50mm portrait lens vs standard 18-55mm kit lens

K

kabalman

Messages
57
Edit My Images
No
I am still confused as to why a 50mm f/1.8 prime lens is preferred to a standard 18-55mm kit lens which opens to f/5.6 approximately at 50mm. Is it only because of the 3 extra f stops that the portrait lens allows, which make it useful in low light situations? Or the better bokeh it produces as it can open to f/1.8?

Or is there more, i.e. enhanced image quality due to some other factors etc? I'm trying to see what improvements the 50mm prime would provide me with for indoor photography (mainly) with family etc.
 
Everything you've said plus it is sharper too and also the shallow depth of field you can get from an f/1.8 lens.
 
you should shoot portraits at 70-80mm for women and 100-110mm for men (or at least thats what I was tought...or is it the other way round...must go check my notes :thinking:) I find 50mm whilst supposedly a 'natural' perspective, like taking an image looking at someone with one eye closed....
 
Last edited:
A 50mm on a cropped sensor will be about 75-80mm.

Best wishes, Mark
 
yup...OP doesnt say what camera though? is it the kit lens that gives it away? I was mainly questioning the theory that '50mm is what you need for portraits'?
 
I was referring to standard DX cropped sensor, not a full frame. Thanks for your comments.
One more question, is 35mm lens better for indoor shots, is 50mm too long?
 
If I was a professional enough photographer to afford a full frame camera or a long time SLR user with a film camera, then I wouldn't be asking this question, would I :) I would already know the answer to the question.
 
I wouldn't say it's preferred - it's just an affordable way into fast primes, hence why they're so popular. Maybe they do give the equivalent FOV of an 85mm on full frame (or thereabouts) but even then I wouldn't go far as to say that's the perfect focal length.

I use my 50mm for portraits, plus my 35mm, but I also shoot them on a 14mm prime, my 17-55, 60mm and 70-200mm..... for me, it's all down to which lens suits the task at hand, although some primes do sport such beautiful optical quality, they do help you out quite a bit :)
 
Last edited:
I used a 50mm prime lens for a portait portfolio I did for my stepdaughter and was delighted with the results...yes they were pin sharp and the focal length for her mainly head and shoulder shots was ideal. In addition it meant I could shoot at F/3.5 which I found was the sweet spot of that lens.
I could have just as easily used my 18-55 kit lens at 50mm but by contrast the sweet spot seems to be about F/6.3 which would have been ok for most of the shots as regards light but it would have left a lot of "background clutter" in focus which would have spoilt the final result.
If you are very much starting out and as yet are unsure what type of images you wish to shoot then i would stick with the 18-55 as it offers more scope and the results that I've had from mine are more than acceptable ( for me anyway!)
On the other hand, if you are wantiing to concentrate very much on portraits then I have to say that the nifty fifty as it is often referred as is an excellent piece of kit given it's cost.
Hope this offers some practical help.


kabalman said:
I am still confused as to why a 50mm f/1.8 prime lens is preferred to a standard 18-55mm kit lens which opens to f/5.6 approximately at 50mm. Is it only because of the 3 extra f stops that the portrait lens allows, which make it useful in low light situations? Or the better bokeh it produces as it can open to f/1.8?

Or is there more, i.e. enhanced image quality due to some other factors etc? I'm trying to see what improvements the 50mm prime would provide me with for indoor photography (mainly) with family etc.
Click to expand...
 
A fifty one-point-eight appears to be the ideal second lens, but whilst having the extra three stops of speed (f/1.8) is very useful (ISO400 instead of ISO3200) - if the reduced depth of field that goes with that works for the subject, the length of the lens may or may not be ideal. You can test this by putting your kit lens at 50mm and seeing if the field of view matches what you want to do with it.

On a very similar recent thread (there's one on the nifty-fifty about once per week) I commented that 50mm was an awkward focal length for me on acrop sensor (too short for portraits, too long for general purpose) and several others commented along the same lines. Unfortunately there are no similarly priced lenses in the focal lengths either side (30/35mm or 85mm).

Fast primes lenses other than 50mm f/1.8 tend to get pricey quickly. I suspect about 90% of the appeal of these lenses is the price. If 85mm f/1.8 and 30mm f/1.8 lenses were available new sub-£100, I wonder how many 50mm f/1.8 lenses would be sold?
 
arwesa said:
you should shoot portraits at 70-80mm for women and 100-110mm for men (or at least thats what I was tought...or is it the other way round...must go check my notes :thinking:) I find 50mm whilst supposedly a 'natural' perspective, like taking an image looking at someone with one eye closed....
Click to expand...

