50mm primes - convince me!

viewfromthenorth

viewfromthenorth

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,269
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
I’ve never been a fan of 50mm primes since my first Praktica SLR in the 80’s. I had an old E-series manual focus 50mm for my Nikon FM that I use for urbex, but it was nowhere near wide enough for that, and I tended to use a 24mm instead. Oh and the E-series lenses weren’t much cop either.
*
But I’ve got a few Nikkor primes (20, 35 and 85) that I like using on my D700 and F100. I like the simplicity, speed and sharpness of primes, and I‘m now re-considering my stance on the 50mm lens. I’m pondering the Nikon G series, either the 1.4 or 1.8 – cost isn’t really a factor.
*
So go on, tell me why you like the 50mm, and why I should buy one too!!!!!
 
I've had a 50mm 1.8 in my bag for about a year, and its where its stayed tbh. Don't know why I don't like using it though. :shrug:
 
Same here mine doesn't get a lot of use,maybe useful to have in case of low light work,the 24-70mm spend the most time on my body :)
 
Mine's not even in the bag.

I only use it when taking photos of the daughter
 
Never bought one and have no intention of doing so. I actually use the canon 60mm macro :-)
 
I use mine a lot when I want to take advantage of the dof the aperture allows. Agree it is too long for a lot of things, especially on a crop. Sometimes I use it for street photography too. Maybe because I'm new to photography that's why I like mine.
 
Well, I'll buck the trend here and say I love mine (1.4g). It doesn't get as much use as it maybe should but I do love the results it can deliver. Have to say I like it much more on FX than DX though.
 
The least used lenses I have owned were both 50mm - the f1.8 which may be good value but just didn't feel right at all and the f1.4 which was fitted to my camera for about 3 shots then removed..!
Obviously I never gave either a chance to prove themselves but it doesn't seem to be a focal length I need - even with a 24-105 or a 24-70 I rarely use the 45-55mm focal length.
 
gad-westy said:
Well, I'll buck the trend here and say I love mine (1.4g). It doesn't get as much use as it maybe should but I do love the results it can deliver. Have to say I like it much more on FX than DX though.
Click to expand...

Same as me buuuuuuut....

Don't bother, just get the new 28mm f1.8 instead :D
 
I've got the 50mm 1.8 G lens and love it for it's low light capabilities (think no flash allowed gig photography), and I like the shallow depth of field when i'm taking portraits. I use it on DX and happy, but I got it over other primes as looking at my EXIF data I tend to shoot alot around 50mm.
 
I love the 50mm on a crop. Just got my 5dmk3 now and I'm already leaning towards the 85L. There's something about that focal length that just appeals to me. I had a day out on Saturday and deliberately used the 35L as people rave about it, but I really missed the length of the 85L. Also the Sigma 50mm 1.4 seems better on a crop body. Not sure why, but I'll be playing with that more this weekend when I've got time.

I'd definitely recommend the Sigma 50mm 1.4 on a crop body though. It's an excellent lens :)
 
Same problem...steering away from getting a prime and going for the Sony 16-50 for my new A77 and something like an 85mm for longer shots.
 
I have a 50mm f1.4 on my 5D and I actually feel guilty when I fit something else :D So much so that when I'm finished I always refit the 50mm :D

I use a 20, 25 or 55mm on my G1.

I find 85mm on FF and 55mm on G1 great for taking shots of specific "things" :D but I think that a 50mm (FF) FoV is a good general thing to have.
 
My A77 is APS-C of course so the 85 would be 127 ish. But given the sensor i could probably get away with smaller as the cropping could be used without issue. for general walkaround the 16-50 range could do it for me except for specialised shots...wildlife/macro. but i have my Tamron 90mm macro as well. Its a fun game.....
 
My 50mm got relegated when the 35mm came along (although I've had focusing problems).

The 50 I found on the crop to be a little too close (crisp though!).

However, having recently got a lens baby composer (thanks to tescos and jessops) its double is rated as 50mm... but creative ! And very crisp in the right light...

Depends whether you like primes. Might be worth borrowing one to see whether you like it before buying as you've stated you have lenses that cover that range...
 
I love my 50 1.4 g, it's never off my d300, simples :)

Clarke.
 
One of the few things I miss now I no longer have a full blown DSLR outfit is my D700 and 50mm 1.4 lens.

I loved going out for the day around cities with this combination and no other lenses - it really made me think in terms of composition and DOF. I got some much more interesting photos than those I took with zoom lenses and lenses supposedly better suited to this sort of subject
 
For a year or 2 when I started out (back in the late '70's), all I had was a 50mm. One of 3 primes that live in my bag - doesn't get used a lot but it's a great low light tool. Mines an old AF f/1.8; screw driven. Was tempted to upgrade to an af-s f/1.4 but was advised against it by the salesman.
 
I got a Canon 50 f1.8 and TBH the IQ wasn't that special even when stopped down a bit so I didn't use it very much and apart from my 100 L macro was my only prime lens for quite a time.

After a few months I had a bit of spare cash and got a Canon 85 f1.8, and compared to the IQ of the 50 it was amazing. I was so impressed I went on and got a Canon 50 f1.4 and 35 f2 and I'm also very impressed with the IQ of them. The 50 f1.4 now gets used a hell of a lot on both my 5D3 and 60D. I'm in the process of swapping my 60D for a 7D so I'll see what they're like on that.
 
