Beginner Do I really Need a 50mm prime???

teddyt

teddyt

Suspended / Banned
Messages
126
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
Yes
OK Here's a really Stupid Question. I am very new to proper(Manual)Dslr photography 'n' stuff.
I have just upgraded from a nikon d3000 to a nikon d5100 with the kit lens and a nikon 200mm zoom.

so here's my question... do i need to buy a prime 50mm lens or can i set my kit lens to 50mm and get the same results??

I dont think I can , but would like to know why not please
 
50mm prime lenses are popular because they're cheap and sharp - and like all good primes they run to very low f/numbers like f/1.4. No zoom can match that - for low light working and shallow depth of field effects. 50mm is a handy focal length on full-frame, but on APS-C it acts like a mild telephoto - popular for portraits, but not a lot else.
 
teddyt said:
OK Here's a really Stupid Question. I am very new to proper(Manual)Dslr photography 'n' stuff.
I have just upgraded from a nikon d3000 to a nikon d5100 with the kit lens and a nikon 200mm zoom.

so here's my question... do i need to buy a prime 50mm lens or can i set my kit lens to 50mm and get the same results??

I dont think I can , but would like to know why not please
Click to expand...

Welcome, and once you've got the basics of exposure shooting in Manual you can switch to AP and work faster - but that's another story lol

The main benefits of a prime are the far faster wide aperture, typically f1.8 if you stay cheap, and hence you can shoot in lower light than otherwise; you can also be more creative in using a shallow Depth of Field to place emphasis on your subject allowing distracting foregrounds & backgrounds to slip increasingly out of focus; and they are also light to carry

I'm a great fan of primes even though I've used zooms for most of the last 30 years, I've now ditched all but one in favour of fast (relatively cheap) primes all of which are the f1.8 variants

The 50mm is a favourite of many as it gives a field of view similar to what the human eye sees, but you're on a crop sensor body so to get that field of view you need a 35mm lens instead; and it just so happens that Nikon make an AWESOME 35mm f1.8, which is only about £140 ish new

So while you don't 'need' a 50mm or the same DX field of view in a 35mm I'd strongly suggest you get one and be more creative; and if it doesn't suit your style then they sell on easily enough without losing much money :)

Enjoy

Dave
 
A 50mm lens does not give a similar field of view to the human eye, not on any camera - nowhere near.

What it can do, on full-frame cameras in some situations, is deliver natural-looking perspective - because of the distance they're often used at.
 
HoppyUK said:
A 50mm lens does not give a similar field of view to the human eye, not on any camera - nowhere near.

What it can do, on full-frame cameras in some situations, is deliver natural-looking perspective - because of the distance they're often used at.
Click to expand...

I typed too fast without brain in gear, of course its perspective I meant - DOH

Thanks Hoppy :)

Dave
 
You'll know what lens you need to get next when you often find yourself right up against one of the limits of your kit lens and you want to go further. It could be that you'll find you need a shorter focal length, or a longer focal length, or a wider aperture. Until you've found yourself hitting up against one of the limits of the lens you have, you don't need another one. Until you know which limit your own personal preferences first lead you up against you shouldn't buy another lens, because you might buy what turns out to be the wrong one.

Most people with a crop sensor camera like yours who buy a fast 50mm lens on the advice of others discover later that they should have bought a shorter focal length. I did that. I've now got several wide aperture primes, and my 50mm is the least used of all of them. There's nothing it does for me that a longer or shorter lens doesn't do better. But your experience may differ. Let your camera and developing photographic interests tell you the answer, not us armchair pundits.
 
I am in the minority I don't like 50mm's and I have owned a ton of them. Learned my lesson at last though and won't be buying another. At one point or another I have owned pretty much every option available for Nikon and was never really happy with any of them. 50mm for me on full frame anyway is a bit of a meh focal length that I don't need as it's neither wide or long enough.If I still had a crop sensor camera would probably want one for portraits as 85mm is a bit long.
 
Last edited:
teddyt said:
so here's my question... do i need to buy a prime 50mm lens or can i set my kit lens to 50mm and get the same results??
Click to expand...

