What is the point of the 50mm "nifty fifty" prime lens?

Rooster

Rooster

Suspended / Banned
Messages
685
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
I got this lens because everyone raved about it and it was cheap. Trouble is, I never use it. I've tried using it as a walkaround lens and, while I appreciate its small size and lightness, I found a fixed focal length annoying to use, having to constantly shuffle about to get the right composition. I soon missed my big, heavy 24-105mm L lens. f/1.8 aperture? I never use it. I've tried taking pictures of stuff for ebay at 1.8 but the depth of field is so extremely shallow that one bit of the item is in focus and the rest hopelessly blurred. I've heard tell that it is often used as a portrait lens but I don't do portrait work. So, while it's a nice sharp lens if you're on a budget, I can't see much point in it if you have L class glass or equivalent. What do you use it for?
 
i only got mine a week ago, but really can't see the point in it for what i shoot, maybe i could use it as a water bowl for the cat (with the hood on)
 
Rooster said:
I got this lens because everyone raved about it and it was cheap. Trouble is, I never use it.
Click to expand...

I've been saying that exact same thing for years - people buy it because it sounds cheap and you can get nice shots from it, but they soon discover that it's not the most practical focal length (on a cropped sensor) and it never gets used. I found the 30mm Sigma (and the 35mm Nikon in my case) to be more user-friendly, giving as they do nearer a"true" 50mm fov than a 50mm on a cropped sensor, which is nearer ( I know it's now exactly) that of an 85mm on FF.
 
Its a good cheap lens that has been developed over many years and gives very good optics at a very low price.
"I found a fixed focal length annoying to use, having to constantly shuffle about to get the right composition" made me laugh, all part of taking good photos IMHO.

Lots buy it because of the price, it can produce very sharp images for very little money.
Dont you ever shoot family members ???
 
It is my least used lens, but like anything I buy it has its place for working in low light.
If I never used the 50mm length and did not need the f/1.8 for the very bad light days I would not have bought it. I may possibly sell it at some point if I find I am using it a lot more to change to the f/1.4 but at the moment it has its place.
 
I would say most people choose which lens to buy based on their requirements and understanding of what a certain lens is designed for.

If you already knew that most of the things this lens does well are of no use to you, why buy it in the first place? :shrug:
 
Photographers are getting lazy, some of the greatest photographers just used the 50mm and a leica. Take Cartier-Bresson for example, incredible photos!
 
When I first bought my fifty I used it quite a bit, mostly in clubs or parties. Now I only seem to use it for passport photos, sometimes.
I really should use it more often because it's a cracking little lens but then zooms are just so much more practicle.
 
It's a great lens for low light use. 50mm f1.4 at f1.8-2.2 is fantastic for indoor portraits. Bokeh is extremely pleasant. Slightly long on DX, but great on FX. I've used it on both FX and DX and gotten some of my best people shots with it.
 
50mm is a great focal length for full frame as a walkabout 'as the eye sees' lens, and a great cheap portrait lens for crop. its generally much much sharper than anything up to 3 or 4 times its price range and very cheap. take a shot at 50mm with a typical consumer zoom lens and at the same apeture it'd be sharper with a 50mm f1.8 prime

i found this was even the case with my old 17-55 f2.8 nikon compared to a 50mm f1.8. obviously the zoom is more convienient, but sometimes the restrictive nature or primes are a good thing for your photography, it gets you thinking more


if you cant see the point in the fixed focal length or the wide apeture then why get it in the first place?
 
I had one, worked for me a while, got more glass... stopped using it, if I thought I would need a lens for working in low light with no flash sometime soon I would have kept it. I do mostly portraits, but I found I still never used it, bit short for me even on a crop sensor. I will maybe end up getting a sigma 50mm 1.4 down the line when I need something versatile for low light, until then I would have no real use.

Like someone said before, why buy it if you don't need it or have use for it... waste of money.
 
do yourself a favour... sell it, sell it to someone who knows WHY it is on the planet and can maybe enjoy using it. get yourself an 18-300 zoom
 
If I plant to take 'good' pics I will always use my 50mm 1.4 (used to have a 1.8). I find the 50mm fine on a crop body for what I do.

If I didnt do portraits I probably wouldnt have one though.
 
It's a really good quality lens at an even better price. The aperture speed is something you're not going to see on the zoom lenses, it's great in low light situations and if you are creative then using the shallow depth of field can help create some real stunning images. It's great for portraits on a cropped sensor, maybe not so much on a full frame.

I used to have the 50mm 1.4 and it was brilliant on my D40 and D90. I wouldn't have sold it if I didn't upgrade to the 24-70 2.8!
 
