7 Reasons why all photographers should learn using a 50mm lens

[JudeIscariot]

Thanks for posting. I read this in a number of places, but also often see comment that, with an APS-C camera like mine, a 35mm lens is the better option as it is equivalent to a 50mm for a FF camera. I've bought a 35mm, which I'm finding a joy to use. Welcome comment from others on the need for a 50mm as well.

Yes AND no.

The angle of view is closer to a 50, yes. However, the way the lens distorts is very different. If you put an actual 50mm on your camera and stood at the right point to have the same angle of view as with your 35mm, you would be taking two different portraits because the distortion effects exist and are relevant to the lens itself and not what camera you are putting it on.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

Well, if I have already have known for years exactly what 24mm or 200mm on FX will do, this equivalent will help me choose a new fangled 4/3 lens that I have no clue about. Unlikely as that is, it seems pretty clear.

It's not about clarity of understanding the difference, it's about how, or if, the difference is even remotely relevant in a general sense. So, if buying into a totally new format is the best example of relevance you can come up with, I rest my case.

.....

 

[WayneF]

Suit yourself, and granted, I couldn't care less about the focal length of my wife's compact camera. But with both DX and FX cameras, this understanding is quite useful to me. It is about knowing, vs not knowing, about how things work.

 

[Steve B]

For me a quick way to compare FOV between sensor types is important and relevant since I shoot not only in DX and 4/3 but will soon be adding FX. Knowing what the impact of switching between them will be is important to me. Of course this doesn't take into account the different aspect ratios of the sensors.

 

[WeeHector]

Having read the article I can only agree with one of the reasons and evn that is 50/50. The writer assumes that all photographers have FX format, which we don't, but I will agree on the optical quality. As for the rest he could have titled the article "Why all photographers should learn on point-and-shoot cameras" and 6 of his seven points would have been just as relevant.

Any so-called photo-journalist who immediately assumes that everyone gets into photography for the same reason is an ass. To state that everyone should use a "human-view" lens is talking total garbage. How many of us use a DSLR just for portraits? If that was my aim in life I would have stuck with a $50 compact. Indoor sporting events? Perhaps a darts match or a bowling competition but has this guy ever been to an indoor sporting competition?

It's cheap. So is a $5 throw-away camera.

However, the best one is the last: "They make you try harder". The old argument about moving closer instead of using a zoom. Just try that when you're taking a shot of a boat out on a lake. If you do decide to try it make sure you have a pal with a camcorder or phone as you're sure to become an instant hit on YouTube.

How these idiots ever manage to hold down a job is beyond me.

 

[WeeHector]

Suit yourself, and granted, I couldn't care less about the focal length of my wife's compact camera. But with both DX and FX cameras, this understanding is quite useful to me. It is about knowing, vs not knowing, about how things work.

Basically it comes down to what you see in the viewfinder. It doesn't take a PhD to work things out.

 

[Lawrence]

Having read the article I can only agree with one of the reasons and evn that is 50/50. The writer assumes that all photographers have FX format, which we don't, but I will agree on the optical quality. As for the rest he could have titled the article "Why all photographers should learn on point-and-shoot cameras" and 6 of his seven points would have been just as relevant.

Any so-called photo-journalist who immediately assumes that everyone gets into photography for the same reason is an ass. To state that everyone should use a "human-view" lens is talking total garbage. How many of us use a DSLR just for portraits? If that was my aim in life I would have stuck with a $50 compact. Indoor sporting events? Perhaps a darts match or a bowling competition but has this guy ever been to an indoor sporting competition?

It's cheap. So is a $5 throw-away camera.

However, the best one is the last: "They make you try harder". The old argument about moving closer instead of using a zoom. Just try that when you're taking a shot of a boat out on a lake. If you do decide to try it make sure you have a pal with a camcorder or phone as you're sure to become an instant hit on YouTube.

How these idiots ever manage to hold down a job is beyond me.

More or less, just about, exactly what I was thinking.

Point #7 was the only one I thought valid and only because I am trying it as suggested by Horoscope Fish as a way of improving composition by moving. Not sure I will try the boat thing as I don't have a friend with a camcorder.

 

[480sparky]

I should write an article titled, "417,886,593 Reasons Why Photographers Should Never Heed Photography Advice Given in Internet Articles".

 

[carguy]

Basically it comes down to what you see in the viewfinder. It doesn't take a PhD to work things out.

x2 - Why did this thread end up so over-complicated LOL