Yes you'll get the same results field of view wise from your kit lens but it wont match the aperture and maybe / maybe not the quality. Oher than that I think you'd be better off with a prime somewhere between 28-35mm lens on APS-C.
 
f/2.8 said:
I am in the minority I don't like 50mm's and I have owned a ton of them. Learned my lesson at last though and won't be buying another. At one point or another I have owned pretty much every option available for Nikon and was never really happy with any of them. 50mm for me on full frame anyway is a bit of a meh focal length that I don't need as it's neither wide or long enough.If I still had a crop sensor camera would probably want one for portraits as 85mm is a bit long.
Click to expand...
Same but different.
I could live with just a 50mm for lots of the time - I did for a couple of years with my firstl SLR and then with my first MF camera with just a std prime.

But 50mm on a crop is meh, too long for general use and not long enough for an attractive portrait.

I had a 50mm for Canon film cameras and probably shot about 100 images with it in the 12 years I shot crop DSLR, since going FF I have bought a new one.
 
Just a thought take out your kit lens and set it to 50mm, and leave it there for a day, it will give you a idea whether you could live it or not, then if you think you'll be ok with it, factor in low light capabilites, i bought a 35mm prime, and it hardly came of my camera.
 
My 50mm (AFS 1.4) is the lens I have owned the longest time and would never be without it. Very roughly that would be a 35mm on a DX sensor (I shoot FF). Cheap, light, great IQ (unless your talking about pro glass a prime will always be better IQ and sharper than a zoom) and you get to shoot at and around f1.4-f3.2 that you can't normally with kit lenses.
 
I'll 2nd Phil's comments. 50mm is the 'normal' angle of view lens on a 35mm or full frame digital camera.
Approximately the length of the diagonal across the frame.. if you do the Pythagorean squaw on the hippopotamus is equal to the saws on the other two hides, for the 24x36mm frame size of a 35mm neg, it actually works out at 43&1/4mm.. hence the anomaly of the Helios 44, that was a 'standard angle' lens for a 35mm camera at 58mm focal length ?!?!?!
On a crop sensor DSLR the 'standard angle of view' lens length is closer to 35mm ... do the hipopotomus hides again, though, for Nikon APS-C sensor at 16x24mm and it should be 28.8mm.

A lot of 'academic' exercises offered in the books back in the film-only era, were based around the 50mm lens, as that was what came as standard with most entry level 35mm SLR's, and like modern 'standard' 18-55 ish kit zooms these days, they were often pretty cracking bits of kit for the money... effectively 'free'! so the accademic excersises were based around them to teach photography and how to get the most from the equipment you most likely already had, and gaining know-how rather than gadgets.

Carried over into the Digital era, a lot of the legacy of the 50 on film has come through, omitting the 'crop factor', that 'really' a lot of the academic exercises suggested should be translated to crop-sensor digital at around 30mm rather than 50mm; whilst in the film only era 50's were the 'standard' lens you got with the camera 'for free', and were often the first one to be ditched in favor of telephoto's or wide angles or zooms. They were, then, frequently to be found very cheaply in the 2nd hand shops, or simply given away! I had about three, now quite sought after, OM-fit Zuico 50's 'back in the day' including the rare f1.4 version! that came as standard with my OM4, that I DID just give away, as I NEVER used them. by the time digital came along, zooms were an accepted standard, and there weren't many 'prime' lenses on offer for them; But there were plenty of old manual focus and a couple of potentially compatible with AF Digital, auto-focus 50's knocking about from the film era, often at incredibly depressed prices, giving rise to the vogue for folk to ignore the crop factor on digital anomoly and step into the arena of prime lens photography with them... which is what prompted Nikon to actually offer the AF-S 35 f1.8, that gives 'close' to that standard angle on a crop sensor DSLR, and will Auto-focus on entry level focus 'lens motor only' cameras.

Which is all background to the answer; which is basically as has been said; NO you don't 'need' a 50. Suggestion, IF you want to delve into this world of prime lens photography, where much faster apertures to allow much shallower Depth of Focus effects, and or low light situations to be exploited; and you have to apply that much more thought and attention to framing and composition, without a zoom suggesting you can frame from wherever you happen to be standing, and engage in some of the more traditional academic exercises and learn the 'diligence and discipline' of working with more limited equipment they were trying to teach, then, yeah... a 50 might be 'useful', but on a crop sensor camera, a 30 or 35 (probably the Nikon AF-S f1.8 35) may be the more appropriate.