Examples of different focal lengths here http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/tilepage.htm

Personally, I think as good a guide as any is to take the age of the subject and multiply by the crop factor. Unless they're wearing a hat of course.

More seriously, focal length has nothing to do with perspective, which is only altered by camera to subject distance. So, choose a comfortable distance, then adjust focal length to get the framing you want.
 
Last edited:
thanks
not sure about the guide you mentioned... a 20 yr old on my 7d would be taken at 32mm which if you look at the images on the link would make her look like daughter of mekon :shrug:

looking at the guide you linked to I like the 'look' of the 70/80mm's (obv full frame)...I think the 135 ish is when the jawline stands out more, but that would obviously work for a man.

interesting you advocate distance first then focal length... I was instructed to do the opposite.... pic focal length to suit the type of photograph and then move to frame the image..:shrug:
 
Last edited:
Alastair said:
A fifty one-point-eight appears to be the ideal second lens, but whilst having the extra three stops of speed (f/1.8) is very useful (ISO400 instead of ISO3200) - if the reduced depth of field that goes with that works for the subject, the length of the lens may or may not be ideal. You can test this by putting your kit lens at 50mm and seeing if the field of view matches what you want to do with it.

On a very similar recent thread (there's one on the nifty-fifty about once per week) I commented that 50mm was an awkward focal length for me on acrop sensor (too short for portraits, too long for general purpose) and several others commented along the same lines. Unfortunately there are no similarly priced lenses in the focal lengths either side (30/35mm or 85mm).

Fast primes lenses other than 50mm f/1.8 tend to get pricey quickly. I suspect about 90% of the appeal of these lenses is the price. If 85mm f/1.8 and 30mm f/1.8 lenses were available new sub-£100, I wonder how many 50mm f/1.8 lenses would be sold?
Click to expand...

I know people say that the "Nifty Fifty" isn't suited by a crop camera but I've used in a 350D, 450D and now FF and found it's great on all cameras especially for kids.

.
 
arwesa said:
thanks
not sure about the guide you mentioned... a 20 yr old on my 7d would be taken at 32mm which if you look at the images on the link would make her look like daughter of mekon :shrug:

looking at the guide you linked to I like the 'look' of the 70/80mm's (obv full frame)...I think the 135 ish is when the jawline stands out more, but that would obviously work for a man.

interesting you advocate distance first then focal length... I was instructed to do the opposite.... pic focal length to suit the type of photograph and then move to frame the image..:shrug:
Click to expand...

Why? Perspective is dictated by distance, not lens. Then you need a comfortable working distance for both parties, then adjust focal length to give you the framing you want. You may also want to take depth of field into acount, which will also vary with framing - quite a few variables

There's a lot of difference between a generous head and shoulders and a tight head shot (as in the link above). It's true though that generally speaking for common head and shoulders type framing, you'll often end up with around 60-80mm on a cropper, and 100-135mm on full frame, but there are absolutely no right/wrong rules about it. And the suggestion that men and women need something different - either in terms of focal length or distance - is really rather strange.
 
The longer the better as far as I'm concerned, on a cropped sensor the 85mm 1.8 is miles better for anything tighter than torso. And the (for nikon shooters) 35mm 1.8 afs is a tonne better than the 50mm 1.8 afd. The 50mm is only praised because it's cheap and sharp, if you care about bokeh, colour rendition and contrast then there are much better alternatives.

I currently use a 180mm on 6x7 format, eq to 90mm on a full frame 35mm d/slr, and it's fine for torso but for a tight headshot I'd need a 250mm with extension tube.

There's an article from Stephen Eastwood floating about that demonstrates the difference on perspective and len distortion on a beauty shot with identical lighting, I'll find it...
 
Last edited:
I shoot about ten portrait sessions per week. Because I do not know how many people will be at each shoot my lens of choice is a nikon 28 - 300mm zoom. Its a superb lens, costing about £700.

I use every focal length but the norm is about 70mm unless the groups are bigger and htis is on a crop frame nikon D2X so about 100mm on 35mm.

