Swapping from a 50mm to a 28mm/85mm pair

Mr Will

Mr Will

Messages
132
Name
Will
Edit My Images
Yes
I've recently bought a 5D (mark I) and a 50mm f1.4. I enjoy shooting with a prime and have taken some lovely portrait shots but I find a lot of my other shots are lacking "punch" - often the subject seems lost, for want of a better description.

I've been considering getting a 28mm prime to allow me to get closer to (non-human) subjects in an attempt to rectify this but am wondering if it makes sense to keep my 50mm if I do so? Would I be better off trading in the 50 for an 85mm at the same time, giving me a better portrait lens as well? Is 50mm a focal length that some people just don't gel with?

Or is it me, rather than my gear? Should I just work on my composition more with my 50mm before spending more money?
 
Mr Will said:
I've recently bought a 5D (mark I) and a 50mm f1.4. I enjoy shooting with a prime and have taken some lovely portrait shots but I find a lot of my other shots are lacking "punch" - often the subject seems lost, for want of a better description.

I've been considering getting a 28mm prime to allow me to get closer to (non-human) subjects in an attempt to rectify this but am wondering if it makes sense to keep my 50mm if I do so? Would I be better off trading in the 50 for an 85mm at the same time, giving me a better portrait lens as well? Is 50mm a focal length that some people just don't gel with?

Or is it me, rather than my gear? Should I just work on my composition more with my 50mm before spending more money?
Click to expand...

Hi and welcome to TP.

you could share some photos with us.

you can share via flickr: how it's done you can find it here: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=411865

thanks
 
asaspasas6 said:
Hi and welcome to TP.

you could share some photos with us.

you can share via flickr: how it's done you can find it here: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=411865

thanks
Click to expand...

It's a bit of a hard one to illustrate through photos, I find it more when I'm trying to line up a good shot rather than in those I actually take. It's as if the lens wants to include the whole scene rather than emphasise the subject.

I'll have a dig though my archives over the next few days to see if I can find anything that will elaborate on what I mean, but until then you are welcome to have a look at what I have on my 500px account: http://500px.com/Mr_Will It's only a few unfortunately, I didn't start taking photography seriously until a couple of months ago.
 
sad you don't have anything from zoom lenses, even kit lens. You could try taking pictures on 28mm or 85mm and just see what you like more. Which focal length suits you more I mean.
 
Mr Will said:
It's a bit of a hard one to illustrate through photos, I find it more when I'm trying to line up a good shot rather than in those I actually take. It's as if the lens wants to include the whole scene rather than emphasise the subject.
Click to expand...

It's difficult to understand exactly what you mean but if the problem is framing then with a prime rather than zoom in and out you move, either further away or closer to the subject.
 
woof woof said:
It's difficult to understand exactly what you mean but if the problem is framing then with a prime rather than zoom in and out you move, either further away or closer to the subject.
Click to expand...

It's not a framing problem (I'm not that much of a beginner!), it's much more subtle. I'm struggling to emphasise the subject would be a better way of putting it. Not so much of a problem with people in the shot (since we are naturally drawn to them) but more of a problem for shots of scenes or objects.

I think I need to go out and shoot a few examples over the weekend.
 
Yup.

Examples and explanation needed as at the moment I'm baffled.

50 mm should give you good scope on FF as long as you can foot zoom as it's quite wide-ish allowing a fair amount of scene/context to be included at modest distances and when you foot zoom, assuming your subject isn't the size of a barn, you can get quite close giving you good scope for shallow DoF if that's what you're going for.
 
asaspasas6 said:
sad you don't have anything from zoom lenses, even kit lens. You could try taking pictures on 28mm or 85mm and just see what you like more. Which focal length suits you more I mean.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately all the decent(ish) cheap lenses these days seem to be EF-S. Certainly all the ones I could borrow are. I did have a Sigma 28-70mm but unfortunately that developed a fault shortly before the 5D arrived.

I'm pretty certain I'll get on with 28mm (I use the equivalent a lot on my S95, and when I've used a DSLR previously) but I'm more puzzled that I don't seem to be getting on with the 50mm. I have a few old film cameras with lenses in the 45/50mm range and get on very well with them. For some reason the same length on the 5D just seems neither one thing or the other.
 
woof woof said:
Yup.

Examples and explanation needed as at the moment I'm baffled.

50 mm should give you good scope on FF as long as you can foot zoom as it's quite wide-ish allowing a fair amount of scene/context to be included at modest distances and when you foot zoom, assuming your subject isn't the size of a barn, you can get quite close giving you good scope for shallow DoF if that's what you're going for.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm not the best at explaining. I'm better at taking pictures than I am talking pictures! I can do both the things you are describing, it's not a framing problem but a compositional one.

(that isn't any clearer, is it! :bonk:)
 
Mr Will said:
(that isn't any clearer, is it! :bonk:)
Click to expand...

No :D

But I'm sure someone will be able to help. Perhaps if you could pick your worst examples and expand on why you're not happy with them.

Personally, I'm quite happy with a 50mm f1.4 on my 5D. Wider lenses are nice and I have a couple but for taking pictures of specific "things" with wider lenses you have to get really close and I'm not always happy with that as I see it as being intrusive.

