5 Reasons you Need a 50mm Prime

[Jeffbridge]

Here are top five reasons why you need to have a 50mm in your camera bag.

http://www.photographytalk.com/photo...d-a-50mm-prime

[Colin Southern]

What a complete load of bollocks.

[Donald]

What a complete load of bollocks.

Don't hold back or be subtle, Colin. Just tell it as you see it.

[lukaswerth]

What a complete load of bollocks.

Basically, I agree. Waste of time.

Lukas

[RichardTaylor]

Of all the lenses I own the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens is my least used lens (and I do own a few primes as well as zooms).

[Colin Southern]

Don't hold back or be subtle, Colin. Just tell it as you see it.

I just did - and with a Scottish "fire in my belly" when I said it too!

[Colin Southern]

How about 5 Reasons you don't need a 50mm prime lens ...

1. It's too light - thus doesn't assist camera stability.

2. Worse composition - can't zoom in or out to get the correct field of view with the desired perspective

3. Terribly limiting - only has one focal length

4. Dangerous - Taking a few steps back to get some fields of view will put me 20 feet off the edge of a cliff

5. Superfluous to requirements when one has a zoom that covers the 50mm focal length

PS: The old adage about it "replicating the FoV of the human eye" is also bollocks - don't know about the rest of the world, but I go around with BOTH eyes open - and the FOV I perceive is a LOT wider than what I'd get with a 50mm!

[Black Pearl]

Colin, I wish you and you're common sense we're available on every camera group.

As soon as someone says they are thinking about a new lens a million people will scream "50mm!" - "Best lens everrrr!" - "Don't buy a zoom you won't get the quality!" - "I love mine!"

That last one gets me.

I have one so you should have one....Grrrrrr!!!!!!!

They are usually the ones who haven't read the OP, don't pay any attention to what the person asking is wanting to shoot and just yell "Prime!" in every post they make. I am trying to bang sense into a bunch of them on a Nikon FB group at this very moment but I'm being buried by shear numbers and stupidity.

[JR1]

What is this hang over from the 60s when you needed a 50mm, in fact I rarely used one then, what carp, I have never used prime lenses since zooms became so good. Why carry a 18mm, 24mm, 28mm, 50mm, 80mm, 120mm when you can have an 18-135

[RichardTaylor]

What is this hang over from the 60s when you needed a 50mm, in fact I rarely used one then, what carp, I have never used prime lenses since zooms became so good. Why carry a 18mm, 24mm, 28mm, 50mm, 80mm, 120mm when you can have an 18-135

I use fast primes exclusively for some shoots, mainly those low light situations when you cannot use long exposures or use a flash.

[Colin Southern]

As soon as someone says they are thinking about a new lens a million people will scream "50mm!" - "Best lens everrrr!" - "Don't buy a zoom you won't get the quality!" - "I love mine!"

That last one gets me.

I have one so you should have one....Grrrrrr!!!!!!!

They are usually the ones who haven't read the OP, don't pay any attention to what the person asking is wanting to shoot and just yell "Prime!" in every post they make. I am trying to bang sense into a bunch of them on a Nikon FB group at this very moment but I'm being buried by shear numbers and stupidity.

Oh brother, I hear you!

I think that if we composed a list of "outdated photographic mantra" it would be a long list:

Some personal favorites:

- "primes are sharper than zooms - I want my photos to be as sharp as possible - therefore I need a prime"

- "I don't want noise in my images - so I never shoot above ISO 400" (cough, pity about all the subject motion & camera shake!)

- "I only shoot portraits using natural light" (cough, which explains a lot about the quality of their portraits!)

- "All Photo-shopping is bad"

It's almost like a whole sub-culture who can't weight the theory in real-world situations - so they end up majoring in minor things and generally just getting mislead by the "reviews".

[chauncey]

Alas, poor Colin...he has some real difficulties with phrases like "being subtle" or "delicately stated".

[Colin Southern]

Alas, poor Colin...he has some real difficulties with phrases like "being subtle" or "delicately stated".

I grew up in an age where "PC" stood for "Personal Computer". It seems these days that it stands for "Political Correctness".

Can't say that the world appears any better for the change. I prefer to just come right out and say it.

[Donald]

- "All Photo-shopping is bad"

I'm still an amateur when it comes to the world of social media, but I recently joined a Facebook group. To be fair it didn't claim or aim to be a group for serious photographers, but was about posting up images of Scotland.

In response to one person's statement about processing their images, I put up my "Clicking the button is only one part of the process of making an image, the 2nd part is post-processing" message that I've posted many times on here with the intention of helping people. Well, if I did!

I was told the group was sick fed up of people coming on saying that they should be photo-shopping their pictures. I, of course, defended myself. The thread was then removed.

I am no longer a member of that group!

ps - William: I hope you got the irony in my original statement re Colin's post. I thought he was actually very restrained in what he wrote.

