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

[benwall]

I like the idea of using primes to make you think and improve your photography but I don't think the majority of 50mm advocates think like you. They buy because it's something everyone else seems to talk about and then they realise that it is a limiting focal length that's neither here nor there (and totally out of their zoom lens comfort zone). I'd even go so far to say that they're lazy. The DOF and bokeh argument is (sort of) valid but come on, if you wanted to limit yourself then you can quite easily walk around with your zoom set to 50mm to get the same shot.

The main reason people buy it is its costs. Greate lens and bokeh and speed for the price.

On a Crop body i also think 50mm is a little to long........

Surely this depends entirely on what your shooting!?

 

[a1ex2001]

When they were around £70 new it was a no brainer, light and sharp, and cheap, now they are over £100 that is not so true.

crikey they really over a ton now? maybe it needs renaming the not-so-thrifty-fifty? I do love mine and for the money I spent on it it is a great lens I also have a 28mm f2.8 and I still use the 50mm more it is perfect for portraits.

 

[coldpenguin]

I bought the canon 50mm /1.8 so that I could 'play' with a 'wide' (compared with /3.5) aperture lens.
It also taught me more about how to frame shots, one weekend I restricted myself to almost all shots being on the 50mm.
It was good to get a restriction like that (although the wife couldn't work out why the hell I wasn't using the zoom).

For the price it is a lens which has boosted the appeal of portraits (not that I take a lot).

It is good in that it won't break the bank (compared with other lenses). The quality at /1.8 was a little soft at /2.0 or /2.2 it was very good.

It is possible that the lens will not win any awards, and many people are going to try it once and either sell or put in the camera bag and forget about, because a prime does restrict your abilities (esp. if like me for the last ~15 years your camera has had an optical zoom).
BUT, for the price, it is good value for money to find out whether you could deal with these restrictions.


(one other unmentioned downside, is that when it is on a camera like my 400d, the size and weight really does make it feel like a toy!)

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

Surely this depends entirely on what your shooting!?

As has been said in this post and countless others a 50mm on a FF camera gives a similar pleasing fov as your eye, on a crop sensor your looking at around 80mm and personally thats to long

 

[fletch5]

i always thought of the 50mm 1.8(canon) as a way of seeing what better optics are like before investing in mega expensive glass. and at £50-70 there isnt a lens that will touch it for what it does. the price is in kit lens territory and most people asking which lens are moving from the kit lens and say they heard the quality was bad so want something better.

i have never owned the 1.8 version as i read here bout it being plasticy etc so i got the 1.4. cant fault it and a very useful focal length for me. so usefull that every lens i have covers 50mm

if its portraits with the lighting kit, i will use the 50 unless i havent got enough space behind me to get everything in shot.

 

[CSB]

I bought mine when I first had my 400D, I bought it for the shallow DoF effects and I was quite happy with the results it gave me, but once I had bought a faster zoom lens it became redundant and hasn't been used since which is why I have sold it on.

I think the nifty fifty is a good lens to have when you start out as you can play with shallow DoF and you have to concentrate on composition more but it is an easy lens to outgrow and once that has happened its time for a trip to the classifieds, which is probably why you see so many for sale.

 

[coldpenguin]

As has been said in this post and countless others a 50mm on a FF camera gives a similar pleasing fov as your eye

Hmm, I am worried now, you are the second person to have said this.
I have a 1.6 crop camera, and my lenses at around 70mm give me a neutral view, equal to what I see without the camera. (but with my glasses, can't see **** without them)

Time for the opticians!

 

[Mr_T]

This may seem like a silly thing to say but I find that I only like my 50mm 1.8 lens when I'm using it in manual focus. It's small, light and unobtrusive and when you play around with it wide open I find results really pleasing. The only thing I really wish mine could do is have a closer minimum focusing distance.

 

[sophos9]

I've got mine for low light however its a bit of a pain on a cropped body. I'm thinking of getting rid and going for a 30 or 35mm...

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

Hmm, I am worried now, you are the second person to have said this.
I have a 1.6 crop camera, and my lenses at around 70mm give me a neutral view, equal to what I see without the camera. (but with my glasses, can't see **** without them)

Time for the opticians!

is that because you camera only has a 95% viewfinder and your zooming in to see what your eye's seeing at 100%

 

[MartynK]

I've used the nifty fifty, but I'm not tempted, even at the price. From a practical point of view it's too long, or too short, for me - I don't shoot portraits - and I'd rather have a fast 30mm or 35mm, giving me the equivalent of 50mm on a full frame. Of course, I'm biased, because I shot 35mm SLRs for quite a long time, I'm used to this focal length and it does seem "natural" to me.

