My First 50mm Lens...ever

[DEAN01]

The 50mm, so called "normal" lens, was about the only thing available when I got involved with photography; the pros were the 2-1/4 cameras that only had a "normal" lens, but the photographs produced were very good. There were only a few "good" zooms available and photographers did not trust them; instead feet-for-zoom was used. I have recently gone "retro" putting aside my zooms and shooting only with the "normal" lens. What can you do with a 50mm lens—everything. IMHO

[Stagecoach]

What can you do with a 50mm lens—everything. IMHO

Perhaps that's exaggerating a bit Dean?

I can think of numerous situations where with a fixed 50mm I would not be able to frame the image how I want for two reasons, firstly 50mm would not give me the FOV I want and secondly I do not have the option to move my position or the subjects.

I'm not in any way saying a 50mm does not have it's use in the right situation.

Grahame

[Dave Humphries]

Just looking at the two shots in dje's post illustrates the reason to have a 50mm prime. The prime 50mm is noticeably sharper even on this laptop screen.

I am not disagreeing with you Denny (or anyone else), however - do bear in mind these are 100% crops posted to show us the difference, in other words; we are "pixel peeping" - very valid for technical comparison - but it is not a 'real world' comparison.

If the two 'whole frame' shots had been processed (e.g. for contrast range), correctly output sharpened and posted, I bet they'd look (or could look) indistinguishable - certainly on any HD (or less) resolution monitor.

That said, if we need to crop a lot, or print large for close viewing, then yes, it may become more relevant.

Also I wholeheartedly agree that it is far more pleasing to do PP work on an image that is sharper and more contrasty to start with.

To that you can add the often wider maximum aperture of a prime and the advantages that brings to shooting and composition, plus the advantages of smaller size and lighter weight of the lens. Other lens distortions, such as geometric and the chromatic aberrations, should also be less in a prime lens.

Guess that's why I own some primes too

[William W]

I'd give it [the 50mm Prime] a try on your DX body too. . .

Yeah but . . .

Then the 50mm lens would cease to be 'normal' / 'standard'.

WW

[dubaiphil]

Oh, the questions that this thread promotes, and the usual suspects that keep dragging them out

It just keeps coming back

Like syphilis

[NorthernFocus]

I seem to have a knack for stumbling into these subjects

Actually, on further reflection, the fact that I thought it was ironic to only now be getting a "standard" lens is indicative of my age. Nowadays the standard kit lenses that come with bodies are almost universally zoom lenses. And it is true that if one is only going to resize images for web posting and/or produce small prints, the difference in acuity between a $2k prime and a $200 "kit" lens is irrelevant.

Last spring I purchased my first two non-telephoto primes, a Nikkor 28mm f1.8 and the Sigma 35mm f1.4A. I have to say I was astonished at how sharp they are and how they render colors. That is shot on a D7100 and compared to a Nikkor 16-85 VR which was previously my "walkaround" lens. There's another lesson in there too. Now the genie is out of that bottle and I think the 16-85 is pure crap. And I was happy shooting it for years

[xpatUSA]

Oh, the questions that this thread promotes, and the usual suspects that keep dragging them out

It just keeps coming back

Like syphilis

Here's one:

Who normally walks around with their head tilted at 56.3 degrees to the horizontal?

"What ?!!" I hear you say . . .

A "like" awarded to the first person to get it

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Dan
I think what you're experiencing now is that each lens has a character all its own. The 16-85 isn't crap, that's just the way it is. For the buying public it's more than sufficient, for you, now that you have something to compare it to, it isn't.

[NorthernFocus]

...For the buying public it's more than sufficient, for you, now that you have something to compare it to, it isn't.

We all do what works for us and what our budgets allow. My reasons for turning more attention to landscape lenses is because my photography is trending that way. Historically for me landscapes have been shots of opportunity and travel photography. I'm making a concerted effort to get much more deliberate about shooting landscapes. So it's time to upgrade the associated kit. But out of convenience/practicality, my vacation travel kit will continue to be mostly zoom lenses.

[AlwaysOnAuto]

No disagreement with you there. That is part of the reason why I got my Nex-7. I have all these great legacy lenses and can't afford to shoot the film cameras they belong on. Now I can use them all digitally. My latest lens purchase was to get a 'normal' lens for that camera since all the others were equivalent to something other than 'normal'. They still exhibit their own 'character' though.

[Black Pearl]

I wonder if the two shots used as an example of why a 50mm is better were taken with the camera on a tripod using a delayed release - or were they actually (as looks to be the case) taken handheld in iffy light with less than ideal shutter speeds.

If the latter then any comparison is utterly pointless.

[dje]

I wonder if the two shots used as an example of why a 50mm is better were taken with the camera on a tripod using a delayed release - or were they actually (as looks to be the case) taken handheld in iffy light with less than ideal shutter speeds.

If the latter then any comparison is utterly pointless.

Robin they were taken hand held and I was concerned at the time about the different shutter speeds although the VR of the zoom may have compensated to some extent. I did acknowledge in my post that the tests were hardly scientific. I posted them because they are indicative of what I have found in general using both lenses. The difference in sharpness is also supported by lab tests reported in such sites as Lens Tips. I was particularly interested in the difference in contrast.

Dave

[William W]

I'm not alone though and it was a serious question

What can you do with a 50mm prime that say a Nikkor 24-120 can not do

I take it as a serious question - and this is a serious response:

This is an excellent example of what can be done with a very fast 50mm Prime Lens -

Leica M9 and an M50/0.95 Noctilux, used at f/0.95:


I understand that this indoor shot was a location and at the Bride’s request.

An abandoned 2nd floor of an 1880s small town Opera house.

