why do people have 50mm lens when you can have one with range?

Well thats just given the nifty fifty a real bashing.
Its gone from a real useful peice of kit to
"Naw forget it" in a couple of hours :D
 
goatee said:
lol - or those who can use footzoom.
Click to expand...



Actually, that comment opens up a new bag... :thinking:

Do you use a zoom to save your legs? Or do you use it to use the appropriate focal length for the effect you're after?

In the latter case, it'd be like having several primes at your disposal and considering which is most apt for the job in hand - but only zooming to that focal length; in the former though, you'd just be a lazy sod

Needless to say (well I hope you'll give me some credit!), I use my zooms to achieve the focal length effect I want and often this still means legzoom too (it's always been 'legzoom' in my local)

So which camp are you in...???

Do you zoom in/out just because you can - or because there's a creative point to doing so ???

:shrug:

DD
 
The lenses I used most? 50mm f/1.4 and 135mm f/2 but a lot of my shooting is low light and fast primes make a huge difference :thumbs:
 
Hmmm one of those where I can see and happily agree with both POV's!

I do own a nifty and I will occasionally put it on a camera too (shock horror!) I spent three weeks shooting with nothing but the nifty and I did like it. As a rule I do tend to use zooms most of the time but then there are those occasions when the 100mm macro or the nifty are just the right tool for the job.

That's why it will always have a place in my bag. (Oh and it's light ;))
 
Ok, so, for landscape type shots, or chasing kids, I'll zoom just to get the shot. If I have more than a fraction of a second to frame the shot, I'll select an appropriate focal length (normally, with portraits, as long as possible, whilst maintaing good contact with the subject - so for young kids, I'll use a wider focal length and get closer, or with older subjects, will get further back).

But, to be honest, once you get to 50mm+ I don't find the focal length per se has that much affect.

DiddyDave said:
Actually, that comment opens up a new bag... :thinking:

Do you use a zoom to save your legs? Or do you use it to use the appropriate focal length for the effect you're after?

In the latter case, it'd be like having several primes at your disposal and considering which is most apt for the job in hand - but only zooming to that focal length; in the former though, you'd just be a lazy sod

Needless to say (well I hope you'll give me some credit!), I use my zooms to achieve the focal length effect I want and often this still means legzoom too (it's always been 'legzoom' in my local)

So which camp are you in...???

Do you zoom in/out just because you can - or because there's a creative point to doing so ???

:shrug:

DD
Click to expand...
 
Hey, that's in court now, I got an injunction taken out against l*****m!



DiddyDave said:
:eek::eek::eek:

What a tight-arse

You can use Legzoom under free license m8 - but I retain copyright worldwide

;)

DD
Click to expand...
 
I have got one, it gets me decent portrait shots in low light when I cannot use flash, and its not bad as a Macro lens when its used with a diopter and extension tubes. I would not say that I am madly in love with it, but I do like to have it around.

Oh, it doesn't take up much room, its light and it did not cost the earth, so I think it will be staying with me!
 
susie said:
Oh, it doesn't take up much room, its light and it did not cost the earth, so I think it will be staying with me!
Click to expand...



Sounds like my wife too

Think I'll start calling her 'Nifty' just for fun

:D

DD
 
DiddyDave said:
Do you use a zoom to save your legs? Or do you use it to use the appropriate focal length for the effect you're after?
Click to expand...

Ok, rewind for noobs...

I zoom because I don't have wings and can't fly.

Focal length affecting the effect? Is this a DoF thing and that complicated stuff I read before about the DoF changing depending on how close/faraway the subject is?
 
I`d been intrigued to watch the experts "footzoom" across a swollen river or a rocky precipice......;)
 
fracster said:
I`d been intrigued to watch the experts "footzoom" across a swollen river or a rocky precipice......;)
Click to expand...

I bet 'Goatee' would have no probs, he'll be totally footsure in any condition I bet :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

Unless the name is because of a silly beard rather than adept scrambling skills ???

:lol:

DD
 
Is this a DoF thing and that complicated stuff I read before about the DoF changing depending on how close/faraway the subject is?
Click to expand...

Yup, it's why people like me still bang on about a lens not becoming a different focal length when it's on a crop sensor camera. The focal length affects more than just the field of view, so that's why you might want to move way back and use a tele to compress the scene, or to get a very narrow DoF. So if you have a 24-105 rather than a nifty and 100 prime, you just zoom the lens as you walk back rather than making the change.
 
fracster said:
I`d been intrigued to watch the experts "footzoom" across a swollen river or a rocky precipice......;)
Click to expand...

Not even a good zoom will rob me of the chance to do something stupid to bag a shot. :D
 
DiddyDave said:
I bet 'Goatee' would have no probs, he'll be totally footsure in any condition I bet :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

Unless the name is because of a silly beard rather than adept scrambling skills ???

:lol:

DD
Click to expand...
Well, it used to be because of a certain facial growth, which has now gone, so now it's because I'm nimble like a mountain goat!

dazzajl said:
Yup, it's why people like me still bang on about a lens not becoming a different focal length when it's on a crop sensor camera. The focal length affects more than just the field of view, so that's why you might want to move way back and use a tele to compress the scene, or to get a very narrow DoF. So if you have a 24-105 rather than a nifty and 100 prime, you just zoom the lens as you walk back rather than making the change.
Click to expand...