I suppose the build quality is about what can be expected at this price point, but it's really tacky. Photography isn't about gear, sure, but there is satisfaction in handling well made equipment. I'm going to postpone any decisions about a fast prime until I've decided whether to stay with Canon, and my financial situation looks a bit healthier!

 

[CT]

I dunno - all this dissin' the 50mm focal length as somehow outmoded these days!

I'm not looking for any awards for this shot, but it's a good example of when it can be really useful, if not indispensable. It was taken from my seat across the width of the table with the 50mm 1.2 wide open on the 50D in quite low available light. The exposure was 1/50th at f1.2 and 400 ISO, so right on the limit for hand holding with any degree of confidence.

To use the 85mm I also had with me would have meant sitting on someone's lap on the next table, while the 17-40L just wouldn't have been nearly fast enough without bunging up the ISO very appreciably or using flash.

Sometimes the speed and focal length of a 50mm prime can be just right. :shrug:

 

[trapper501]

I dunno - all this dissin' the 50mm focal length as somehow outmoded these days!

I don't think that is what people are saying at all.

the reasoning behind the attraction of the 50mm focal length is that is a normal view on a 35mm film camera.

I had one when I used film 30 years ago.

That reason is negated with a crop body because the FoV is actually equivalent to what a 80mm (for a 1,6x crop) would be for a 35mm film camera.

Coincidentally, this is actually quite good for portraits, and as many of those would be done in natural light the faster primes are very handy.

personally I don't go much for those sort of portraits, preferring to try and get shots from a bit further away and getting more informal shots. (I'm not very good at those either but I understand the theory)

So I think all that is being said is the the whole raison d'etre behind the 50mm thing has been passed over a bit by the popularity of the smaller sensors. Now 50mm is being seen as an excellent portrait lens, where before it was more of a walk about.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

Some interesting comments.
Personally I found the Canon F1.8 to be rather good optically, and it produced some great photos.
Having said that, I recently moved from a 1D to a 5D, and the 5D really showed up just how poor the AF was on the fifty on anything but static shots in good lighting conditions. Shame really as I ended up feeling obliged to buy an 85mm F1.8, which frankly annihilates the 50 in every way (apart from IQ, which IMO is only marginally better), but then so it should at 4 times the cost.

 

[ShawWellPete]

The nifty 50 is often people's fist lens after the kit lens zoom, and compared to that it is fantastic and many people's first experience with fast glass. I guess you never forget your first love.

I have a minolta 50mm 1.7 on my Sony and it hardly ever gets used as I tend to use a Sigma 28-70 2.8 instead. Having said that, I'm expecting to get my Nikon D700 any day and have already bought a 50mm 1.4 for it on this site. Even though I do not think it'll get a huge amount of use it's a lovely lens to have.

 

[Gaz81]

I have the f1.8 version and think it's ok.

It's all about what you want to do and how you want to do it.

I use it on my EOS 3 (full frame film) and my 30D, I just have to use it differently on the 30D than I would on my EOS 3.

One thing to think of though... carrying the 30D and 50mm f1.8 is a damn sight less bulky to carry than the 30D with my Sigma 24-70 f.2.8mm!

swings and roundabouts and all that

 

[pearce_jj]

My use of the camera is basically my children. I find 85mm on full-frame to be ideal, ~50mm on a 1.6 crop body.

As it happens I also have a 50mm f1.8. It's optically fine, I haven't personally noticed any particular issues with the AF either. Sure I'd like the 1.4 version but I don't use it often enough to justify the money. Plus getting the cheaper one will mean it takes less time to get other stuff like tripod, bag, flash(es)..., it's super-cheap and pretty much a no-brainer IMO.

 

[crazylady]

cheeky pm to tdodd re his nifty!

 

[tdodd]

cheeky pm to tdodd re his nifty!

It wasn't cheeky at all, and I have replied

 

[matt1]

This is food for thought. It sounds like a decent lens after the kit lens for any beginner so it sounds like a good stepping stone before spending big money on anything else. Thanks for peoples opinions.

 

[joxby]

I dunno - all this dissin' the 50mm focal length as somehow outmoded these days!

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..

 

[tdodd]

50 is a great length, if you can be bothered to move your feet one way or the other..

Moving your feet changes perspective. It is not at all the same thing as adjusting focal length. A photographer would know that and would not advise "foot zooming" as a substitute for having the correct focal length available.

First you position yourself to achieve the correct perspective. Then you select your focal length to achieve the framing you desire. Photography 101.

 

[pearce_jj]

jeez

 

[andrew748]

the Canon nifty is a cheap, fun prime for beginners

get this

if you decide you like the focal length can manual focus

 

[HoppyUK]

Moving your feet changes perspective. It is not at all the same thing as adjusting focal length. A photographer would know that and would not advise "foot zooming" as a substitute for having the correct focal length available.

