nifty fifty for portraits?

jenbrads

jenbrads

Messages
185
Name
jen
Edit My Images
Yes
Im thinking of getting a nifty fifty because everyone raves about them! I think you can pick them up for about £65 (?)
What is the best use for them? I understand they are quite versitile? Would they be any good for portraits? (not in a studio and nothing to . . . serious)

I bet that all sounds daft to many people. . . . . .sorry!x :thinking:
 
Hey Jenny,

They are rapidly becoming something of a marmite lens but for the cost it's so easy to buy and try that it would be daft not too. If you don't like it, someone will pay most of the cost and take it off your hands

Pretty much every point of view is in this thread from the other day. May be worth a read. :)

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=73393
 
I like it - feels a little plasticy but nice dof and v.sharp for the money!
 
50mm is great for portraits, even on a full frame sensor or 35mm film body.

Check out Jane Brown's work... for most of her career she only ever used a 35mm SLR and 50mm lens (and shot on black-and-white film in available light).

A.
 
I covered a sponsored Polo tournament on Sunday and had to do loads of people shots in and around the marquee before the polo started. Decided to save some hassle and kept the 50mm on the whole time. (y)
 
robsohn said:
jenbrads you want regret it, on crop it will give you circa 80 mm, perfect for portraits
Click to expand...

The reason an 80mm is best for portraits is because that focal length gives just about the truest perspective. A 50mm lens gives a 50mm lens' perspective regardless of crop factor.

That said the nifty is a great lens and should be in every kitbag.
 
Steep said:
The reason an 80mm is best for portraits is because that focal length gives just about the truest perspective. A 50mm lens gives a 50mm lens' perspective regardless of crop factor.

That said the nifty is a great lens and should be in every kitbag.
Click to expand...

I thought the human perspective was 50mm?
(Although I did read somewhere that focal lens is just close to the human perspective, and the actual figure was about 43mm)
 
I thought the human perspective was 50mm?
Click to expand...

It's all a bit "sort of" really. It's more about our field of view being close to the 50mm lens, as used on a 35mm camera that started that off.... and them being standard issue on SLR's for nearly all of time.

Of course, if you take your peripheral vision into account, it's far far wider than that.
 
F-Stop said:
I was thinking along the same lines... A 28mm on a 1.5x crop sensor is 42mm
Click to expand...

no it's not, it's 28mm. The only thing that changes is the field of view, perspective and focal length remain the same regardless of crop factor.
 
Steep said:
no it's not, it's 28mm. The only thing that changes is the field of view, perspective and focal length remain the same regardless of crop factor.
Click to expand...

I realize a 28mm is a 28mm, but why do people say that in practice a 200mm lens is 300mm on a cropped sensor? Explain. I'm confused. lol

I understand what you're saying though, I just thought it was the other way around.
 
People say it because other people say it because other people say it.

Here's an example of the field of view you get on different sensors http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Field-of-view-crop-factor.aspx What you are doing is taking a picture of a smaller area of the scene on a 1:6 crop and this then needs to be enlarged to fit the same area of screen or paper. Hence people thinking it's magnified more or the lens is effectively longer. What it is in fact is the same as the 'digital zoom' you see advertised in many compact cameras.

Your lens at say 50mm bends light by a certain amount to focus the image on the sensor and it doesn't matter how big the sensor is, the lens bends the light by the same amount so any distortion of features will remain the same on a 1:1 or a 1:6 crop.
Over the years portrait photographers have worked out that an 85mm lens (or there about) gives the most accurate/pleasing effect on the human face. Much wider than this and the face can look fatter than it is, the effect is less noticable as you go longer but the longer you go the further away you need to be to have the subject fill the frame.

Having waffled all that, a 50mm lens will still give pleasing portrait results as it's not 'that' far away from the ideal of 80(ish)mm
 
Don't know where i'd be without my nifty, if i'm honest. For portrait shots, I'd say it's a must. Stick it on the body, fire up a nice wide aperture, get your subject and just snap away.

As said, you wont regret it.
 
thanks everyone! Well, ive ordered one so in a few days I will be able to tell you all what I think! Also ordered a 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM! ooopppps!
 
F-Stop said:
I realize a 28mm is a 28mm, but why do people say that in practice a 200mm lens is 300mm on a cropped sensor? Explain. I'm confused. lol

I understand what you're saying though, I just thought it was the other way around.
Click to expand...