I have a 50mm f1.8 and do use it when I have more time. Generally a lens will perform at its best 3 stops down from its maximum and I guess a 500mm is about as easy as it comes for a company to manufacture
 
there is no right or wrong lens, the enviroment will probably dictate which is the best to use at that time.That will come with experience.
the 50mm is cheap enough to have and to only use when you need it.
 
HoppyUK said:
Why? Perspective is dictated by distance, not lens. Then you need a comfortable working distance for both parties, then adjust focal length to give you the framing you want. You may also want to take depth of field into acount, which will also vary with framing - quite a few variables

There's a lot of difference between a generous head and shoulders and a tight head shot (as in the link above). It's true though that generally speaking for common head and shoulders type framing, you'll often end up with around 60-80mm on a cropper, and 100-135mm on full frame, but there are absolutely no right/wrong rules about it. And the suggestion that men and women need something different - either in terms of focal length or distance - is really rather strange.
Click to expand...

The point that was being made about men vs women was about how differing focal lenghts when taking head shots can help accentuate positive/negative features. it was basically generalising that where as a woman on ff at 80mm would benefit from any lens distortion , if you were taking the same pic of a guy, popping up to over 110mm would help make the face squarer and accentuate the jaw line (obv a good thing for men)

Its confusing how you seem to think technically the best way is to zoom in and out and remain static, when youre taught and I keep reading the opposite.... moving to frame the shot correctly is more difficult, but I cant for the life of me understand why its wrong and zooming isnt..:shrug:
 
Last edited:
arwesa said:
The point that was being made about men vs women was about how differing focal lenghts when taking head shots can help accentuate positive/negative features. it was basically generalising that where as a woman on ff at 80mm would benefit from any lens distortion , if you were taking the same pic of a guy, popping up to over 110mm would help make the face squarer and accentuate the jaw line (obv a good thing for men)

Its confusing how you seem to think technically the best way is to zoom in and out and remain static, when youre taught and I keep reading the opposite.... moving to frame the shot correctly is more difficult, but I cant for the life of me understand why its wrong and zooming isnt..:shrug:
Click to expand...

It is wrong, but I'm just being picky really. The only real rule is not to use a short lens because you'll have to stick it up their nose and that's neither pleasant working nor good for perspective. And you'll inevitably include loads of background that you don't want - notice how in the pics I linked to earlier that with the wide shots he's got the entire studio in shot.

However, the whole point about using a certain focal length is about perspective and while that often in practise means an 80-135mm-ish lens (depending on format) the focal length has nothing to do with perspective. That is defined by the distance and nothing else.

You could shoot with a superwide from say six feet, and then enlarge the centre to get the framing, and persepctive would be identical to a longer lens used from the same distance.
 
Last edited:
kabalman said:
I am still confused as to why a 50mm f/1.8 prime lens is preferred to a standard 18-55mm kit lens...
Click to expand...

Well, a part of it will be prime lens snobbery and possibly a failure to take modern digital sensor sizes into account... :D but with the 50mm you get f1.8 and even if you probably won't be using that too much for portraits it does have it's uses other than in low light especially if there's a bit of distance between you and the subject. Possibly more importantly it'll very probably be sharper stepped down just a little than the 18-50mm. On the negative side the f1.8 only has 5 blades so if there are highlights in the shot you'll get angled highlights rather than round.

If taking a portrait shot I personally will probably want to include some context and I personally tire of the tight head shot that seems so common. I also tire of the usual view that a (depending upon who's telling you) the perfect portrait length is 85/150/200mm or whatever... the distance to your subject and the framing and overall look that your going for should decide the focal length you use, not some boring convention, IMVHO, unless you're getting paid for it :D
 
Snobbery over a £90 lens lol. Doubt it.

Somebody always manages to turn threads like these into a zoom vs prime thread...
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
Snobbery over a £90 lens lol. Doubt it.

Somebody always manages to turn threads like these into a zoom vs prime thread...
Click to expand...

Agreed ...shame really as what does it matter what gear we have so long we are happy with what we get from it...... so called better gear is purely an opinion of the user.

For the benefit of the OP ...... You can only really go on other peoples results on here....perhaps it would be possible to rent a 50mm 1.8 for a day and see for yourself how it compares to the kit lens and wether it is for you.

I believe there are outlets in the UK that do this ...sadly I can't help as I don't know of them but I'm sure others can offer some links.

If you're really lucky, you may find a member who lives near you who is willing to loan you one for a few hours.....
 