It is a great lens, excellent IQ for the money and as versatile as you want it to be really.
I have used mine quite a bit, it had the largest aperture of all my lenses so came in useful on occasion, however I never used it below f/2.8.
I am now looking to get a 17-50 f/2.8 to replace the 24-105 I would think it'll be pretty redundant. I'll probably sell it and stick the money back in the 'glass fund'.
 
The thing about the 50mm lens is that back in film days it was the standard lens that you got with every camera. The reason is for 35mm film it was as near to the same field of view as your eyes.
As far as zooms go they were not up to it for sharp photos BUT now they have moved on with CAD we have some well made lens BUT saying that it is hard to beet a prim lens as it much easier to make a lens at a fixed length.
Well I hope this go some way to explain what the 50mm is all about, as you have a 5D your get what we al use to on the old film SLR’s by the way it makes you compose more and you zoom with your feet.
By the way if you want the same on a crop lens work it out back wards for a 1.6 Canon you will need a 30-35mm lens
Hope that helps you
ps we al thought that 28mm was wide and 24mm was super wide unlike the 10-20mms of today.
 
The other day, I was at Whitby to shoot the goth weekend, and all my shots were taken at between f1.6 and f2 (with 85mm or 135mm lens) on a FF body.

This wasn't because of low light, it was because there was so many people around, I needed the shallowest DOF possible to kick the BG into blur.

For the price of a 1.8 nifty, it's the kind of lens -particularly on a crop body, that comes into it's own in conditions like this, any zoom doesn't come close to this functionality for these kind of situations.
 
Rooster said:
. I've tried taking pictures of stuff for ebay at 1.8 but the depth of field is so extremely shallow that one bit of the item is in focus and the rest hopelessly blurred.
Click to expand...
Well that's a situation where you'd need to stop down to get the extra DOF and probably use flash anyway.

I've heard tell that it is often used as a portrait lens but I don't do portrait work. So, while it's a nice sharp lens if you're on a budget, I can't see much point in it if you have L class glass or equivalent. What do you use it for?
Click to expand...

Where's your imagination? ;)

While I admit the FOV is restrictive on a crop sensor, I wouldn't be without a 50mm prime, although I don't use it that often. Try taking the lens to social functions, down the pub, any low light situation where you'd normally use flash, and try to get those candid shots without flash drawing attention to you., and a far mor enatural looking shot just using the ambient light.

This was 1/125th at f1.4, 400 ISO ,with the 50D and 50mm 1.2L. No other lens quite does the same job...

4076659906_6367a06e67_o.jpg
 
^^^^ Thats the exact reason I want one. I do a lot of work in low light conditions, and as I have seen them for the Canon at a reasonable price I will be getting one in the next couple of weeks. I have a 50mm 1.7 for my film camera and absolutely love it.
 
It's also a very much less intimidating lens than most zooms, espcially f/2.8 zooms that stick out in public.

The 50 is so small and compact, it makes an SLR look like a glorified P&S :p

Being very light means you can take it with you, mounted on your camera, whenever you're not in the mood to carry something heavy.

Get a set of Kenko extension tubes (around £100) and you've got yourself an outstanding macro / super macro lens .. nothing comes close. The closest 50mm macro would cost you at least £200. Add a reversing ring, and you're into serious macro stuff with that.

It's a very versatile lens .. and it would help you BIG time to gain better understanding and appreciation of composition.
 
I'm guessing that a lot of digital shooters cut their teeth on a p&s camera and then progress to a DSLR. This means they're used to only working with a zoom and they don't get the whole prime lens thing. Zooms are really only to save leg-work.

Like a lot of the above posters, I don't use my 50 all the time but I love the creativity of using it when I do and its amazing in low light conditions. It actually feels like 'real photography.'
 
Rooster said:
I got this lens because everyone raved about it and it was cheap. Trouble is, I never use it. I've tried using it as a walkaround lens and, while I appreciate its small size and lightness, I found a fixed focal length annoying to use, having to constantly shuffle about to get the right composition. I soon missed my big, heavy 24-105mm L lens. f/1.8 aperture? I never use it. I've tried taking pictures of stuff for ebay at 1.8 but the depth of field is so extremely shallow that one bit of the item is in focus and the rest hopelessly blurred. I've heard tell that it is often used as a portrait lens but I don't do portrait work. So, while it's a nice sharp lens if you're on a budget, I can't see much point in it if you have L class glass or equivalent. What do you use it for?
Click to expand...

Sorry but that statement says more about you than the lens. 50mm is the classic length, all the iconic photos of the past have used this length.

If you dont like it, and cant use it properly then sell it to somone who would appreciate it.
 
the 50mm lens is my main.
it has more creative control with the depth of field than many other lenses, it has also better low light performance.

Basically due to its aperture it CAN do more than many L glass lenses are capable of.

