50mm primes - convince me!

ryanyboy said:
It's not been "done to death" for the client/subject.
Click to expand...

Luckily I'm an amateur and can therefore make my own decisions :D But, I've seen too many tight head shots :help: For me some context is much better :thumbs:
 
jonneymendoza said:
how many of u lot actually used a50 on a FF sensor?
Click to expand...

I used nothing else but an FD 50mm f/1.8 on my AV-1 (manual focus Canon film body for the uninitiated) for many years. Served me very well. My only regret is that I didn't get the FD 50mm f/1.4 sooner as it's a fabulous lens - much better than the EF version (which gets used on a FF 5D) IMHO.

I was out today with a 28mm f/3.5 Olympus OM lens on my Panny G2 - 56mm equivalent on the 2x crop. Uncomplicated fun. :)
 
Last edited:
When I first started photography I bought a 50mm and banged it onto my APS-C camera. Never got on with it and thought it was of very limited use because of how 'close' it made everything.

But once I understood photography more I got myself a 35mm prime and this made things so much better. I use mine quite a bit now.

Only time I use my 50mm now is when doing portraits. I do love how sharp the primes are and how light they are to carry around.

At the price they knock these primes out at I think the question is almost why not have one?

The only thing is I didn't get on with the 50mm f1.4. I found it was too easy to mess your shot up with such a shallow DOF. Also from what I've read there seems a tiny tiny difference in IQ and IMO not worth the price difference.
 
I have the 50mm 1.4g and use it on a crop body. I get on with it fine and until I got the 17-55mm 2.8 is was barely off the camera. Only problem is getting your focus spot on but when you do it's superb.
 
if you can put up with the slow AF compared to Pro Zooms then yes they are a great lens. like everyone else has suggested they are a bit narrow on a crop sensor but about right on FF :)
 
Tirpitz said:
if you can put up with the slow AF compared to Pro Zooms then yes they are a great lens. like everyone else has suggested they are a bit narrow on a crop sensor but about right on FF :)
Click to expand...

This will differ by lens/camera wouldn't it. I have used two different 50s on Canon and Sony cameras and neither were slow, at all.
 
yeah i guess :shrug:
just going on my experience of late. when i first used a 50 f1.8D using my D200's screw drive it was every bit as fast ( if not faster) than the regular kit grade lenses i was using. same on my D2xs & D3 ( all down to the screw drive motor in the bodys) however when i treated myself to some better lenses (17-55 f/2.8, the 24-70 f/2.8 & the awesome 70-200VR2) including a couple of AFS primes (35 f/1.8 & 50 f/1.4) the primes just seemed sloooow in comparison :shrug:

this isn't something i would have noticed had i not experienced the almost instantaneous focus lock of the Pro lenses but it is certainly now (for me) a consideration when choosing which lens to use :thinking:

i guess it depends on what you have to compare to?

think about it, are the manufacturers going to put a super fast motor from their Pro grade lenses into the bargain basement primes?
not really :)
 
Tirpitz said:
think about it, are the manufacturers going to put a super fast motor from their Pro grade lenses into the bargain basement primes?
not really :)
Click to expand...

This discussion is about using a 50 prime though isn't it, some are bargain basement some are not. Saying that, I admit that I haven't compared focus speed of an expensive prime with a cheap one but there is no reason why a prime of equal quality/price would focus slower than a zoom is there?
 
I had a play with my Sigma 50mm1.4 last night on my 5dmk3 and holy crap that needed some adjusting. I had to set it to -7. I am now wondering how the 60D works as it was spot on for that in every way. Still, it's nice and accurate on the 5D now, but feels like an odd focal length to me on FF. I really prefer the length it gave on the 60D, so I suppose I'll keep it attached to that camera while using the 85L on my FF camera.

I've spent nigh on 8 years shooting mainly in 50mm on crop cameras (300D, 30D and 60D) despite always having a range of lenses. Somehow it just feels right, and matches the way I view things I suppose.

My 35L will take some getting used to. That's a massive lens on full frame. It's more like my 12-24 on the crop (obviously).
 
the 5d3 has a system that actually "knows" what lens u put on but only on canon lens not third party lens.

There was a rumour going around that the 5d3 knows the pros and cons of each lens and therefore auto micro adjusts the lens for u.

that is why sticking a nifty fifty on a 5d3 completely transforms that lens in both AF reliablity, speed and low light AF.

i see no reason to buy a 50 1.4 canon besides having a better build or more DOF. the nifty fifty slapped ona 5d3 is just a bloody joy!

As soon as i stop being soo damm lazy and stop playing computer games when i come back, i will PP the 10k shots i took on my trip to orlando/Miami
 
ernesto said:
This discussion is about using a 50 prime though isn't it, some are bargain basement some are not. Saying that, I admit that I haven't compared focus speed of an expensive prime with a cheap one but there is no reason why a prime of equal quality/price would focus slower than a zoom is there?
Click to expand...


if you say so :shrug: maybe supposing there is no reason why focus should be an different then maybe its a non issue.......

although apparently the 1.8g focuses faster than the more expensive 1.4g......


i just gave some observations based on actually using & comparing the lenses/bodies i quoted. whether or not thats exactly relevant to the OP i don't know? (although he has said he is using a D700 so.....) its certainly relevant to anyone interested in more than just the field of view. maybe we should also go into aperture blades & bokeh differences?
 
