do i need a 50mm?

[acetone]

I. Despite what you read on forums, not as many people actually have a 50 as you may think, .

Not sure about that, pretty much every photographer I know has a 50mm of some description or another.

I don't have one, as I said on another thread ( and got slagged off ) many many people say get a nifty fifty because its a bargain, BUT that's only if you use it, I'd love to see a poll asking how many bought a cheap fifty and still use it, and would wager lots bought one and its stuck in a cupboard never used anymore.

 

[NeilMc]

I did buy a cheap 50mm for my Canon and then replaced it with a 35mm F2 as I found on the crop sensor that gave more of a traditional 35mm flim camera feel.

When I moved to Nikon, 1st lens I bought, 35mm F1.8DX and used it all the time until I took the plunge and bought a 17-55 F2.8 but coupled with the D7000 makes for a heavy old beast and its not very subtle.

The 35mm on a D90 makes for a much more discreet, lightweight rig for every day snapping. so yes.. I'd say buy a 50mm

 

[rowland]

popped into my friendly camera shop when in town yesterday, they've got the 14-24 in for me to see ... can't wait to do the side-by-side comparison with the 16-35.

today I have been practicing HDR with the 50mm lens, quite impressive lens, pleased so far.

 

[TonyNI]

I had the 16-35 and personally wasn't blown away by it. Distortion was terrible at 35 compared to the 17-35 I had before it.

Im sure for landscapes it will be excellent with the added bonus of reduced cost for filters etc compared to the 14-24

I can't see myself ever buying another wide angle, I hate them lol