I used a 50 as my only lens for many months (crop sensor) but it was always in my mind that it was too long for what I was doing. I then tried a 40 and it was much better and I am now using a 23 (not much choice with X100!) and finding it even better still.

I find that it is easier to get closer to stuff than get further away and am generally happy with the 23 from where I am standing yet with the 50 I always had to take a step or three backwards as it is not showing you what your eyes see.
 
Yes, it does seem at times that some people forget that for APS-C users 30/35mm is the new 50 and for MFT users 25mm is the new 50.
 
I love my 50, because it's a nice lightweight lens for traveling. I only use it on a 35mm film cam. it's too long for my crop DSLR for what I need.

I would prefer to go to a 28mm, or even the 40mmSTM though.

50mm is a little long for a lot of applications in my opinion and i'd like to play with something wider to see what I prefer.
 
A 50mm is perfect on FX. The 1.8G is widely regarded as one of the sharpest, yet cheapest new lenses you can get. It's too cheap not to have! I bought one recently, but like others have said, the 24-70 2.8 is just so great I don't see much need to use the 50mm. Where I do like to use it is for portraits of the kids, indoor, ambient lighting. The 1.8 aperture is great for catching as much light as you need, and blurring out distracting backdrops. You have to be critical with your focusing though.

It's a sweet lens. And of course, it weighs hardly anything, so it's also perfect to just stick on your camera, leave the rest at home, and go shoot some street.
 
how many of u lot actually used a50 on a FF sensor? i have and it has transformed this lens to be very very usable.

on a crop it it not usable but for me, i dont care, whatever lens u give me i will try and make it work.

that is what photography is about, learning how to take great shots no matter the tool you are using.

for example, i can use my 70-200 f2.8 mk2 as a landscape lens. shocking aint it. i can also use it for street shots too :) again i know and i am improving apon learning how to adjust myself and my composition rather then relying on gear.

i only have a 50mm and a 70-200 lens btw. very limited compared to many who use zooms only especially in the wide end.
 
Last edited:
Yes, agree you can use any lens for any task but you have to admit there are compromises. I never use a zoom because for some reason I just don't like them but I readily admit I miss out on a fair few shots bcause of that.
 
From my experience I believe 50mm is too wide for decent (flattering) portraits. But I do use a 50mm for reportage style shots at weddings.
 
I wasn't really a fan of the 50mm on a 1.6x crop. Found it too tight for most things and never really liked the look it produced.

I then went full frame and I fell in love, so I sold the 1.8 and bought a 1.2L!

My recommendation would be a 50mm equivalent if you're on a crop, so 28-30mm.
 
jonneymendoza said:
how many of u lot actually used a50 on a FF sensor? i have and it has transformed this lens to be very very usable.


for example, i can use my 70-200 f2.8 mk2 as a landscape lens. shocking aint it. i can also use it for street shots too :)
Click to expand...

I've used it on both DX and FX. I much prefer it on FX. Bit tight for indoors on DX I find. Good for head/upper body shots.

And no, that's not shocking in the slightest. Many photographers use a 70-200 for landscape, often have myself. I love how a tele draws in the backdrop. I'll often shoot the same scene with something wide, then 100-200mm, and it's often the longer ones I prefer when I get back to view on the monitor.
 
ryanyboy said:
From my experience I believe 50mm is too wide for decent (flattering) portraits. But I do use a 50mm for reportage style shots at weddings.
Click to expand...

Personally the tight head shot does nothing for me, I think it's been done to death, whilst 50mm (on FF) at least allows some context.
 
It's not been "done to death" for the client/subject.
 
I use my 50mm f1.8 on my crop sensor DSLR as a short ele/ portrait lens. Also I like the wide aperture and its bokeh. On my film cameras I do use my Nikkor 50mm 1.4 quite a lot when out and about and for street shots. Not everyone would like this fl but I grew up using only a 50mm! And often return to it.
 
Last edited:
I find the 50mm F1.4G very useful on a D700 (I would find it a bit long on APS-C), the lens is compact, cheap image quality is decent and combined with the D700's decent high iso performance it means it can get shots in surprisingly low light. It's a shame the 24mm F1.4G and 85mm F1.G aren't a bit cheaper to compliment it though.

John
 
JohnMcL7 said:
I find the 50mm F1.4G very useful on a D700 (I would find it a bit long on APS-C), the lens is compact, cheap image quality is decent and combined with the D700's decent high iso performance it means it can get shots in surprisingly low light. It's a shame the 24mm F1.4G and 85mm F1.G aren't a bit cheaper to compliment it though.

John
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. I also have the 1.4g and there is no lens that comes even close in price that lets in so much light. Chucked on my D700 it really is quite incredible what can be done.

For example, last night I was taking portraits of some staff in a pub, and the various flavours of ambient light (dusk, firelight and tungsten) made them all rather nice, with lovely soft backgrounds of course.

I sold my 24-70 2.8g on here with the intention of going prime-only (other than my Sigma 120-300 f2.8 for sports) and having already picked up an 85mm 1.8, with a 24mm on the way, it's not a decision I regret. 35mm to complete things sometime.

I also think the old cliche is true, using a prime forces you to move and think, and whilst there are circumstances when only something wider or longer will do, I think every tog should play with a 50mm on and FX Body for a while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top