Having said I gave away my OM 50's back in the day from lack of use; that was because whilst I was doing my C&G photography, I got into 'primes' in M42 screw fit on a rather nice Ricoch 'copy' sigma MK1 with a Ziess 50, and a number of 'charity shop' special roll film cameras we were encouraged to go find and mess with! However, my daughter doing O & A Level photography, 'stole' my DSLR, and after some rather heart atack enducing experiments with water filled baloons and then waterfalls in the bath!!!!! I bought her her own DSLR body, and as she was starting to run into the buffers of what she was trying to do with my 18-55, I paired it with a Nikon AF-S 35, for her to get started with, and do her accademic exercises; later I got her the Nikon AF-S 50, to go with it, when she was starting to do portraiture in the studio, again for accademic exercises.So, either or both 50 or 35 primes can be very very useful, IF that's what you are trying to do, or the way you are thinking of heading; BUT, neither are lenses I would put on as a general walkabout instead of the 18-55!
 
Some really good posts on here. I'll just chuck in one comment from my own experience when I think I was at about the same stage in photography. Buying a 1.8 prime did open up a whole new world in terms of low light and shallow depth of field stuff. I went for a 35mm at the time as Nikon's AFS 50mm wasn't out then but the principal was the same. Suddenly I could shoot indoors with decent shutter speeds and could achieve nice subject isolation without having to use a a long lens. 50mm would have achieved more subject isolation but maybe slightly inflexible but it's easy enough to have a play with a kit lens and see what works best.

Anyway, my point is, no you don't need a 50mm 1.8 but for not much more than £100, it might be a lot of fun to try one.
 
You don't really need any lens, but 50mm is cheap enough to justify giving it a shot.

However, if you have a crop sensor rather go with a 30mm or 35mm..
 
Phil V said:
I could live with just a 50mm for lots of the time
Click to expand...

I'm finding that my most commonly used lens at Weddings is my 35mm (so about the 50mm equivalent), and a photographer who's work I really like to follow uses his 50mm for almost the entire Wedding and at every Wedding - a little known chap called Brett Harkness :)

Dave
 
Love my 50mm 1.8:)
 
Hmm. I have about 14...
Favourites are the Carl Zeiss Planar 1.7 and the Helios.
 
DG Phototraining said:
I'm finding that my most commonly used lens at Weddings is my 35mm (so about the 50mm equivalent), and a photographer who's work I really like to follow uses his 50mm for almost the entire Wedding and at every Wedding - a little known chap called Brett Harkness :)

Dave
Click to expand...
I'm currently favouring the 35 and 135 combo on FF.

I'm sure Brett will catch up soon. ;)
 
I'm old enough to remember when the 'kit' lens supplied with a new camera (film) was a 50mm prime. It was a great servant to my learning process forcing me to move around to look for a 'picture' rather than framing with a zoom. Most of those primes were pretty fast so one also learnt to use the aperture to vary the d.o.f. and by default of course the relationship between shutter speed aperture and ASA.
If I were teaching photography I would certainly recommend a prime lens as an essential piece of kit to master the basics.
I still go out on a shoot occasionally with just one prime lens, a 35mm on a full frame camera these days, and have great fun. As the day progresses I'm 'seeing' the picture using that focal length and have bagged some very satisfying shots.
 
Teflon-Mike said:
Approximately the length of the diagonal across the frame.. if you do the Pythagorean squaw on the hippopotamus is equal to the saws on the other two hides, for the 24x36mm frame size of a 35mm neg, it actually works out at 43&1/4mm.. hence the anomaly of the Helios 44, that was a 'standard angle' lens for a 35mm camera at 58mm focal length ?!?!?!
On a crop sensor DSLR the 'standard angle of view' lens length is closer to 35mm ... do the hipopotomus hides again, though, for Nikon APS-C sensor at 16x24mm and it should be 28.8mm.
Click to expand...

You forget that Pentax produce a 43 mm lens, the glorious FA43 f1.9 Limited, works extremely well on my Z-1p as a walkaround lens and a short telephoto walkaround on my K-5/K-3. They have not produced an equivalent DA Ltd for APS-C but the closest is the wonderful FA31 f1.8 Limited, which like all FA lenses predate digital.