Yes - to alter the depth of field, you need to take into account 3 things.

1. Focal length - the longer the focal length, the smaller the depth of field.
2. Aperture - this has a massive effect - the wider the aperture, the smaller the depth of field.
3. Distance to subject - the closer you are, the smaller the depth of field gets.
 
68lbs said:
Ok, rewind for noobs...

I zoom because I don't have wings and can't fly.

Focal length affecting the effect? Is this a DoF thing and that complicated stuff I read before about the DoF changing depending on how close/faraway the subject is?
Click to expand...

Re-wound m8

Wide-angles can be useful close to such as the floor in landscapes to emphasise depth in the shot; longer focal lengths have a compression effect making backgrounds appear closer - so again in landscapes, a lonely cottage at the base of a mountain would look even more under threat & menace by the mountain if shot from a longer focal length a fair way off than a wider lens close up

Ok?

Oh, and yes the DoF varies enormously too

At 15mm or less and f8, you pretty much don't need to bother focussing as the DoF is so large just about everything will be in focus, so f22 is pointless unless for some other effect than DoF (i.e. for a slower shutter speed to blur running water)

HTH ???

DD
 
Cheers DD

So much info to cram into my head!
 
I like my 50m f1.4, mainly because of the challenge (and discipline) it gives me, forcing me to look creatively at a particular scene, I also like the quality, for the price particularly the 50mm F1.8, it's pinsharp.

Saying that, It's not very often I use the lens, generally preferring the flexibility of a zoom.

It does come into it's own for low light photography, not because you can shoot at hand-holdable shutter speeds wide open (although you can), but because the lens is a fast lens, meaning I can lock onto focus far better in very low light situations (i.e. 30sec + exposures)

You don't gain an extra stop (or two) in the traditional sense, i.e. an exposure of 1/60 sec @ F5.6 doesn't miraculously become 1/120 sec @f5.6 if you change from lens with a max aperture of F2.8 to one of F1.8.

Interesting thread.
 
68lbs said:
Cheers DD

So much info to cram into my head!
Click to expand...


Pfffft, I'd imagine that's the last time goatee or me take the time to answer your questions.
icon_rolleyes.gif


;):lol::lol:
 
dazzajl said:
Pfffft, I'd imagine that's the last time goatee or me take the time to answer your questions.
icon_rolleyes.gif


;):lol::lol:
Click to expand...

Oi! What about me then Dazz, sometimes it's like the woman on the Fast Show around here! :razz:
 
AliB said:
Oi! What about me then Dazz, sometimes it's like the woman on the Fast Show around here! :razz:
Click to expand...

Well I actually meant the question at the bottom of page 2, post 52 to be precise. I am known for ignoring many things but women are not one of them. ;):D
 
p1tse said:
yet another newbie question.

my friend has a 50mm lens and i have seen these on here before, but what's the advantage of these over say 18-55mm?
Click to expand...

Technicalities apart, it's a nice short lens to walk around with when you don't want a long zoom lens hanging around your neck.
 
Can't say I've used the kit lens much since I acquired the fifty. However, with a young family, landscapes are few and far between, and the Tamron 70-300 isn't 'fast' enough to use indoors. Consequently, I'd say that a good 60-70% of my normal photography is taken at 50mm fixed, mostly indoors at f2.8 or below.......

Wouldn't go walkabout for buildings and landscapes with it mounted, but would always keep it handy just in case.
For the cost of it, I really can't see what the argument is here If indoor photo opportunities present themselves, you like nice blurry backgrounds (which lets be honest saves thinking too much whilst framing your shot) then it really is an invaluable tool.
Sur eI'd prefer a 30mm f1.8, or better yet an 18mm f1.4 and would probably use them more, but they either don''t exist or cost considerably more than a nifty....


(erm, and my point was it's better for indoor stuff if you can't afford a proper flashgun)

Sorry, I'll get my coat...
 
mrgubby said:
Can somebody point me at a zoom @ f1.8 for a bit more than £50, then I'd be quite happy to get rid of my nifty :clap:
Click to expand...

Can you point me at a range of primes that will cover the focal length well enough of a 18-70 that costs LESS than the typical 18-70

Let's be clear, I don't mind them all being f2.8 even f4s, but they need to be a 20, 30, 40, 50, 70 (forget 60, it's not that much different)

Oh, and make sure I can change them perfectly safely in poor weather conditions too please

Oh, and for ease, they have to all come in a bag no bigger than my camera and 18-70 fitted

See - I'm asking a daft question too

:D

You can't compare 1 focal length on pricing to a whole range of focal lengths without losing that battle - it's incomparable

DD
 
Perhaps, just maybe, some people may prefer primes to zooms?
 
So to sum up then it is a question of "does size matter"
or "in the dark you can use a short one better".;)
 
fracster said:
Perhaps, just maybe, some people may prefer primes to zooms?
Click to expand...

Indeed. I adore my 50 and 300 primes, so much so that the 100-400 I just brought after I sold my last one, is probably going to be getting sold again!
That being said - I'll be changing it for the 70-200 2.8 ;)
Which is better so much depends entirely on the situation of the shoot imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top