I cant see the point of getting a 50mm prime, if your only other lens is a 18-55 kit lens. You may as well get a 55-200 zoom, or ditch the kit lens and get a 18-105 VR lens

The 18-105 is moderately priced, and covers a whole range of options off. I would rather have flexibility, and forgo a fast lens, if I was only going to have one or two lenses in the bag
 
Richard King said:
I cant see the point of getting a 50mm prime, if your only other lens is a 18-55 kit lens. You may as well get a 55-200 zoom, or ditch the kit lens and get a 18-105 VR lens

The 18-105 is moderately priced, and covers a whole range of options off. I would rather have flexibility, and forgo a fast lens, if I was only going to have one or two lenses in the bag
Click to expand...

There's absolutely a point, the aperture opens up new creative possibilities for lower light shooting, and selective use of DOF for effect. I can see both points of view.

I'd rather have one great lens, than a truck load of mediocre ones. Not that I'm calling the 50mm a great lens, as I personally don't like it, preferring the 35mm and 85mm 1.8 offerings by far. However, I'd put the 50mm over a consumer variable aperture zoom any day.

I shoot with one lens, sue me lol :)
 
HoppyUK said:
It is wrong, but I'm just being picky really. The only real rule is not to use a short lens because you'll have to stick it up their nose and that's neither pleasant working nor good for perspective. And you'll inevitably include loads of background that you don't want - notice how in the pics I linked to earlier that with the wide shots he's got the entire studio in shot.

However, the whole point about using a certain focal length is about perspective and while that often in practise means an 80-135mm-ish lens (depending on format) the focal length has nothing to do with perspective. That is defined by the distance and nothing else.

You could shoot with a superwide from say six feet, and then enlarge the centre to get the framing, and persepctive would be identical to a longer lens used from the same distance.
Click to expand...

Thanks, for a moment there I thought I was going mad (Just when I thought Id got the basics nailed :lol:)...your basically saying position to get the result you want with the lens you have, even if it means capturing unwanted areas, then crop ....and Im thinking select focal length then frame so you dont need to crop, end result is likely the same although I guess non cropped image 'should' be better quality :thumbs:
 
arwesa said:
Thanks, for a moment there I thought I was going mad (Just when I thought Id got the basics nailed :lol:)...your basically saying position to get the result you want with the lens you have, even if it means capturing unwanted areas, then crop ....and Im thinking select focal length then frame so you dont need to crop, end result is likely the same although I guess non cropped image 'should' be better quality :thumbs:
Click to expand...

No, I didn't say crop. I said that if you did shoot with a wide lens and then cropped it, and also shot with a longer lens from the same distance, the perspective would be the same. It's just a way of proving that perspective is dictated by distance, and not by lens focal length.

It then follows that if you want a certain perspective, you should first choose the appropraite distance to shoot from, and then select the lens focal length to give you the framing you want.
 
Today Ive been using the kit lens that came with my camera and Ive found that I could really use a wider aperture for two reasons. The depth of field you can get on the kit lens is limited and as Im taking pictures of my 2yr old nephew, he never sits still! I really need a higher shutter speed! Ive decided to spend some money and try the 50mm. Hopefully picking it up tomorrow from a local Jessops.

I am a complete beginner but the advantages of a 50mm prime lens are obvious to me, especially at such a low price. Im hoping I can learn a lot from having it and it will be my first new lens! Ill try and get shots with both lenses and hopefully be able to see the difference!
 
bluebird14 said:
Today Ive been using the kit lens that came with my camera and Ive found that I could really use a wider aperture for two reasons. The depth of field you can get on the kit lens is limited and as Im taking pictures of my 2yr old nephew, he never sits still! I really need a higher shutter speed! Ive decided to spend some money and try the 50mm. Hopefully picking it up tomorrow from a local Jessops.

I am a complete beginner but the advantages of a 50mm prime lens are obvious to me, especially at such a low price. Im hoping I can learn a lot from having it and it will be my first new lens! Ill try and get shots with both lenses and hopefully be able to see the difference!
Click to expand...

You certainly won't regret it.

Not only is it extremely sharp but it's also very versatile and can make an excellent macro lens when coupled with extension tubes.

.
 
bluebird14 said:
Today Ive been using the kit lens that came with my camera and Ive found that I could really use a wider aperture for two reasons. The depth of field you can get on the kit lens is limited and as Im taking pictures of my 2yr old nephew, he never sits still! I really need a higher shutter speed! Ive decided to spend some money and try the 50mm. Hopefully picking it up tomorrow from a local Jessops.

