If the nifty fifty is such a great lens......

Bucking the trend, I've just bought my second Nikon fit 50mm lens today (y).

The first was the Sigma f/1.4, which is vast and gives incredible bokeh, but often finds itself getting left behind due to it's weight and (relative) high value :|.

Now I'm adding the Nikkor f/1.8 as well, mostly for use on my new F65 film camera, but also so that I can chuck it into the bag when I'm heading off with my D700 and just a wider or longer zoom lens.

Personally, I find 50mm a really useful prime lens focal length (for FX sensors), as I already have a Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 and plan (one day) to add a Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR to cover the other end. So, having a nifty fifty to plug that little gap in the middle makes a lot of sense for me ;).

Although 50mm primes seem to go in and out fashion, they do generally work really well for motion-stopping, shallow DOF and distortion-free "snaps" - especially where you don't require just a "head shot" ;).

Long live the nifty :D!
 
There are so many for sale, because they are cheap.

To elaborate, every magazine, web forum, blogger and Tom **** and Harry says go and get a nifty because they are so cheap and sharp they should be in everyone's kit bag.

Off we all trot to get one, well it's only £70 you know. Get it home use it a couple of time then think what do I want this for ?. Most of use realize we don't need/want one then sell it.


Yes they can be great, just check out Ducky Doodles portfolio, but for most of us it's just wasted money.

All IMHO
 
Moos3h said:
They are good BECAUSE they are limiting.

Yes, the bokeh isn't the best you'll see, but it's far from bad.

However, being restricted to a fixed focal length of mid telephoto (on a crop body anyway) forces the user to think more carefully about the shot.

It also encourages people to move their feet and not automatically zoom to get the shot - i'd consider this good practise and whilst some situations are not suitable for this approach, it does get you thinking more.

Oh, and considering most users will be coming to it from a kit lens, the shallow DOF is going to be a real treat!
Click to expand...

I agree with this, having just got my nifty fifty yesterday.

I am a beginner who was starting to get a little tired of using my 17 – 85mm IS lens which came with my camera. Yes it gets good shots but sometimes I just feel like I want something different to play around with. As a beginner I don’t feel confident enough or skilled enough to pay top dollar for the most amazing lenses at the moment as I think it is better to try and learn to use the camera first. After reading lots of reviews, some good, some bad about this lens I decided to give it a try – the price was more suited to my budget and I knew that if I don’t get on with it I can easily sell it.

Having played with it last night briefly it has shown me how much I have relied on the zoom of my kit lens before. I had to position myself differently to get the best shots from this lens – I still have a long way to go but t was definitely fun practicing with it.

I think a lot of people seem to sell this lens when they feel they have progressed to the next stage and want to invest in the 1.4 version which who knows eventually I might do but for the time being I’m quite happy just playing around and getting used to what this lens can do.

I think some more experienced photographers forget that not all beginners want to spend out on very expensive lenses to start off with and so this is a good starting point to see how you get on with it first.
 
to me it seems ludicrous to slate a 50mm as a newbie lens [whatever speed]

its the one lens i could not do without on full frame its superb quality at everything i need to do.
 
joxby said:
I don't get it either, how can the 50mm focal length be any less useful than 40, 70, or 200.
It's only problem (from a Nikon perspective) appears to be that it isn't a zoom, but we knew that when we bought it...didn't we ??
"I don't use my 50 very often, I prefer my 17-55" or whatever, well you would do wouldn't you, its 38 crap lenses rolled in to one.
50 is a great length, if you can be bothered to move your feet one way or the other..
Click to expand...


I got something like this a few weeks ago. I looked at my shots with my 24-70 and came to the conclusion that there were 3 main focal lengths I used, one being 70mm, but not quite long enough, so I thought 85mm would be perfect, only to be told it's not a very good length for crop sensors...:thinking:

Some lengths may be ok for certain things but it's not a hard and fast rule in the slightest, unless you want to follow the crowd.:LOL:
 
I personally think 50mm is a great FL for portrait shots. I wouldn't use it as a walk around/primary lens like some people do though. It's also great when matched with a Raynox macro adapter.

The 1.8 is sharp (when focused properly and stopped down) and is pretty quick on focusing when in good light. Low light AF is terrible, constantly travelling. If it wasn't such a plasticy feel (or I had a more plastic feeling body) I'd keep mine but it's currently on Classifieds as I type.

Will be replacing it with a Pentax S-M-C Takumar f/1.4. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top