First you position yourself to achieve the correct perspective. Then you select your focal length to achieve the framing you desire. Photography 101.

I agree.

In fact, when I use a prime (very rarely these days) I will often prefer to hold position and perspective, and digital crop in post processing to get the framing. Then I wish I'd used a zoom.

I don't believe that using a prime teaches you anything about framing, other than a zoom is a much better way of going about it.

 

[jwr]

to be honest i've hardly used mine either. im quite a fan of using a lens until you have fully figured it out, and are fully competant using it. for some this wont take long but for beginners i think it can. but i skiped mine really. but its worth more to me sat in my bag than to sell to be honest. canon mkII btw

 

[Strolls]

Perhaps it's great, for the price ...

I don't think anyone ever seriously claims otherwise. The price is the BIG APPEAL of the nifty fifty - it's the whole point.

I know everyone is different and has different costs & expectations & all that, but for a lot of people the £70 cost of a nifty fifty is what you spend on lunch over the course of a month. That's like a £2.50 sandwich every day, no coffee, for 28 days; or a nifty fifty.

You can't even get a decent tripod for the price!

Stroller.

 

[V8burble]

Exactly, I can't believe it's been debated for 3 pages. For the money... why not.

 

[Naboo32]

My use of the camera is basically my children. I find 85mm on full-frame to be ideal, ~50mm on a 1.6 crop body.

Of course it's ideal - children are basically just "cropped adults" !

 

[joxby]

Moving your feet changes perspective. It is not at all the same thing as adjusting focal length. A photographer would know that and would not advise "foot zooming" as a substitute for having the correct focal length available.

First you position yourself to achieve the correct perspective. Then you select your focal length to achieve the framing you desire. Photography 101.

I think my point is, how are you to adjust perspective with a 40, a 70 or a 200.
The 50 seems to come in for a bit of undeserved flack because it isn't a zoom, not because it isn't as useful as any other fixed focal length, but that's what people say, "I don't use my 50 much, its not a useful length", well neither is any other fixed length then, might as well chuck em all out.

I'm well aware of lens perspective, but also the value in moving your feet, not everyone wants the distortion that comes with shorter lengths, unfortunately circumstances will always dictate what is or is not possible.

 

[u8myufo]

Well I love mine and would not sell it to anyone

 

[KavKav]

Because people read rave reviews and think "nifty fifty" means it's something special, some fantastic, mythical piece of bargain gear that will be all things to all men.

Then they buy one and discover that 50mm isn't a particularly useful focal length on a crop body and that the iq isn't as wonderful as they thought it would be wide open.

If you try and explain that you really need to stop it down a bit to get a really sharp shot, you get met with blank looks and questions along the lines of "why should I have to stop my 1.8 lens down to 2.8 for it to be sharp when I could just have bought a 2.8 lens in the first place?" :bang:

Lol!....:bang: so true!

 

[KavKav]

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..

Well said! My favourite lens and the one that I would simply not part with is my Nikkor 50mm 1:1.4D

 

[richpips]

It's a great lens for the money as others have said.

I sold mine on the classifieds on here though.

........and I've replaced it with the f/1.2

 

[Boldonian]

I've just peddled mine. Great lens in Nikon guise but I never used it.

 

[coldpenguin]

@u8myufo
Those other two pics weren't there earlier! Are you throwing bugs to the birds?
The third one is amazing.

 

[HoppyUK]

Well I love mine and would not sell it to anyone

Great captures mate. Really excellent

Plenty of birders with £5k's worth of lens would be proud of those. I would take all the credit yourself.

 

[Chaz Photos]

The thing with a 50mm standard lens is that on a 35mm or full frame camera, it gives the closest FOV and perspective to what you actually see with the human eye so it was always recommended as a good beginners lens largely for that reason. Used on a 1.6 crop sensor of course it has a FOV more like 80mm so the natural FOV argument goes out of the window rather, although 80mm gives a better working distance for portraits.

As per Ct I agree so if you have a full frame sensor then great BUT if not then you need a 35mm lens to give as near as poss to the same field of view.

 

[mid_gen]

I've noticed that the 50mm is close to what you see with the naked eye. Look through the viewfinder with both eyes open, pretty much spot on.

Don't know what all the discussion is about though....it's a good lens for the money, and a good for a beginner, I certainly learned a lot about aperture by having one that is relatively 'extreme' compared to the kit lens. Costs less than a night out too

 

[sheddy]

I use mine mainly at 5.6 or smaller on macro bellows. Cracking lens it is too, fantastic value for money.

The old standard of using nothing but the 50 for a weekend is akin to thrashig yourself with a bamboo stick. Why would you want to punish yourself? the only thing it taught me is that it is good to have quality zoom lenses!