myself but I won't be buying a 35mm for my crop camera to shoot portraits, whether its eye-like or not.
I never said in my first post anything about portraits I was saying it was the standard lens for 35mm film as it is = to eyes for field of view The comment about portraits was in a later post as the 50mm on a crop camera it would make one
I got mine for a few reasons:
1) To experiment with DOF
2) To experiment with lowlight
3) To get a prime that would make me think more about composition than the zoom was.
When you're just starting out and you only have the kit lens and trying to learn, for me it taught me a shedload and I still use it periodically now. It cost me £70, they I looked at it, if I didn't like after a couple of months I could resell it and effectively would have paid £20 to hire a 50mm 1.8 for that time.
Of course people say the 1.4 etc are better, and for the price it should be, but when you're starting out and don't really know what you're doing this is a relatively risk free way to get a decent fast prime until you know better.
I never said in my first post anything about portraits I was saying it was the standard lens for 35mm film as it is = to eyes for field of view The comment about portraits was in a later post as the 50mm on a crop camera it would make one
I don't really know what your point is in the thread as a whole.
That is altering it, if you wish to quote only that, then only quote that part
I made no emphases on this in my post as you make it look like I did
Thank you
No Chaz, it's not altering it. As I said, it is simply highlighting the part of the post that I was replying to. As said by someone else, it is standard practise. Do you really have to turn everything into an argument?
Chaz surely for 90-99% of people the price is a consideration? I know it is for me.
If money was no object I'd have loads of lenses, I want a 300mm f/2.8 VR pretty badly, of course a 600mm f/4 VR would be nice. I quite like shooting wildlife and sports, but at the moment I just can't afford these lenses in the £4k+ range.
My 50/1.4 was a bargain, if it cost the sort of money an 85/1.4 or even 85/1.8 costs then I would have gone without.
aligibbs
01-07-2009, 20:01
Reasons I got mine:
Great reviews
Cheap price
F/1.8
Smallest lens canon do
Lightest lens canon do
I use the canon 60mm macro f2.8 this gives about 100mm equivalent on a 40D good for macro and portraits and quality is stunning! More pricey than a 50mm but as they say you get what you pay for.
I hope you dont mind me highlighting the bit I'm about to discuss, lol!!
This is the thing though, normally you do get what you paid for, but not with the Nifty Fifty as it punches far above its weight when it comes to IQ/price. Its that rare entity thats cheap, and very good, that one of the reasons I got mine!
As for focal lengths - I dont look too much into these in relation to crop ratios, I only compare it relatively to the focal lengths on lenses I already own which seems to be the best way for me to decide on focal lenths.
Simmotino
02-07-2009, 09:57
Do you know why I bought one?
Because I wanted to.
Simple as that.
I have one not for the focal length but the speed/price ratio. It also makes an excellent portait lens IMO.
My mint S-M-C Tak 50mm f/1.4 cost less than a new EF 1.8 II and it's tack sharp.
I'm currently waiting on delivery for a S-M-C Tak 28mm f/3.5 which I'll be using as a walk around lens as it works out as 45mm on a Canon crop.
Reasons I got mine:
Great reviews
Cheap price
F/1.8
Smallest lens canon do
Lightest lens canon do
Agree with all that.
Its great for indoor shooting, stunning background blur and its small and light!! The "small" size of it also helps as it does not scare people as much as a huge zoom!!
If I am going out for a days shoot then it is easy to fit in my little bag with whatever zoom lens I am taking out.
Oh and I got mine from LCE second hand for £45 delivered!!
mine was my 2nd lens, i needed something for low light and sharp for portraits. seemed to fit the bill and I'm happy:thumbs:
as for the bolding of quotes, i think it is far better than part quoting judging by the amount of people complaining they left the important part out of the, recently.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.