Last edited:
The nifty fifty is awesome. I gave mine to my sister but as she now has my 30D she wants to carry on using the kit lens so I've given the 50mm to my dad with the 300D. I'd recommend that lens as a first purchase over every lens out there to be honest.
 
Tirpitz said:
if you say so :shrug: maybe supposing there is no reason why focus should be an different then maybe its a non issue.......

although apparently the 1.8g focuses faster than the more expensive 1.4g......
Click to expand...

Okay, so looks like you found the italics button.

I am simply in disagreement with your statement around 'putting up with the slow AF', as I have not used a 50 prime where I would call the AF slow and really don't think it is a consideration or even a factor that sways it's use.
 
ernesto said:
Okay, so looks like you found the italics button.

I am simply in disagreement with your statement around 'putting up with the slow AF', as I have not used a 50 prime where I would call the AF slow and really don't think it is a consideration or even a factor that sways it's use.
Click to expand...

Got to admit the AF speed is probably the one thing I'd fault my 1.4g on. The 1.4 and 1.8 afd's I had were similarly afflicted. Not tried the 1.8g. The 1.4g is very accurate and doesn't hunt but it is undeniably slow going from limit to limit. This is particularly evident when compared to some of nikons 2.8 zooms that focus so quickly that it's barely perceptible.
 
i think we have been spoiled by the AF on our fast zooms :thumbs:

i couldn't believe i was the only one :bonk:

i did a quick google search using the term "50mm prime slow focus" & it returned pages of similar experiences. a quick read of them showed it was the same across most brands :shrug:

there is a comparison between focus speeds on one of the posts in this thread on DPR - http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&message=42176272&changemode=1
 
Tirpitz said:
i think we have been spoiled by the AF on our fast zooms :thumbs:

i couldn't believe i was the only one :bonk:

i did a quick google search using the term "50mm prime slow focus" & it returned pages of similar experiences. a quick read of them showed it was the same across most brands :shrug:

there is a comparison between focus speeds on one of the posts in this thread on DPR - http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&message=42176272&changemode=1
Click to expand...

Yes, you have definitely been spoilt as the 50s I have used seemed anything but slow (all relative) and definitely not in the category of feeling I was putting up with anything.

I like the scientific comparison you linked - slow, fast and very fast :)
 
well its just that persons opinion, as are most posts on forums :)

they do vary & there's not necessarily a right or wrong, although i'm pleased that there are others who share my findings :thumbs:

i guess its all subjective & wholly dependant on what you're used to :)
 
Agree and it is definitely a relative thing. I am used to crap lenses so they seem great to me :)
 
sometimes its nice to slow down & as long as its not a fast moving subject it will often yield a better shot :thumbs:

my old Leica feels slower than a week in hospital but when you get it right its good :love:
 
As you find this focal length a bit boring why not try to get a 50mm with f1.2 aperture? The 50mm is probably the cheapest way of getting this much light and it can come in handy in many situations. The only other alternatives available (35mm and 85mm) are much more expensive. I have used Olympus 55mm f1.2 on my canon and found it rather interesting. Not sure which mount lenses can be adapted to Nikon full frame cameras. Pentax, Oly nad Contax used to make some lovely f1.2s. So did (and does) Canon but they can not be adapted. There are some alternative in M42 as well.
 
i have a buddy who now pretty much only uses the Canon 50mm f/1.2 on his wedding shoots now & he loves it now he has gotten used to its quirks.
apparently its only sharp in the centre so he has to crop heavily to get the framing he wants during PP :thumbs:
 
Tirpitz said:
i have a buddy who now pretty much only uses the Canon 50mm f/1.2 on his wedding shoots now & he loves it now he has gotten used to its quirks.
apparently its only sharp in the centre so he has to crop heavily to get the framing he wants during PP :thumbs:
Click to expand...

That seems like a VERY odd thing to do. Surely it'd make more sense having a lens that works how you expect it to get the full shot in the frame, and keep it. I find that absolutely mind boggling.
 
Agree it does sound odd and the photos would mostly be constrained by choice of that lens. However, if he shows his works to new clients and then like it then that is good enough isn't it?
 
I went in and tried a 1.4G on a D800 (as it's a similar size to my D700) in the local camera shop yesterday and it seemed a very nice lens, very quiet and pretty quick to focus. Unfortunately they are nearly £40 more than the cheapest bricks and mortar shop on camerapricebuster, and wouldn't price match anyone outside the local area. However they are the only camera shop in the area :cuckoo: so they lost the sale.
 
ernesto said:
Agree it does sound odd and the photos would mostly be constrained by choice of that lens. However, if he shows his works to new clients and then like it then that is good enough isn't it?
Click to expand...

