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

p1tse

p1tse

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,391
Edit My Images
No
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?
 
Prime lenses offer a number of advantages.

wider aperture - ideal for low light conditions or creative DOF effects

better image quality - its optimised for one focal length rather than having to be able to cope with 18-55 or greater.

Being restricted does make you think about your shots.
 
Because its better ;)

/end thread

Seriously though, it is superb in low light, the 18-55 cant compare :)
 
Is 1.8 really loads better in low light than 2.8 ?
 
f1.8 to f2.8 is 1 1/3 f-stops, so lets in over double the light.

If you shot wide open it means you could drop the ISO or increase the shutter speed, and if you both shot at f5.6 for example, but one with a max aperture of f1.8 would give better focussing in dark conditions than the f2.8 or a slower lens.
 
Woah, so at 1.3 stops better, when you would need 1/60 sec with and f/2.8 you could use 1/160 sec with a f/1.8 ??
 
Exactly - although it's worth noting that the depth of field (how much is in focus) goes very small when the aperture goes so wide - makes it harder to focus accurately - but I really like the effect it gives.
 
Going back to the opening question...

A decent 50mm is hardly if at all better than a good short zoom; while an excellent short zoom can outperform or at least match a decent fixed lens in IQ

Unless you pick a truly rubbish bit of glass, and unless you're doing A3 & larger prints regularly, you'll not notice either way

In all normal photography, f1.8 isn't of much use at that focal length and unless you're shooting something really close, it won't give much less DoF than f3.5 either - so again it's 'use' isn't much better

In low light though, it does 'win' in that you can capture a shot at a high enough shutter speed for it to be acceptable, whereas the 'slower' f3.5 may mean a blurred shot

In ALL normal photography (i.e. not low-light or where you can't use a tripod) having an 18-55 will mean you capture more shots more easily; it gives you far greater creative control; it means you won't be risking dust getting into your camera when you need 40mm or 30mm or 20mm for the effect or space contraints; it means you're more likely to get a 'grab' shot of something close to you without having to run backwards for a while instead

Look at the last 100 normal-togging shots you took - I bet hardly any of them were at the max aperture and a slow shutter speed, and even fewer suffered by not giving you an extra f-stop or so that you couldn't just as easily solve by upping the ISO

So, in about 99% of all normal togging - a good short zoom is better

Oh - and I don't have one either - Now a 20mm f1.8 I do have, and that is useful

"Nifty-fifty" = most overrated piece of kit ever - IMHO

:D

DD
 
DiddyDave said:
"Nifty-fifty" = most overrated piece of kit ever - IMHO

:D

DD
Click to expand...

BUT, it's the 'only' affordable bit of glass that you can get for indoor/non flash photography :clap:

After all it must be good, Dod has had at least 3 so far :shrug:



*as for all this 'Primes make you think more' :bang:
 
I have one, I hardly ever use it.The 17-55 is much more useful. I use my 35mm F2 more than the 50.

However it is cheap enough to try, see if you like it, if not then you can move it on.
 
If you compare shots from the 18-55 and the 50mm f/1.8, you do not need to make big prints to see the difference. It's got better contrast, more detail, and gives much more control over depth of field.

When used within its limits, the 18-55 is capable of great results, but, that means stopping it down from f/5.6 or so at the wide end, and f/6.3 or f/7.1 at the wide end.

Apart from anything else, for a beginner photographer, using a prime is a great exercise as it forces you to be more creative with composition. I recommend the nifty fifty to all people buying DSLRs, and some who have really gotten into it, have sold it to get more exotic lenses, but everyone I've recommended it to, have loved it.
 
I have one its good and cheap!
I must admit to putting to the back of my kit bag though since buying the 24-105mm
But at several 100 pounds cheaper the "nifty fifty" is a good 'un :thumbs:
 
Quite - compared to a top notch zoom, like the 24-105, the image quality won't wow you, but even then, for really tight depth of field, the nifty wins out.
 
Missed that bit...

"Primes make you think more"

Yep - made me think...

"Damn, I wish they'd make really good zoom lenses as I've always got the wrong focal length prime on"

That was my thinking 20 years ago:eek: when I had a 28, 50 (f1.7), 135 & 200mm lenses - today, all but the worst zooms have better IQ than my old primes did and are so much more usable in the real world

Just a few months ago I was on a very windy beach firing away in whipping sand with my 18-70, this chap came up next to me complaining he daren't change lenses in those conditions and he had the 'wrong' lens on - guess what it was... yup, the nifty !!!

