Why all the 50mm

Chaz Photos

Chaz Photos

Jack Elam
Messages
6,282
Name
Chaz
Edit My Images
Yes
I note lots getting or wanting a 50mm lens

When we only had film bodies then this was the standard lens as 50mm lens on a 35mm body was as near to the field of view of our eyes.

AS most have sensors that are smaller then full frame with 1.5 or 1.6 crop at least then to get the same field of view you need a 35mm. so if you have smaller sensor like 4/3 it be wider still.

So a 50 mm on a Nikon is a 75mm and on Canon its 80mm

Why are you not all getting 35mm’s?
 
Some of us have FX sensors...

Plus 50mm is a very cheap and easy design to manufacture, so image quality is often very good.
Coupled with very fast max apertures, it makes for a very good and versatile lens.

I also find that 35mm on FX-format is more 'standard-view' than 50mm, so 35mm was always my standard lens back in the day...and a 35mm f/2 still sits on my Leica M6...
 
Yv said:
would you feel better if i said i sold my 50mm several months ago and have now replaced it with a 28mm [on a nikon crop sensor] ;)
Click to expand...

not make me fell better at all juat wanting to try and understand if everyone know why they want a 50mm I guess you found out why not to have one :clap::clap:
 
I'd say the main reason is simply cost, simple as that, the 50 costs about £80, where as the 35 costs £220! (on canon's at least).
 
50mm are easier to design. A wide angle uses more elements, so it is more difficult to design. So 50mm are better quality.
 
Chaz Photos said:
not make me fell better at all juat wanting to try and understand if everyone know why they want a 50mm I guess you found out why not to have one :clap::clap:
Click to expand...

well several reasons - firstly, I had bought a 50-150 f2.8 DX lens, which I used a lot over the 50 1.8 and secondly, I really wasnt making any use of the wider aperture, so decided to sell it with a body I was selling. However, I still wanted a Prime lens for portraits and stuff, and after looking around and chatting to fellow nikon users, finaly opted for a 28 as ftting the bill nicely - wider than the 50, so better for full length shots and still very useable if I ever go FF. Do I miss the F1.8? Nope, not one iota ;)

However, I DO think getting F1.8 or even F1.4 in such a relatively cheap et optically sound lens is the reason for many people ;)
 
Arkady said:
Some of us have FX sensors...

Plus 50mm is a very cheap and easy design to manufacture, so image quality is often very good.
Coupled with very fast max apertures, it makes for a very good and versatile lens.

I also find that 35mm on FX-format is more 'standard-view' than 50mm, so 35mm was always my standard lens back in the day...and a 35mm f/2 still sits on my Leica M6...
Click to expand...

I did say on smaller sensor and ref to full 35mm in my statement to film.
Because a lens is cheap is not a reason to buy for me, I can see it being good for portrait work but as already said not so good for full length shots unless you get long way back.
For perspective it would be a good buy on Head and shoulders
 
Chaz Photos said:
I note lots getting or wanting a 50mm lens

When we only had film bodies then this was the standard lens as 50mm lens on a 35mm body was as near to the field of view of our eyes.

AS most have sensors that are smaller then full frame with 1.5 or 1.6 crop at least then to get the same field of view you need a 35mm. so if you have smaller sensor like 4/3 it be wider still.

So a 50 mm on a Nikon is a 75mm and on Canon its 80mm

Why are you not all getting 35mm’s?
Click to expand...

I've just go a Pentax-A 50mm f2 for £22.70. Now that's cheap.

Just to clarify a point a 50mm lens on a crop sensor still gives the same prospective as it would on a FF sensor, the field of view will be smaller but the prospective is the same. It will still be close to the prospective of the human eye.
 
Dom said:
I've just go a Pentax-A 50mm f2 for £22.70. Now that's cheap.

