why is a 50mm a must have?

[Brian500au]

My two most used lens this year are the 85mm and when I need a little wider, the 50mm. I do a lot of portrait / glam style of photography and rarely use a zoom. I use my feet as a zoom for both lens. I use a 1.3x canon body and find both these lens are perfect for the work I do.

[andrewvid]

hmm.. interesting so far! now that people mention it i realise that i do zoom a lot instead of taking those few extra steps to get closer!

[roastman]

I think that there are a few aspects...why I have a 50:
3. Panoramic stitch: Short telephoto on crop = fantastic low distorting lens for panoramic compisitions.

This is a really good point. Does anyone use this on a full frame for panoramics? It would seem like a fantastic option for poor light and super crisp shots. If the focal length a tad too small, especially if you do portrait orientation stitching?

[roastman]

Also, I believe (may be wrong) but the 50 mm was extremely popular as a photo journalist lens. This was predominately because it did supply a life size view, plus was an extremely fast piece of glass. Lots of photo journalism relies on very fast grab shots and if you had to choose a focal length that was likely to get you a shot, the 50 mm was your best bet. As a journalistic or street photography lens, a 50 mm is a good compromise between the focal lengths available, although this is not as relevant to small sensor bodies.

At they don't require as much complexity in construction, they can be produced quite cheaply. Funny, but reading this discussion has prompted me to look at buying one!

[ameerat42]

Summary to date:

NO - Lots more stuff here - YES.

And actually, I thought that the historical reason for a f=50mm on 35mm frame, or any other considered "standard" focal length, was that it approximated the length of the diagonal of the frame.
Originally I had some rangefinder cameras with f=45mm lenses. This is approx the 43mm of the diagonal.

[Kym]

AP has the week 50 '50mm' competition tradition.
You have to shoot an image at 50mm regardless of the camera sensor you use.

We even have a banner for that...

[Xenedis]

My view on the 'nifty fifty' lens (a 50/1.8 of whatever make) is that it a great learning tool for the following reasons:

1. it teaches people to compose by appropriate physical proximity; and
2. it allows people to experiment with shallow DOF and low-light situations very inexpensively.

I'd recommend one to people purely for those reasons, and actually did so the other day.

Personally, I still dislike the focal length and have no use for it. If you happen to like the focal length or otherwise find it useful, than all the better. If I cared for 50mm I'd buy a Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L, but as nice a lens as that is, the focal length is (for me) its weakness.

[William]

Was'nt it that it approximated the field of view of the human eyes as well ?

[Xenedis]

Was'nt it that it approximated the field of view of the human eyes as well ?

The 'standard' focal length on a given camera system is that which is similar to the length of the diagonal dimension of the focal plane.

On a 135-format camera, the diagonal dimension of the focal plane is 43.3mm. A 50mm lens is close to that.

On some medium-format cameras, the 'standard' focal length is 80mm.

On a 135-format camera, a 50mm lens provides basically the same framing/subject size you can see with your eyes. if you have a Canon 1Ds/5D or Nikon D3/D700/D800, mount a 50mm lens and look through the viewfinder. Then lower the camera and look at the same subject.

The size of the subject should be just about identical when viewed either way.

Whether or not this view is a benefit or a weakness is a matter of individual preference. Personally I don't like a lens which shows me what I can see without that lens; I like lenses to be wide or long, as they give me views and visual effects my eyes cannot see, and as such are far more interesting to me.

50mm bores me and nothing I shoot calls for that focal length.

[WhoDo]

[snip]... partly because primes have have better optics and are fast.[snip]...mostly because they were cheap and students have no money [snip] ... if you're on a tight budget but still want good glass....then I guess it is a 'must have'. it'll run rings around any kit lens.

This is precisely why my 50mm f/1.8D was the first lens I bought for my new D7000 (after the kit lenses that came in the bundle of course). Bang-for-buck in terms of image quality and usability in lower light IMHO. I use it most often for natural light portraiture on the DX format sensor; can't afford strobes either ... yet. Even if money were no object I'd still have one of these in my kit, although it would probably be the f/1.4G version.

[mikec]

The 'standard' focal length on a given camera system is that which is similar to the length of the diagonal dimension of the focal plane.