Well I suppose if you're cropping heavily it could be like having the view of an 85mm or so, without having to stand as far away. Basically he's cheating (to give the benefit of the doubt :p)
 
I had a 17-50mm plugged into my d300 constantly. 50mm zoom indoors was too tight like people have said. My friend has a 50mm prime on his d3s and its better. its not as tight compared to a crop sensor... you could always rent/borrow it off a friend for a weekend and find out if it works for your style of shooting instead of splashing out and being disappointed afterwards or keeping it redundant in your bag :)
 
I honestly never understand why people say the 50mm is too tight indoors, especially when referring to full frame cameras. I've been using a 50mm on 3 different crop cameras for 7+ years now and it's never been too tight. I suppose some people could have tiny rooms, but it's never been even close to being a problem for me. I can only think of one occasion when I couldn't get a shot and that was in a tiny kitchen that was only about 10ft by 4ft. On FF, even at those sizes I'd have gotten the shot.

It all depends on what shot you're going for, but if it's a full body shot, then yes, you'd have an issue on occasions possibly. I think people really should explain why they think it's the wrong focal length when they say it's too long, and what they try to get from a photo as that would be of more help to others I'd have thought :)
 
I assume when people say it's too long for general use, that's all they mean and there isn't really much more to it. I don't shoot anything in particular with the 50mm so I find it's a good balance between not too wide and not too long, as an extreme example I could just squeeze a full Christmas tree into the picture which I couldn't have done with the same lens on crop. When I previously used a 50mm on 4/3 (which was 100mm equiv, a bit longer than APS-C) I found I couldn't really use it for general shooting indoors as it was just too narrow instead I had to take specific subject shots. If you are shooting something specific in a room then I can see 85mm equivalent may be fine but even in a reasonably sized room, 85mm is pretty tight on what you can shoot.

John
 
Last edited:
I think that 50 or 35 is really a matter of preference for all the reasons discussed. I prefer the extra width a 35 gives me to get in a bit closer but if only a 50 existed I would adapt
 
Bluesmachine said:
I honestly never understand why people say the 50mm is too tight indoors, especially when referring to full frame cameras.
Click to expand...

On full frame it is okay, on crop it is too tight for my tiny cottage. None of my rooms are larger than 10 foot square!
I also find it awkward outside and I have found a 35 to be the perfect length for me as it more closely matches what my head thinks a shot will look like.
With a 50 on crop it doesn't and I always have to move backwards until I run out of space.
 
viewfromthenorth said:
I went in and tried a 1.4G on a D800 (as it's a similar size to my D700) in the local camera shop yesterday and it seemed a very nice lens, very quiet and pretty quick to focus. Unfortunately they are nearly £40 more than the cheapest bricks and mortar shop on camerapricebuster, and wouldn't price match anyone outside the local area. However they are the only camera shop in the area :cuckoo: so they lost the sale.
Click to expand...

I've also tried the 1.4G and the 1.8G turned out to give better results wide open, including upto around F4. Due to that, I saved myself over 100 quid and went with the later :p
 
A little bit of a dig up, but thought i'd share my recent purchase of a canon 28mm 2.8.

as per my previous post, my 50mm seemed a little 'long' for most day to day shooting on my 35mm SLR,

28mm seems much more 'usable' as a day to day lens on FF, and a travel lens. I am one who defiantly prefers the wider lens over the 'standard'
 
I don't use my 50 1.4 much, as it's easy to just leave a zoom lens on camera.
But when I do make the effort to use it, I'm glad I did.
Great quality, and I like small DOF.
 
Anyone have experience of the nikon 50mm 1.8g and 1.4g? I'll be getting one of these but I'm not sure which one as of yet. I'd like to know how the 1.4g performs wide open? I've read reports of it being 'soft' while the 1.8g is supposedly better at the bigger apertures?! Although Photozone do give the 1.4g 4 stars and the 1.8g 3 and a half stars.
If anyone has the 50mm 1.4g I'd like to know if it is soft at 1.4? Or are we talking about serious pixel peeping to notice this 'softness'?

Thanks
 
I've had the 1.8 and the 1.4


My advice would be buy the 1.8 and spend the money you save on a weekend away to use it

I'm sure others will disagree but I couldn't see any difference between them wide open

The Focused area is so thin at 1.4 it's easy to end up with a duff shot
 
I have a EF 50mm f/1.4. Its great for indoors, and low light. Nice and light so little impact if its in your bag. I don't use it every day, but I wouldn't be without it.
 
wack61 said:
I've had the 1.8 and the 1.4


My advice would be buy the 1.8 and spend the money you save on a weekend away to use it

I'm sure others will disagree but I couldn't see any difference between them wide open

The Focused area is so thin at 1.4 it's easy to end up with a duff shot
Click to expand...

:plusone:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top