I have an 85mm f1.8 and it's a lovely lens and probably a better lens than the 50 and it does give a good working distance but it's much bigger and heavier and in some ways even more intrusive.
 
"punch" and subject isolation are not going to be helped by a 28 but would be helped by an 85 (if I have interpreted the problem correctly)
I think I know what you mean as I prefer the images from a 50 1.8 over a 35 1.8 on a crop sensor and now use a 50 because of that (unfortunately I find 35 to be an easier length to live with!)
 
ernesto said:
"punch" and subject isolation are not going to be helped by a 28 but would be helped by an 85 (if I have interpreted the problem correctly)
I think I know what you mean as I prefer the images from a 50 1.8 over a 35 1.8 on a crop sensor and now use a 50 because of that (unfortunately I find 35 to be an easier length to live with!)
Click to expand...

By subject isolation I don't just mean DoF, I can do that quite happily with my 50. I'm more referring to the illusion of distance that a wider lens can bring. Aside from that I think you are pretty correct though.
 
daugirdas said:
35 and 85mm is a nice combination of primes. Add 135mm to that and it gets very lovely
Click to expand...

:plusone:

The problem with 28mm is that most are F2.8 at their fastest, with the 35mm you still get that wide angle feel on FF but also a faster aperture.

The 85mm is a gem of a lens, it does a good job with regard to subject/background separation and is great for closer head & shoulders shots as well.
it's not that heavy and a joy to use.

I would try and keep the 50mm if you can, its still a handy focal length and you may find yourself missing it.
If money's tight I would go for the 35mm first.
 
Last edited:
I can see your point about the 50mm on full frame being somewhere in between and lacking punch - I only ever use mine for group shots, which it excels at, but framing shots of cities/buildings etc becomes troublesome, and it is far too short to do real justice to single person portraits I find.

I would suggest dropping down to something like the 35mm f2 also, for general walkaround shooting, which can also include group shots, but missing out on the 85mm and going up to 100 or 135 for a portrait lens. Either of these will definitely give you the full frame punch you are talking about, and there are a few selections for various budgets at that length. 85 on full frame for me is too short for portraits when I'm out and about.

Just my opinion though
 
Thought I should post a follow up to this one. Over the past 6 months I've acquired a lot more kit (don't we all!) but in the process have come to love my 50mm f/1.4 - it's by far my most used lens these days. I'm finding that what was once a limitation (neither tele or wide) has now translated to a great flexibility and the quality and low light ability are wonderful.

I still occasionally hanker after an 85mm/wide pair (probably a 35mm rather than 28mm) but that plan was somewhat scuppered by the unexpected acquisition of a Sigma 105mm 2.8 Macro which is another lens I love dearly, both for macro work and portraits, but I think would overlap with the 85mm a little too much.

The wide end is proving somewhat trickier, I have a 20-35mm which I've never gelled with and have just bought a 28mm 2.8 which I haven't fallen for yet. I suspect the issue may be my skills rather than the lenses though, so more practice needed!
 
Your wide angle issue might well be that neither of those are great lenses so both your fifty and your 105mm will show up there deficiencies!
 
a1ex2001 said:
Your wide angle issue might well be that neither of those are great lenses so both your fifty and your 105mm will show up there deficiencies!
Click to expand...
Do you have any suggestions for a better cheap wide-angle? One or both of these will be going out the door which will give me a little money to play with, but unfortunately not an L of a lot of money...
 
In my film days I found the 28 just right. A 24 would have been nice, but the cost was prohibitive to me at the time.

I'd say persist with it. Test it to its limits.
 
I had same issue with my 50mm,, first cheap prime just because everyone kept saying how great they were. It was always too short or too long, headshots had you with it stuck in their face! I sold it for 35mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8, much better now just right lengths, also the 85mm is by far the best image quality lens I own and 35mm on crop is the real nifty fifty as in it has same focal length as your eyes

Like others already said try a zoom at both lengths for a while to see you can work with them.
 
daugirdas said:
35 and 85mm is a nice combination of primes. Add 135mm to that and it gets very lovely
Click to expand...
:plus1:

Yes, this, totally. I have a 50mm but I always pick the 35mm F2 over it. I love that little lens, it works really well for me wheras I never found I got on too well with a 50mm. So I now have a 35mm F2 and 85mm F1.8 as my lightweight kit on the 5D3
 
Mr Mike said:
I had same issue with my 50mm,, first cheap prime just because everyone kept saying how great they were. It was always too short or too long, headshots had you with it stuck in their face! I sold it for 35mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8, much better now just right lengths, also the 85mm is by far the best image quality lens I own and 35mm on crop is the real nifty fifty as in it has same focal length as your eyes

Like others already said try a zoom at both lengths for a while to see you can work with them.
Click to expand...
I'm on full frame though, so my 50mm is close to your 35mm. Get on much better with it now though!

I've tried a couple of cheap(ish) zooms but never got on with them. Have a bit of spare cash now though so going through a phase of buying and selling to try different options.
 
kendo1 said:
In my film days I found the 28 just right. A 24 would have been nice, but the cost was prohibitive to me at the time.

I'd say persist with it. Test it to its limits.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, I intend to do so! If I do get on with it then I'll probably spring for the 1.8. If not then I think a 35mm is next on my list...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top