On a 135-format camera, the diagonal dimension of the focal plane is 43.3mm. A 50mm lens is close to that.

On some medium-format cameras, the 'standard' focal length is 80mm.

Yep totally right on that and I think that's half the reason 50mm is so popular, it's a left over of the days when 50mm was the standard with all 35mm film cameras. If you look at any 2nd hand medium format body most of them will come with an 80 / 75mm lens depending on the body.

[dbax]

saw the nifty fifty 50mm 1.8 II in a JB's cattledog this morning for $96, why not have it ?

[Xenedis]

saw the nifty fifty 50mm 1.8 II in a JB's cattledog this morning for $96, why not have it ?

I think it's worthwhile to point out what's good about this Canon lens, as well as what's bad.

What's good?

1. It's light.
2. It's small.
3. It's fast (as in wide aperture).
4. It's sharp.
5. It's inexpensive.
6. On an APS-C camera, it provides classic portrait framing.

What's bad?

1. Its barrel and mount is plastic.
2. It has no distance gauge.
3. It has no ultrasonic focus motor.
4. It's slow to focus, and noisy, too.
5. The focus ring is awkwardly positioned and small.
6. It has a five-bladed diaphragm, producing unappealing pentagonal bokeh.

[William]

All true John, But IMO it's good value for money, Great for pano's as well , I once did a pano using the 50mm 1.8 II , 21 shots, Three rows of 7 Portrait , The definition was amazing , The image quality is great , Must admit , I'm like you and hardly use it in daily shots , I plan soon to do a day or two , Just using the nifty fifty

[Xenedis]

All true John, But IMO it's good value for money

It's unquestionably good value for money.

That's on economical terms. Just because it's cheap and delivers very decent results doesn't mean it's the right tool, though. :-)

Great for pano's as well

Yes -- for panoramic stitch composites it's better to use a longer lens to avoid weird transitions and distortion. Plus, the remote subject matter won't be as small in the frame.

[Mary Anne]

I gave my nifty fifty along with my 20D to one of my granddaughters as she needed it for her TAFE course.
I missed it on the 40D so I upgraded to the 50mm f1.4 to use in low light. I dont use it a lot though its there when I need it.

[farmer_rob]

I have a 35/1.8 and a 50/1.8 - both are a really cheap way of getting a nice shallow depth of field.

[Brian500au]

With the 50mm lens it is horses for courses - if you need it why not use it.

For my line of work if I am shooting in portrait orientation I use a 85mm f1.2, but if I am shooting in landscape orientation and I don't want to move too far away from the person I am working with then the 50mm f1.2 is perfect for the job on a 1D (1.3x). It still gives me that separation from the back ground, no distortion, and if i am doing studio work and close it down a bit, it is tack sharp.

I only ever go wider when I have run out of room to move back - and it that case I worry about distortion of the image (person).

[Delfi]

Normal lens (those that cover the same angle of view that the angle diagonal from the nodal point to the film or the sensor) are the most easy to design from cheap alternatives to ultra high end standards (add one lens to the triplet design and you can go along, put some double-gauss design to work and you have a masterpiece and go beyond and you are in heaven)

This results on a lot options to chose and before the use of zoom lenses as standard, the normal lens was produced for every body constructed. In the 60's the photographic use shifted to the wide-angle and the need to solve more difficult problems arose. And the Zooms bypassed the problem without solving it.

If you want some examples of good lenses (optically and constructively) you can find many 50 mm for 135 format, many 80 for medium format cameras and many 35 mm for APS cameras

I have now many 50 mm lenses, constructed from 1953 to now and I love them, but I understand the need for wides or teles.

[Erin]

I'm addicted to my primes. I love my 35mm as it's an equiv to the 50mm on a full-frame sensor (I've got APSC, naturally). But I've also got a 50mm and an 85mm, all are 1.8. Tack-sharp and generally "fast" lenses. I think they'll always have the slight edge over telephotos in that respect. They also force me to move so that I HAVE to evaluate a whole scene rather than just stand in one spot more often than not - my zoom is my feet, so getting in closer allows me to see more detail than I would otherwise notice.

Speaking of the 50mm 1.2... is there a point in having a lens that goes that wide? The DOF is so shallow as to be nigh impossible to use - I have a hard enough time at 1.8.