Your 200 mm zoom lens Teddy - is that not a 55-200? Wouldn't that be f4 at 55mm?, a full stop quicker than the 18-55. Still 2-2.5 stops slower than a 50mm prime, but for the price of an AF-S 50mm f1.8 it's a good way to slow you down and think about framing a little bit more..
 
As others have pointed out, you don't need a 50mm lens. I have a Canon 70D (APS-C) and bought a 50mm on a whim (think it was £50 for second hand or something). It's great for low level where my kit lens struggles indoors in the evenings with ISO hitting 8000+. I think my kit lens does f/4.5 at 50mm so having f/1.8 or f/2 means I can use a lower ISO. It's great for learning about framing and composition, especially once you get over shooting everything at f/1.8 for that bokeh. And it will keep me going until I can afford that 17-55mm f/2.8.
 
Many many thanks to you all , for taking the time to reply.
I think i will keep my eye out for a cheaper used 50mm and 35mm
 
I haven't owned a 50mm in about 2 decades. I only own 4 prime lenses and they are all "specialty tools" that serve one primary purpose.

IMO, here's the problem with "normal lenses".... they lead to "normal" images, and that's very often "boring." What you really want to do is see/find the image first (composition/perspective/etc) and then choose the FL that captures it... not that it is always possible to do that.
 
sk66 said:
I haven't owned a 50mm in about 2 decades. I only own 4 prime lenses and they are all "specialty tools" that serve one primary purpose.

IMO, here's the problem with "normal lenses".... they lead to "normal" images, and that's very often "boring." What you really want to do is see/find the image first (composition/perspective/etc) and then choose the FL that captures it... not that it is always possible to do that.
Click to expand...

I agree. Using a prime forces you to shoot from a certain distance to get the right framing, so you never get to explore the perspective effects of shooting at different distances, as you can with a zoom. Perspective is a fundamental of composition.

I only ever use primes for one thing these days - shallow depth-of-field effects at lower f/numbers than my zooms can muster.
 
HoppyUK said:
A 50mm lens does not give a similar field of view to the human eye, not on any camera - nowhere near.

What it can do, on full-frame cameras in some situations, is deliver natural-looking perspective - because of the distance they're often used at.
Click to expand...

We could debate that... Humans have three (horizontal) fields of view that can be discerned... total FOV including total periphery vision around 180*, a **primary FOV (distinct binocular vision/macular vision) of ~ 45*, and a focused FOV of only a couple degrees. Consider the primary/binocular/macular FOV of ~ 45*...

All "normal lenses" record a FOV of ~ 45* regardless of format. A "normal lens" is *also* defined as a lens w/ a focal length equal to the sensor/film diagonal, but I'm not sure which came first... I suspect FOV as the distinction is towards "normal" perception. That and a "normal lens" is generally actually just "close enough" to the diagonal (FF 43mm, APS 30mm).
You can farther correlate that to the COC standard which is based upon a displayed image occupying the same ~ 45* FOV (distance equal to diagonal)...

All of this equates to "normal perception." Normal/natural perspective is a bit more difficult because the human brain tends to put ***known objects into the perspective of ~12ft, kind of like how it fixes white balance/color.... When you look at your wife sitting next to you her nose doesn't seem extraordinarily large, but it would if you photographed it from that distance. That's what creates "unnatural looking perspective"... recording "reality" vs what our brain interprets.


** Macular vision is ~ 36*, Binocular vision ~ 60*... "distinct" binocular vision is much closer to macular.
*** "Known" isn't literal... it can be known by association/correlation.
****You can train yourself to see "reality" (WB/Perspective/etc), but it's actually harder than one might think... and not always pleasant.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
I haven't owned a 50mm in about 2 decades. I only own 4 prime lenses and they are all "specialty tools" that serve one primary purpose.

IMO, here's the problem with "normal lenses".... they lead to "normal" images, and that's very often "boring." .
Click to expand...
Sorry Steven I've got to disagree with you here. Zoom and prime have no influence on a resultant boring image or otherwise, although in my experience a fixed focal length will challenge the keenest of photographers to achieve something from very limited resources. Equipment will always play second fiddle to the photographers eye.
 