Just to add to Steep's response, when people refer to a 200mm lens being a 300mm on a DX sensor, they're referring to the equivalent reach. As Steep explained the actually properties of the lens remain constant irrespective of the body its mounted on. This can be an advantage or a disadvantage depending on your view. For me putting a 200mm f/2 on a D300 gives me the same reach as a 300m, but retains the f/2 max aperture but also gives me the extra depth of field of a 200mm at a given aperture over what a 300mm on an FX body would give me. For those wanting to minimise depth of field though that might not be an advantage.

As for the OP's question, yes a 50mm is a great lens for portraiture, no matter whether on full frame or cropped sensors. As mentioned, check out Jane Bown (not Brown as listed above).
 
NorthernNikon said:
For me putting a 200mm f/2 on a D300 gives me the same reach as a 300m,
Click to expand...

no no no no! it's the same reach as a 200mm, no further. The lens does not get you any closer to the subject just because the sensor is smaller.
 
uh oh, what have I started?!
 
Steep said:
no no no no! it's the same reach as a 200mm, no further. The lens does not get you any closer to the subject just because the sensor is smaller.
Click to expand...

Semantics. What is reach? It's not a photographic term.

If photographer stands on spot A and subject on spot B. In order to get a frame filling shot the photographer needs a longer focal length on a ful frame sensor than a cropped one, not withstanding the fact that you can crop down a full frame sensor image. The images will have different properties, as discussed above, but to all intents and purposes the reach of a 200mm on a cropped sensor is greater than that on a full frame sensor.
 
but to all intents and purposes the reach of a 200mm on a cropped sensor is greater than that on a full frame sensor.
Click to expand...

Or is it???? :naughty:

There are more things to be taken into account than just the size of the sensor. How many pixels there are and their size all come into this as well.

As an example, I have two DSLR's, one with a crop sensor and one full frame.

So, I put on a 100mm lens and shoot a tree filling the frame with the crop body. Then I stay where I am, put the lens on the full frame camera and take the shot again. There will be space around the tree and it kinda "looks" like I've used a wider lens.

BUT.... if I crop the shot from the full frame body so that it looks just the same as the one from the crop camera.... it's still a bigger file.

So, what I have hear is a crop camera that appears like it reduces the field of view and uses long lenses better but actually if there was such a thing a sensor increasing reach, for me it would be the bigger one.

Right, I'm off for a lie down now. :LOL:
 
I repeat "What it is in fact is the same as the 'digital zoom' you see advertised in many compact cameras."
Your 200mm lens is magnifying the subject exactly the same as it would in a full frame camera, there is no difference. What you are doing is enlarging the center of the full frame image so that it seems bigger.

200mm is 200mm effectively and in reality unless it gets sucked into a black hole.
 
If i'm not stepping on anyone's toes I might go for the one for sale in post #5

Does anyone have an account on POTN that would be able to contact the seller rather than me signing up just to send 1 message?
 
Steep said:
I repeat "What it is in fact is the same as the 'digital zoom' you see advertised in many compact cameras."
Your 200mm lens is magnifying the subject exactly the same as it would in a full frame camera, there is no difference. What you are doing is enlarging the center of the full frame image so that it seems bigger.

200mm is 200mm effectively and in reality unless it gets sucked into a black hole.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you're repeating yourself, no-one's said any different since you said it the first time.

dazzajl said:
Or is it???? :naughty:

There are more things to be taken into account than just the size of the sensor.
Click to expand...

Of course there are, but what a small number of people seem to have issue with is the description of the different effects crop sizes have on lenses. Calling this difference 'equivalent reach' is to my mind the best way to describe it. As I said, certain factors aren't altered and many other factors come into play, but for the sake of explaining why a 200mm lens acts differently on a 1.5x cropped sensor to a 300mm lens on a full frame when they both can fill the frame from the same spot, the term 'equivilent reach' is apt.
 
1.5x, 1.3x & 1.6x crop factor does just that. The sensor crops off part of the image in camera just like you would on the PC. Does not give you more magnification etc.
Take any of your pics on PC, crop off +-25%. What have you got left. That's all it does. Nothing more.
 
jenbrads said:
uh oh, what have I started?!
Click to expand...

Don't worry the debate has cropped up many times in the past and will do so many time in the future and the result is always the same .........it is only the field of view that changes with the same lens on both bodies, imagine looking out through two windows, one large, one small, looking through a small window (cropped sensor) you see less of the scenery outside, looking through a big window (full frame) you see more of the scenery outside.
I asked the difference once and that was how it was simply explained to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top