Just to clarify a point a 50mm lens on a crop sensor still gives the same prospective as it would on a FF sensor, the field of view will be smaller but the prospective is the same. It will still be close to the prospective of the human eye.
Click to expand...
I never mention perspective. Only field of view.

A lens will not change prospective only your position to the subject.
 
Got mine for shooting gigs, was the fastest lens for good money, simple as that.
Think I'm gonna go for a play now :)
 
I didn't need one either, but it's cheap & it's fun! I need to be a little more mobile when I'm using it too. ;)
 
For those of us who are new to photography, are still learning the ropes, I think that it's a good addition to the kit. From my point of view I wanted to try something different from the kit lens but as I am still learning how everything works and what type of pictures I like taking, I didn't want to (nor had the funds to) spend a lot at this point. I'd read a lot of good comments about the 'nifty fifty' so went along that route.

I think it's a case of each to his/her own I guess! :)

But saying that, if anyone wants to donate a 35mm my way then I'll more than happily take it off their hands!! :LOL: (worth a try.....!)
 
Chaz Photos said:
I did say on smaller sensor and ref to full 35mm in my statement to film.
Because a lens is cheap is not a reason to buy for me, I can see it being good for portrait work but as already said not so good for full length shots unless you get long way back.
For perspective it would be a good buy on Head and shoulders
Click to expand...

But for some it is. It's a very cheap way to get a decent quality prime lens into your bag.
 
I got mine for the amazing clarity and sharpness it offers as a prime. For £80 you cant beat it.

Also for the amazing DOF it can give wide open;

IMG_6649.jpg
 
I don't think there is anything wrong with putting the bit you are repying to in bold, saves confusion. To be honest I was about reply with the same, the main reason I bought the lens was the price.
 
fabs said:
But for some it is. It's a very cheap way to get a decent quality prime lens into your bag.
Click to expand...

I agree, although I do not use mine much, when I do I am always amazed at the results.
 
fabs said:
I did not alter a quote, I just used bold to highlight the specific part that I was answering.
Click to expand...

That is altering it, if you wish to quote only that, then only quote that part
I made no emphases on this in my post as you make it look like I did
Thank you
 
:popcorn::beer:

I got mine yesterday because I wanted a small versatile lens to take away on a trip, the fact is its a great little lens and I love it already.
 
:cautious:

What has sensor size got to do with whether somebody wants a 50mm or not.

Why are we not talking about 80mm or 105, what's the difference.

50 is good for some things that 105 isn't, and vice versa.

I like the 50 because it is at the wide point where distortion is tolerable, not so a 35mm, but then it depends what you are shooting doesn't it.
 
As the OP siad, the 50 was the standard portrait lens for a film camera, and with the cropped sensor the 50 becomes an 80 if you are back compairing focal lengths, the 35 becomes just over 50, hence the question being based round these focal lenghts.
 
I use the canon 60mm macro f2.8 this gives about 100mm equivalent on a 40D good for macro and portraits and quality is stunning! More pricey than a 50mm but as they say you get what you pay for.
 
I don't tend to think of focal lengths as such, just which lens will get me the shot I want. I also use a 35mm body too, so am I getting 2 for the price of 1 each time I get a lens?
 
Hawker said:
I'd say the main reason is simply cost, simple as that, the 50 costs about £80, where as the 35 costs £220! (on canon's at least).
Click to expand...

The 35mm are cheaper for nikon d40 AF. the 50mm goes for arround £260, and the 35mm goes for £160

Jordan
 
Hawker said:
As the OP siad, the 50 was the standard portrait lens for a film camera, and with the cropped sensor the 50 becomes an 80 if you are back compairing focal lengths, the 35 becomes just over 50, hence the question being based round these focal lenghts.
Click to expand...



I don't think he is, the suggestion is everyone should buy a lens that is similar to the angle of view to that of the eye, when clearly that will never be any kind of criteria for buying one.
I can only speak for myself but I won't be buying a 35mm for my crop camera to shoot portraits, whether its eye-like or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top