It's not better IQ when you don't get the shot is it - :lol:

DD
 
DiddyDave said:
So, in about 99% of all normal togging - a good short zoom is better
Click to expand...

Pffft, rubbish!

OK, not 'rubbish', but heavily dependent on what you consider 'normal togging'. I shoot a lot inside, in low light, and without a flash. Considerably more than 1% ;) That makes it an essential lens for me. A good short zoom will give you more flexibility, true, but a good short zoom doesn't cost £60.
 
I have a Sigma 30mm f1.4 prime lens and it is a great lens to have. Beats iq of my other lenses hands down and is my favourite portrait lens by far.
 
yourapocalypse said:
Pffft, rubbish!

OK, not 'rubbish', but heavily dependent on what you consider 'normal togging'. I shoot a lot inside, in low light, and without a flash. Considerably more than 1% ;) That makes it an essential lens for me. A good short zoom will give you more flexibility, true, but a good short zoom doesn't cost £60.
Click to expand...

Normal togging as across the spectrum of ALL togging m8 I mean

I'd be highly shocked if more than 1% of all photos are taken indoors without flash

:shrug::shrug::shrug:

DD
 
Ah, all togging, I see. I don't do everything :D

(although thinking about it, you could argue that in the grandest of schemes, shots are pretty much 50/50 indoor/outdoor, and 50/50 with/without flash, which gives 25% indoors and without flash. Statistics can 'prove' anything ;) )
 
DiddyDave said:
That was my thinking 20 years ago:eek: when I had a 28, 50 (f1.7), 135 & 200mm lenses - today, all but the worst zooms have better IQ than my old primes did and are so much more usable in the real world
Click to expand...

You have to spend alot of money on a zoom lens to get one that can match the nifty fifty for pure image quality I can't think of any that will cost you less than £300 from Mr Kerson where as the Nifty only cost about £50. The sharpness and contrast is in a different league to cheap zooms particularly those supplied with most dSLR packages.

I love my fifty, I'll admit I don't use it anything like as much as my Sigma 17-70 but I'd never go out without it and it is invaluable for shooting at parties abd family gatherings when the light is rubish. I've taken some lovely portraits with it which I simply would never have got with my zoom!
 
goatee said:
If you compare shots from the 18-55 and the 50mm f/1.8, you do not need to make big prints to see the difference. It's got better contrast, more detail, and gives much more control over depth of field.

When used within its limits, the 18-55 is capable of great results, but, that means stopping it down from f/5.6 or so at the wide end, and f/6.3 or f/7.1 at the wide end.

Apart from anything else, for a beginner photographer, using a prime is a great exercise as it forces you to be more creative with composition. I recommend the nifty fifty to all people buying DSLRs, and some who have really gotten into it, have sold it to get more exotic lenses, but everyone I've recommended it to, have loved it.
Click to expand...



I wasn't comparing a specific lens m8 - but a good short zoom to a good nifty - that's all

Can't help smiling that you rate it so much but don't have on in your bag :D

And I absolutely can't agree that being restricted to one focal length makes you more creative. It that were true, why we we non-noobs aim to become less creative and buy zooms?

:shrug:

DD
 
Aha, I saw this crowed looking soap box and thought I'd see what the thread was about. :lol:

The one thing I always end up thinking when I see these hotly contested threads is how glad I am that there are so many ways to skin a cat in the photographic world.

The prime or zoom argument is not going to get settled here or anywhere else today but it's always a good discussion. 4 out of the 6 lenses I use with my canon gear are zooms and I do need the flexibility to make sure I can get the money shot 10 times out of 10, in any situation.

On the mamiya, it's primes all the way and I have to say that I much prefer the way they make you work, the brighter viewfinder you get from a faster lens and I have to agree, the better IQ.
 
a1ex2001 said:
You have to spend alot of money on a zoom lens to get one that can match the nifty fifty for pure image quality I can't think of any that will cost you less than £300 from Mr Kerson where as the Nifty only cost about £50. The sharpness and contrast is in a different league to cheap zooms particularly those supplied with most dSLR packages.