I am a complete beginner but the advantages of a 50mm prime lens are obvious to me, especially at such a low price. Im hoping I can learn a lot from having it and it will be my first new lens! Ill try and get shots with both lenses and hopefully be able to see the difference!
Click to expand...

+1. A guy I work with doesnt rate the 50 f1.8 but our needs are very very different. He generally takes pictures outdoors, daytime and of abstract things which either need to be wide or zoomed in. I on the other hand take pictures of my family and people. Great example is xmas day. The family is round. Its dark outside, room is very dimly lit just 2 lamps on fairly low setting, tv off. Comfortable to relax and talk a nightmare to take pictures in usually without flash. My cousins camera just fired the flash or the picture was dark some samsung thing with kit lens. The f1.8-f2 really came into its own. No flash perfect photos and a happy man :).

I disagree the fact 50mm is only praised as its cheap. Yes it cheap but it is sharp and it is fast. Yes colour is better on other as is bokeh and focusing but price does come into it. You can overlook most if its not so much flaws but roughness for the price. But if price doesnt matter for you then yes there is other alternatives. 50mm is a nice size too for a crop. Its in the middle 85mm to long and 35mm too wide. Ive found I can shoot with a 50mm all day without too much fuss and zooming with my feet. This is me personally though. :thumbs:
 
I think the point is that if a 35 1.8 was as readily available for same price that too would be praised in equal measure. I personally would prefer a 35 over a 50. I have a 50 because it was given to me so I use it but usually find it on the long side for my circumstances (very small cottage!)
My walkabout camera is a Ricoh GR and I am happy and very used to the 28mm that is fixed to it.
 
ernesto said:
I think the point is that if a 35 1.8 was as readily available for same price that too would be praised in equal measure. I personally would prefer a 35 over a 50. I have a 50 because it was given to me so I use it but usually find it on the long side for my circumstances (very small cottage!)
My walkabout camera is a Ricoh GR and I am happy and very used to the 28mm that is fixed to it.
Click to expand...

I've owned the 50mm 1.8 afd and the 35mm 1.8 afs, and as well as being a better focal length on a cropped sensor, for most people, the 35mm is a much superior lens. I've not used the new 50mm 1.8 afs though, maybe that's better.

The cheap 1.8 afd is sharp and fast, but that's it for me I'm afraid, just my opinion, most people love it, I know I'm a minority here lol :)
 
Yes, the nifty fifty (50mm f1.8) is sharp and fast - it contains a mere six elements so there's not much glass to get in the way. It's brilliant for DoF effects - which I find useful to isolate a subject from a 'complex' background ;)
 
kabalman said:
I am still confused as to why a 50mm f/1.8 prime lens is preferred to a standard 18-55mm kit lens which opens to f/5.6 approximately at 50mm. Is it only because of the 3 extra f stops that the portrait lens allows, which make it useful in low light situations? Or the better bokeh it produces as it can open to f/1.8?

Or is there more, i.e. enhanced image quality due to some other factors etc? I'm trying to see what improvements the 50mm prime would provide me with for indoor photography (mainly) with family etc.
Click to expand...

I have the 18-55 and the 50mm. I haven't used the kit lens for ages now (other than some landscape). I find the 50mm so sharp and quick in low light.

I Always have it on if I'm off to a party / event etc.

So to answer your question, I would use a prime over the kit @ 50mm for speed, sharpness, and ease.
 
difference in the amount of light is 3 stops like you say so instead of 1/10s you could have 1/100s


you can get less DOF with f1.8 versus f5.6

prime lens is sharper

also a 50mm prime lens is not specifically a portrait lens

bokeh is dependant not just on the aperture but the diaphram too. the canon 50mm f1.8 has pretty horrid OOF highlights due to the 6 bladed diaphram.


kabalman said:
I am still confused as to why a 50mm f/1.8 prime lens is preferred to a standard 18-55mm kit lens which opens to f/5.6 approximately at 50mm. Is it only because of the 3 extra f stops that the portrait lens allows, which make it useful in low light situations? Or the better bokeh it produces as it can open to f/1.8?

Or is there more, i.e. enhanced image quality due to some other factors etc? I'm trying to see what improvements the 50mm prime would provide me with for indoor photography (mainly) with family etc.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top