[Thlayle]

HA! PhotographyTalk: well, I don't have such strong feelings on the 50 mm issue but this is goes in the 'it figures' department. I don't know who is responsible for that blog but it makes sense to me that they don't actually put their name to it.

[Inkanyezi]

I think I get the drift. There are of course fifty or more reasons why I don't need one, even if there are a couple of reasons why I might like to have one.

It's like the question of what lens is best to get as a second lens, in contrast to the more reasonable question about what lens might be best for a particular purpose. There was a time when there seldom was such a question. None of my first cameras offered the possibility to change the lens. I really cannot say that interchangeable lenses enriched my photographic skills a lot. Nice to have, but needed?

I think the rationale behind might stem from prematurely getting a system camera when a fixed lens one would be just right. Those mostly come with a zoom lens that covers all my photographic needs and probably also the needs of most people out there.

So I agree with Colin, and I fully understand that there are occasions that a particular lens might do a better job than another one, but which one? I cannot believe that it would always be just one particular doitall lens. It's nice to have the 50 mm lens with a wide aperture, but mine is mostly in a cupboard, seldom on the camera. I also had it long before I got a digital system. But it's a nice and heavy piece of hardware that does a decent job sometimes. My most used lens is the kit zoom.

[tao2]

ADVANTAGES OF ZOOMS...

Convenient and versatile

CA

Barrel+pincushion

Comfortably sit on the car door with the window down, tae aid car seat composition

Images are easily PP'd

Less sharp, for that "dreamy" effect

Ye can actually see what's in the background, none of that bokeh mush

They tilt naturally for shots of flowers at ground level

They vignette beautifully, without any time-wasting in PP

Nice, small aperture, wide-open

Don't need tae move, just turn the ring 'til something fits...

Advantages of primes?.....They're better

[DanK]

OK, a different take.

But first, I agree with Colin about the 50mm question, although "bollocks" isn't the word we would use in these parts. I started shooting with in SLR in 1968, when zooms were not good and I also had no very little money, so I spent a lot of time shooting with a 50mm prime. I still have my EF 50mm f/1.4 from my second SLR, a Canon FTb. I don't even own a 50mm now for my digital bodies, and I rarely find myself wanting one. The only prime lenses I own are macro lenses. I don't "need" a 50mm prime.

However, I think the more important BS in the photgraphytalking post is that the writer singled out the 50mm prime; it's the use of the word "need." If you have to read an internet posting to find out what you "need," you probably don't need it. I get really tired of gearhead postings telling people about various pieces of equipment that they have to go buy. You need only the tools required to get the job done. and the job, of course, is whatever you choose to shoot.

What do I "need" for what I shoot? The honest answer is probably "less than I own." If I had to list what I want, not what I need, a 50mm prime would not be near the top. And I say that as someone who spent years using one. Of course, for some other people, it might be important.

[ajohnw]

They do have one advantage - cost compared with a fast zoom that covers that sort of focal length with near the same quality. If the quality matters is another matter. On the side of the zoom F1.4 - F2.8 who gives a hoot. I wouldn't.

Worth having - debatable on APS in my view but a cheaper option than a fast zoom. More useful on 4/3 maybe.

60's - it's the standard lens - neither wide angle or telephoto and in most cases came with the camera and is fairly versatile on full frame. It can shoot people, landscapes, bunch of flowers and all sorts of things which may mean getting fairly close or even further away than what would ideally be desirable. On the otherhand - no really significant distortion problems or perspective either on many things. The kit lens of that period. Not a bad one either. These days people strive to get away from kit lenses without even knowing if what they are moving to is actually significantly better.

So the insane prices for 50?mm used Nikons of dubious origin on Ebay don't really fit unless some one has a full frame camera. On other formats some might feel they wanted a cheap fast portrait lens which is another matter.

John
-

[Black Pearl]

My beef (well one of my many beefs) is that the sort of post linked to goes at things from the wrong end.

Surely the best way to add a lens to your kit bag it to work out what you want to shoot, work out if it can be done with what you have - then - and only then - add another bit of glass.

Where I feel many photographers fail is they get swayed by internet talk and peer pressure into buying a particular lens, a 50mm prime is a prime example (see what I did there ) then go out and often struggle to find a use for it. Even when they do the 'advantages' of very fast primes are often overlooked and many of the shots get taken at f5.6 or similar. If you are going to do that shoot with a zoom and open up all the extra control you get over the image. When they do shoot wide open there is often too little DoF for the subject and the better option may have been to stop down a little.....we're back to might as well use a zoom again.

Yes in very low light, when you truly run out of ISO range, run out of extra lighting options and reach the point where motion blur may ruin a shot a bright prime might save the day - assuming you can nail the focus and are shooting a subject that doesn't need any DoF.

I do have a 50mm lens, two actually one Nikon and one Pentax, and I do use them from time to time. Oddly I use the Pentax one the most - not because I think it is sharper than my zooms but because it has the maddest bokeh of all the lenses I own which makes for a crackin' if slightly odd shot.