HoppyUK said:
I only ever use primes for one thing these days - shallow depth-of-field effects at lower f/numbers than my zooms can muster.
Click to expand...
My primes all have different purposes...
24mm PC-E (w-w/o TC's) for perspective/focal plane manipulation.
85/1.4 for shallow DOF portraits/crap light... my least used lens (and it's a Zeiss!).
150/2.8 Macro for detail/macro.
400/2.8 (w-w/o TC's), it's my long lens.
 
sk66 said:
We could debate that... Humans have three (horizontal) fields of view that can be discerned... total FOV including total periphery vision around 180*, a **primary FOV (distinct binocular vision/macular vision) of ~ 45*, and a focused FOV of only a couple degrees. Consider the primary/binocular/macular FOV of ~ 45*...

All "normal lenses" record a FOV of ~ 45* regardless of format. A "normal lens" is *also* defined as a lens w/ a focal length equal to the sensor/film diagonal, but I'm not sure which came first... I suspect FOV as the distinction is towards "normal" perception. That and a "normal lens" is generally actually just "close enough" to the diagonal (FF 43mm, APS 30mm).
You can farther correlate that to the COC standard which is based upon a displayed image occupying the same ~ 45* FOV (distance equal to diagonal)...

All of this equates to "normal perception." Normal/natural perspective is a bit more difficult because the human brain tends to put ***known objects into the perspective of ~12ft, kind of like how it fixes white balance/color.... When you look at your wife sitting next to you her nose doesn't seem extraordinarily large, but it would if you photographed it from that distance. That's what creates "unnatural looking perspective"... recording "reality" vs what our brain interprets.


** Macular vision is ~ 36*, Binocular vision ~ 60*... "distinct" binocular vision is much closer to macular.
*** "Known" isn't literal... it can be known by association/correlation.
****You can train yourself to see "reality" (WB/Perspective/etc), but it's actually harder than one might think... and not always pleasant.
Click to expand...

The whole subject of how our visual system compares to a camera is very interesting, but it's difficult to put hard numbers on the central field of view. How do you define it? It's not as simple as the area of the macula (The macula corresponds to the central 17 degrees diameter of the visual field - Wikipedia). Or is it the field of view scanned by our eyes before we move our heads? Or the most colour sensitive zone?

The field of view used in the calculation of viewing distance for depth-of-field purposes is 50 degrees, and I think that's a decent rule of thumb. Or at least, it's easy to check* and it seems to work for me :) 50 degrees equates to a 39mm lens on full-frame format; a 50mm lens has a 40 degrees field of view horizontally, side to side. (Lens manufacturers always quote field of view across the diagonal, corner to corner, which is a bit wider.)

*Take a 10in wide print and hold it at the most comfortable distance for good viewing. Research shows most people will hold a print in this way at roughly 12in distance, which is also about the length of the diagonal dimension, covering a 50 degrees-ish field of view. And at that distance, the smallest detail we can discern is said to be 0.2mm wide. This is the base figure used to drive all depth-of-field calculations.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
The whole subject of how our visual system compares to a camera is very interesting,
Click to expand...
I do find it interesting... I used to teach the visual system/vision...

The definition of visual FOV is w/o scanning or moving the head.... i.e. peripheral vision is measured by when motion can be detected/seen to the side while looking straight ahead.

I haven't checked, but I'd guess 50* diagonal is close to 45* wide in 4:5 aspect. There are a lot of numbers with some variety; my reference for macular/color vision has 18* (I messed up and added two eyes together). And none of the "rules" are exact anyway... humans/perceptions vary quite a bit.

But consider "why" most will hold an 8x10 print ~ 12" away.... the only possible answer is that 12" is where it is "comfortable," which must mean it fits w/in the "appropriate" FOV for viewing the entire image "normally", which must equate to the "primary FOV" which we normally use to view a scene (at least roughly). Therefore, "normal FOV" for a human viewing a scene must be ~ 45*/50*dia. (diagonal is used because it accounts for total/circular FOV for any aspect ratio/orientation).

Like most inventions/discoveries, I believe that the "definition of normal" (angle = to diagonal) was determined by working backwards from observation/accident... (i.e. 35mm sensor/film diagonal is 43mm and 43mm lens has 53*dia FOV, 50mm lens has 47*dia...close enough for "average/comfortable." 6x7 = 88mm/53*dia.).
 
Last edited:
I found the 50mm on a crop camera was too long but its down to what shots you are using it for.

50mm on a FF seemed much better, handy for when you don't want the weight of a zoom lens but you can move your feet to get the right shot.