There were two weak incandescent bulbs lighting the entire floor.

The Photographer, Marc Williams of FOTOGRAFZ, placed her close to one light and let the further one provide a bit of fill.

I have seen some of the other shots Marc made of her looking camera left, to let the main bulb light her face and torso, but, Marc comments that while those might be "more correct" - they are not nearly as emotionally dramatic as this more moody, pensive one.

***

The light gathering ability of that lens used at f/0.95 and the DoF at that SD would be impossible to achieve with any F/2.8 Zoom - sure F/1.0; F/1.2 and F/0.95 are really REALLY fast, another class beyond the F/1.8 and F/1.4 50mm lenses - and as such are expensive and obviously specialty lenses - but that is really a very good example of what can be created with a very fast 50mm Prime.

Very close to that result can be got with a less expensive, sharp F/1.4 50mm lens, too.

***

Also, for clarity:

In post #24 - the response to putting a fast 50 on a DX body –

"Yeah but . . . Then the 50mm lens would cease to be 'normal' / 'standard'."

Whilst having a bit of humour attached, it was meant as a serious consideration to the conversation – the humour was meant to emphasise the two points which were implied:

> Plonking the 50mm Prime on a DX, the lens would act as a short telephoto, which when compared to the same framing if it were on an FX camera – would CHANGE the PERSPECTIVE of the shot.

> Plonking the FAST 50mm Prime on a DX effectively robs the photographer of the creativity in ‘equivalence’ of about 1⅓Stops of SHALLOW DEPTH OF FIELD.

I assumed that the use of the words “Standard” and “Normal” actually had a meaning within this thread, and they were specifying the USE OF a very fast 50mm Lens on a 135 Format Camera – and so that’s why I wanted to emphasize that it is a whole different ball game if the fast 50 is placed on a DX body .

I think that the consideration of PERSPECTIVE for a PARTICULAR camera format would be at the forefront of consideration for the choice of FOCAL LENGTH (i.e. 50mm as opposed to choosing another Focal Length).

I think that consideration of the ability to have a very shallow DoF capacity, would be part of the rationale for choosing a very fast Prime.

That thought process and resultant comment have NOTHING at all to do with Venereal Diseases.

WW

[xpatUSA]

Very close to that result can be got with a less expensive, sharp F/1.4 50mm lens, too.

WW

The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG "Art" lens is getting good comments these days:

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...ct/1677/cat/30

"Plonking" a 30mm f/1.4 DC "Art" lens onto an APS-C camera could be quite rewarding too, I imagine.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...ct/1589/cat/30
.

[NorthernFocus]

I seem to have a knack for stumbling into these subjects

Indeed I do...

[William W]

Yes. I haven’t used them, so I won’t comment directly - but Sigma’s ‘ART’ Series Lens do get good press.

*

When using an APS-C Format camera and a 35mm (or 30~28mm) lens, to extrude a really REALLY shallow DoF the shot has to be Tight (i.e. Tightly Framed). I don’t do much tight Portrait Work (i.e. Tight Half Shots and Head Shots).

I guess it is also a matter of knowing (or not knowing) what can be done with a 135 Format Camera (‘Full Frame’) and a fast lens as to how ‘good’ or 'satisfactory' one concludes a fast 35mm lens is on APS-C in regard to shallow DoF: what I mean is, the quest for Very Shallow DoF, it is often cited as one reason to use/buy a "Full Frame" Camera.

That said, I did buy a Fuji x100s as a Christmas gift to myself - and yes that is so much fun to use (F/2 with a fixed 23mm Lens and an APS-C sensor)

To get very shallow with the 23mm lens, one needs to get even tighter than when using a 35mm lens on APS-C Camera.

Example of Very Shallow DoF using the Fuji X100s, APS-C camera is here:



WW

[William W]

. . . My need is for landscape shooting so I can't feature I'll ever shoot with it wide open. So who cares about wide open performance . . .

There are other attributes of / reasons for using a Prime rather than a Zoom even if the lens is to be used stopped down (for example to F/8) for Landscape Genre.

Here are two of the important considerations, both have to do with two types of Flare - often a major consideration when shooting Landscapes:

> The Lens Hood will be a more useful tool:
The lens hood of a Zoom needs to be accommodate the wide end of the Zoom's compass, thus it is less than 'most suitable' for all other Focal Lengths of the Zoom. This can be worked around by using a make shift lens hood - specific for the chosen Focal Length to use on the Zoom - but that can be a real pain in the neck.

> Primes are less likely to cause Veiling Flare:
The internal optical design and cluster arrangement of (all)? Prime Lenses means less likely hood of internal reflections, thus less likely Veiling Flare. This one can't be worked around in situ - but can only be (sometimes and to some extent) addressed in Post Production.

I am not advocating that we all go out and buy Prime Lenses and scrap the Zooms as modern Zoom Lenses are very good - but there are sometimes good reasons for using a Prime Lens instead of a Zoom Lens, even if the lens is to be used stopped down.

WW

[William W]

. . . Who normally walks around with their head tilted at 56.3 degrees to the horizontal?

Quick guess (rough trig done in head) - to get one's eyes "in line with" the FoV(d) (Diagonal Field of View) of a "Standard Lens"?

If I am wrong, please don't disclose the answer . . . yet.

Let me suffer a bit longer.

[xpatUSA]

Quick guess (rough trig done in head) - to get one's eyes "in line with" the FoV(d) (Diagonal Field of View) of a "Standard Lens"?

Bingo!

[William W]

haha!

It's Monday afternoon here . . . I went straight outside to mow the grass when I arrive home from the office . . . just came in to have a beer (it is hot) . . . just noticed a new "like" . . . I will really enjoy the beer now!

Thanks Ted!