I love my fifty, I'll admit I don't use it anything like as much as my Sigma 17-70 but I'd never go out without it and it is invaluable for shooting at parties abd family gatherings when the light is rubish. I've taken some lovely portraits with it which I simply would never have got with my zoom!
Click to expand...

:agree:

But for every time it's the only tool for the job, there's hundreds more when it isn't - when it's focal length is just too long/short and you haven't time/space to adjust

In my studio - I often shoot up to 100 shots of kids inside 15 mins at the full 18-70mm range of the lens I'm using, a nifty (or any prime for that matter) would be useless

To argue a £50 nifty is cheaper than a good zoom is missing the point somewhat, as using primes alone (and your 17-70 for example), you'd have to buy at least 4 lenses to come close - which would end up costing as much and being 4x less practical

Of course there are times when a nifty is great - but not many is the point compared to a good zoom covering the 50mm focal length

DD
 
DiddyDave said:
"Nifty-fifty" = most overrated piece of kit ever - IMHO

:D

DD
Click to expand...

:agree:

I'm more likely to use my 17-50 or 30mm than my 50. The fov is too narrow for most normal photography. People only think they're great because you get an f/1.8 aperture for under £70. Far better spending a bit more and getting something useful instead :exit:
 
You got me there, but I'm currently changing all my gear, and I recently sold a 40D with Sigma 30mm f/1.4. Is the nifty fifty as good? No, but the Sigma costs many times more.

The reason I mainly have zooms, is that I don't have the time to be creative all the time, I want to grab shots of my kids running round, amongst other things. In the next few weeks, I'll either be buying a 85mm f/1.8 or a nifty depending on my budget, and which other lenses I pick up, but rest assured, I will have space in my bag for a prime.

(Basically, it'll be changing to 5D, 17-40, 24-105, [70-200 f/4 or 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-300 DO], and [50mm f/1.8 or 85mm f/1.8]

DiddyDave said:
I wasn't comparing a specific lens m8 - but a good short zoom to a good nifty - that's all

Can't help smiling that you rate it so much but don't have on in your bag :D

And I absolutely can't agree that being restricted to one focal length makes you more creative. It that were true, why we we non-noobs aim to become less creative and buy zooms?

:shrug:

DD
Click to expand...
 
Flash In The Pan said:
:agree:

I'm more likely to use my 17-50 or 30mm than my 50. The fov is too narrow for most normal photography. People only think they're great because you get an f/1.8 aperture for under £70. Far better spending a bit more and getting something useful instead :exit:
Click to expand...

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

I knew someone would agree sooner or later

:lol::lol::lol:

DD
 
But also Flash In The Pan still said he'd use his 30mm - he was referring to the focal length, and not the principle of using a prime.

Anyway, lots of people have said what the biggie is - the 50mm f/1.8 gives the best image quality per £ of all the Canon lenses, and it's cheap enough that beginners can buy one, and learn about the affect that aperture has on the results.
 
It's still over-hyped, by both Nikon and Canon users. It's a lens that gets bought on price by newbies who then procede to shoot everything at f/1.8 :lol:
 
DiddyDave said:
I knew someone would agree sooner or later
Click to expand...

Goes without saying that I agree. I've REALLY tried to like the nifty but it's as near close to useless in my bag as a degree in haddock painting.

Horrible things :razz: Still got the current one though, never used it mind :shrug:
 
Well, glad this thread has cleared everything up. :thinking:

Just to clarify, if you've just got the kit lens a nifty is good for a number of reasons - largely bang for buck. And if you've upgraded the kit lens to something like a 24-70 f/2.8 then it really aint worth getting one? :thinking:
 
Pretty much, but even if you have something like a 24-70 f/2.8, for low light shooting, the f/1.8 gives you 1 1/3 stops more light, so if you have an aversion to flash, even with a 24-70 f/2.8 the 50mm f/1.8 has its place.
 
Personally, I think that all you nifty bashers should go and pick on a lens your own size. :razz::lol:

It's hard to argue that for the cost and size, it's a bad tool to have at your disposal for those times that only handheld without flash, in low(ish) light will do.

I'd rather have something like a 35 f1.4 but then it wouldn't be £50 would it. :)
 
lol - or those who can use footzoom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top