I have always had one in the bag for a crop and always ended up flogging it due to no use.
 
I recently purchased a 50mm prime and I think it's excellent indoors with low light conditions
 
I used to think the 50mm on full frame was the bees knees, untill I got the 35mm and 85mm. The 50mm hardly comes out now. Whether it's just new toy acquisition who knows.

Do you need one, no more than likely is the answer, but as has been said do we need most of our kit as hobbyists.

If you can afford it and have an itch to try it then go for it.
 
Like you when I first started out (APSc) I bought a cheap 50mm, because everything I read said "every photographer should have one". After a couple of weeks of shooting everything at f/1.8 and drooling over the shallow DOF the novelty wore off and I found that most of the time I was reverting back to the kit 18-55 because in most situations 50mm was too long (80mm effective FOV on Canon). On a number of occasions I thought about selling it, but given the low low value, I thought I'd keep it and it collected dust in a drawer until I wanted a cheap camera for my son (he ended up with my old 350d and 50mm). Anyway back to my point and today, I have recently attached it to the front of my 5D3 (FF) and actually I'm starting to enjoy it. The fixed focal length means that I'm not messing about tweaking the zoom trying to find that perfect crop. Im enjoying it so much that I am planning on trying it as a general purpose walkabout lens. I may even add a 35mm prime too.

Back to the question "do you need one", only you will know. Is it worth having a low cost prime in the bag, I would say yes, due to the low light benefit and sharpness. As to focal length on APSc I would say that 35mm might be better. Try both lengths on your kit lens and see what you think.
 
I've had a few 50mm lenses, 3 of them on crop sensor cameras and have liked them alot. You can learn a lot when using them, when you can't just zoom the lens, you start to move yourself to get a better angle/perspective, it can help learn more about composition, particularly with depth of field.
I still have a 50mm and now it's on a full frame camera it's even better, but I haven't yet tried a modern 35mm prime properly yet.

I'd echo what others have said that one deciding factor regarding a purchase decision should be "am I limited by my current lens/kit?"

If you'd like better low light capability but you still want to be able to zoom, then you could upgrade your 18-55 kit lens to something like the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 or the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. Either of these will give you better low light capability with a constant f2.8 through the zoom range and will give you the ability to get a shallow depth of field too. Both of these also come in variants with stabilisation (OS on Sigma/VC on Tamron) which can also help with hand holding in low light. But these lenses will cost anything between £150 (for the older non stabilised versions) - £300+ (for the newer stabilised ones).

Another option, since you're on a crop sensor is the Sigma 30mm f1.4. It's a good low light performer, the previous EX DC HSM version can be had for £150 ish, and the new "Art" version is currently £299 (on Wex). The 30mm focal length was chose by Sigma specifically to give a "normal" view on crop sensors.
The disadvantage of this lens is that it won't work on full frame if you upgrade at a later stage.

Both Sigma and Tamron produce very good 35mm lenses (Sigma 35 f1.4 Art and Tamron 35 f1.8 VC) but they are £5-600.
 
I couldn't say if i need mine or not. But it's there if do. It's fairly inexpensive (£45 second hand from @HoppyUK) so for me it was a bit of a no brainer. I use it in conjunction with my other lens.
 
Did you go for a 50mm in the end? Reckon a reasonably priced 50mm is a nice item to have and would make sense as a next addition / upgrade to your kit. In a similar position bought a cheap canon 50mm for my setup and was pleased with the results, ideal for shallow DoF portraits as others have mentioned as well as numerous other uses.
 
kingo15 said:
I used to think the 50mm on full frame was the bees knees, untill I got the 35mm and 85mm. The 50mm hardly comes out now. Whether it's just new toy acquisition who knows.

Do you need one, no more than likely is the answer, but as has been said do we need most of our kit as hobbyists.

If you can afford it and have an itch to try it then go for it.
Click to expand...


I was exactly the same, but then the 35 and 85s I bought were of a higher quality than my 50 which was just the little 1.8D. So was always drawn to them to give me better results.

Just this week I've been messing around with it on my D3 and I think I've fallen in love with it again a little bit. I've been used to heavy lenses, so putting the 50 on almost feels like I'm using a lighter camera again :lol: I'm going to use it for a trip to the animal farm with my daughter on Sunday :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top