And that is why i use it. I dont want to be restricted to f4 (id literally just throw the thing away) even 2.8 is not enough, i like shallow depths of field when i want them and i like having double the shutter speed of a 2.8 lens in low light.
 
Lots of good comments here. I find I don't use the nifty often, but when I do, I always smile at the results. Yes, it looks a bit comical on a 5D with a grip :lol:, but the DoF is fun to play with, and the sharpness is fabulous for a £70 lens. Great piece of glass of unobtrusive indoor shooting, as is the 85mm f/1.8 too.

Zooms make you lazy, sometimes. I challenged myself by only using primes on a landscape shoot a while back, and it makes you think a lot more about composition.
 
I borrowed the 'on tour' 50mm 1.8 that was sandy and used it for portraits, then used it for indoor karting.

An example is:
94490479.jpg


That's really good for a £60 lens!

I was so impressed I bought the 50mm 1.4. It doesn't get used a lot but at times it's invaluable, for low light party/gig shoots, karting and for really shallow depth of field on product shoots.
 
Marac said:
do yourself a favour... sell it, sell it to someone who knows WHY it is on the planet and can maybe enjoy using it. get yourself an 18-300 zoom
Click to expand...

Ditto.

Great for bridal prep shots. The 1.2 has ridiculously narrow DOF and I love it.
A lens where you have to yield to creative focus and a life saver in low light.
 
kennysarmy said:
i saw i bought i used i sold....

familiar story?
Click to expand...

+1

I found the focusing on the f1.8 to be too inconsistent for me, I might try the f1.4 version at some point if I find myself needing two stops more than the Tamron 17-50 but I doubt it for my current needs.
 
lol try shoving it on a 1Ds if you want something that looks comical. :)

I really don't get some of the statments in this thread. The 50mm f1.8 is a cracking little lens and the most amount of fun I've had with a lens in a long time. I stuck it on my 5D and took every pic I could with it for a fortnight. Amazing what you learn about composition and depth of field if that's all you have.

I've also used it quite a lot at weddings where the light is low and if it's the right focal length then it's the right tool for the job.

Using it on a crop sensor should be no problem, especially for portraits, it's an 85mm equivalent for goodness sake and 85mm happens to be...........yes one of the most popular focal lengths for portraits.

The 24-105mm is a decent lens but it's f4 and there is a whole world of fun you can play in with those shallow depths of field.
 
Rooster said:
So, while it's a nice sharp lens if you're on a budget, I can't see much point in it if you have L class glass or equivalent. What do you use it for?
Click to expand...

Other than shooting figure skating, a 24-70 has pretty much been permanently attached to my camera's. Over time my circumstantial, documentary and narrative elements to my photographs had taken a hit in the interesting department, so I set a small challenge- to improve my framing, angle, points of interest and timing but using only a 50 f/1.4 on full frame.

For the first time in a long while, I'm happy with the results.

The conclusion that I draw, is that while zoom lenses offer versatilely, they can make some a little lazy.

Rooster said:
I found a fixed focal length annoying to use, having to constantly shuffle about to get the right composition.
Click to expand...

I'd say that your having to work more for your shot. Minus the zoom capability and your having to put much more thought and effort into the fundamentals. ;)
 
If anyone fancies buying a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF-D - I have one in the for sale columns! ;)
 
I have one, it doesn't get a lot of use, but... I used it exclusively around town on a couple of occasions... rubbish light, and loads of people worked a charm. If you want to specifically get really tight DOF without getting into the macro realms it works great. It's also great for astronomy stopped down a little as it's so fast...
 
I have a bagful of Nikon glass and nothing in the bag ranks higher quality-wise than my Nikon 50mm 1.4D.:D
 
Tony Tedeschi said:
The Fifty sorts out the Photographers from the Amateurs.
Click to expand...

But by that do you mean a 50mm as in 35mm on 1.5 crop to give real nifty fifty or do you mean the 50mm on the 1.5 crop at 85mm?

I bought the 50mm f1.8 myself and love what it can do, the bargin high quality lens that i thought was a must have for everybody. My only quibble is manual focus only on the D40 which puts me off using it sometimes, not sure i could use it as a walk about lens because of that. Very tempted by the 35mm f1.8 AF-S but struggling to justify it, the focal lens certainly doesnt justify it as i can step backwards very easily but the auto focus might :thinking:
 
Rooster said:
I found a fixed focal length annoying to use, having to constantly shuffle about to get the right composition. I soon missed my big, heavy 24-105mm L
Click to expand...

With the same logic, why do bother to walk somewhere at all to take photos. Just getting enormously large zoom and sitting in a comfy place far away from your possible subjects will do it - using enormously large zoom will save you troubles walking ...
:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top