Why a 50mm Lens is your new Best Friend

Blacktop

Senior Member
I have one in my bag for low light emergencies. I don't have any other 1.8-2.8 glass , so if the 24-120 f/4 and D750 combination is not enough, than I might put it on.
 

WayneF

Senior Member
I almost NEVER use this FL. just meh to me. either from 28 and wider or 70 and longer. the middle part is too...meh.


Me too, maybe for different reasons. I've had a 50mm f/1.8 for years, but never use it, not for years. A zoom is so vastly better usable. I "grew up" in the days before zoom lens, so I understand "zooming with your feet", but the zooms are simply wonderful now. A zoom (including 50mm) will do about anything a 50 mm can do, and very much more.

The 50mm made more sense back in the 35mm film days, because it was a "normal" lens, with a normal field of view. "Needing" a 50mm was more true back then. And FX is bringing back that concept, but for DX, 50mm is a mild telephoto, and a very different concept.

And not at all versatile. At least not for me. The 50mm f/1.8 is inexpensive (and still very good), but there are other aspects too.
 
Last edited:

Zeke_M

Senior Member
I usually use a 35mm f1.8 inside or a 85mm f1.8 FX outside.
I have a 50 f1.8 D and I use it once in a while. They're so cheap it's better to have it and not need it then the other way around.
I have the kit lens but I rarely use it anymore. I'm spoiled by my prime lenses.
 

Dawg Pics

Senior Member
I have a 50mm F1.8, and now I have a 28-75mm F2.8. What reason would I need that extra little bit of aperture with no ability to zoom? This isn't a rhetorical question. I need to understand these things.
 

WayneF

Senior Member
I have a 50mm F1.8, and now I have a 28-75mm F2.8. What reason would I need that extra little bit of aperture with no ability to zoom? This isn't a rhetorical question. I need to understand these things.

Congratulations, you already do understand. :)
 

RON_RIP

Senior Member
I have a 50mm F1.8, and now I have a 28-75mm F2.8. What reason would I need that extra little bit of aperture with no ability to zoom? This isn't a rhetorical question. I need to understand these things.
Well it is true that that little extra aperture is only useful in more extreme low light or when you really need a shallow depth of field, but given there low price it is better to have one just in case and they are sharp. That being said I use my 60 more often then the 50 and Inam addicted to zooming.
 

Dawg Pics

Senior Member
Well it is true that that little extra aperture is only useful in more extreme low light or when you really need a shallow depth of field, but given there low price it is better to have one just in case and they are sharp. That being said I use my 60 more often then the 50 and Inam addicted to zooming.

Example please, what situation would require/prefer the 50mm fixed in low light where you wouldn't go for the zoom where I am looking at a difference in F2.8 vs F1.8. Especially for walking around. I don't have a problem with not using a zoom. I tend to forget that I can.
I am thinking specific applications for a fast prime lens, yes?

I understand the prime has less glass to shoot through, but is there a visible sharpness difference unless you are enlarging?

People have their preferences, obviously, based on their needs. It helps me to understand if I know why people are choosing one versus another. I know I will end-up with my own preferences, but right now I look at my lenses and kinda shrug? I did specifically use my 28-75mm f2.8 Macro the other day because it can focus at a pretty close distance.

Both of my lenses were given to me so I don't plan on getting rid of them. This discussion is for learning.
 

Moab Man

Senior Member
Example please, what situation would require/prefer the 50mm fixed in low light where you wouldn't go for the zoom where I am looking at a difference in F2.8 vs F1.8. Especially for walking around. I don't have a problem with not using a zoom. I tend to forget that I can.
I am thinking specific applications for a fast prime lens, yes?

I understand the prime has less glass to shoot through, but is there a visible sharpness difference unless you are enlarging?

People have their preferences, obviously, based on their needs. It helps me to understand if I know why people are choosing one versus another. I know I will end-up with my own preferences, but right now I look at my lenses and kinda shrug? I did specifically use my 28-75mm f2.8 Macro the other day because it can focus at a pretty close distance.

Both of my lenses were given to me so I don't plan on getting rid of them. This discussion is for learning.

The f/1.8 will allow a good bit more light than an f/2.8 hence the reason for referring to the 50 mm as their low light lens. The other use for an f/1.8 is more bokeh (blurry background).
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
I have a 50mm F1.8, and now I have a 28-75mm F2.8. What reason would I need that extra little bit of aperture with no ability to zoom? This isn't a rhetorical question. I need to understand these things.
Well the operative word here, I think, is "need".

Apertures, or f/stops, when broken down by thirds, are recognized as being: f/1.8, f/2, f/2.2, f/2.4, f/2.8

So, going from f/1.8 to f2.8 equates to a little over one full-stop of additional light. Depth of Field t is also something that could be considered. Just how useful one additional stop IS for either reason (depth of field or the extra stop of "speed") is One of Those Questions (by which I mean to say a matter of opinion and entirely subjective).

Also under consideration is that prime lenses are typically sharper than zooms. Notice I said, "typically" because there are exceptions, of course (aren't there always). Exactly how MUCH sharper, and whether or not that sharpness matters from a practical stand point, is also One of Those Questions.

My personal opinion is that if you know what you're doing you can adapt. If I have a prime I zoom with my feet. If I have a zoom lens, maybe I use that feature, maybe I still zoom with my feet; it all depends on what I want and I don't whine I need a zoom when I have a prime, I adapt to the situation and take the best shot I can. I don't get overly involved in the "What if..." sort of scenarios that many people seem to relish. Life is full of missed shots... Always has been always will be. I do what I can with the lens I have and get on with Life. I don't worry about shots I can't get, I focus on the shots I can get and on making those shots as good as I possibly can.
 

Zeke_M

Senior Member
No one has mentioned cost.
I priced a Tamron 24-70 f2.8 at $1300. That's out of my price range.
My three primes ran about $600. That covers me from 35mm to 127mm at half the cost and a little inconvenience. IQ is on par with the aforementioned zoom.
The nifty fifty cost me $90 used.
Well worth it if you're trying to do this hobby on a budget and still get good pictures.
 
Having grown up the the 35mm film age where the 50mm was the lens that came with your camera and was all I could afford for a long time I understand how to use it. With the limitations of film in low light the extra light that a 1.8 or 1.4 could give was important. But with cameras like I have now, the D7100 and D750, that extra stop is just not as important to me. I really like the zooms better. My main go to lens is my 24-120 F4. I do have a ultra wide that is 2.8. There are times that you just can not walk to zoom so a real zoom lets you get that shot you can not walk to.
 

RON_RIP

Senior Member
Having grown up the the 35mm film age where the 50mm was the lens that came with your camera and was all I could afford for a long time I understand how to use it. With the limitations of film in low light the extra light that a 1.8 or 1.4 could give was important. But with cameras like I have now, the D7100 and D750, that extra stop is just not as important to me. I really like the zooms better. My main go to lens is my 24-120 F4. I do have a ultra wide that is 2.8. There are times that you just can not walk to zoom so a real zoom lets you get that shot you can not walk to.
I think it is worth adding that there are times when you want to shoot from just where your standing and the zoom lets you do that and still get the exact framing you are after. And of course 50's were loved by street photographers because of their low profile, but are now being superseded by the 35mm because of the dx crop factor. It is sometime really liberating to have such a light weight lens on your camera but it does not always give you the framing that you would like to have. So 75% of the time my 16-85 lives on the camera.
 
Last edited:

Blacktop

Senior Member
I think the extra stop is more important on the telephoto side. Especially when shooting action shots, like sports, BIF and so on. That extra stop can mean the difference between a 1/750th or a 1/1500th of a shutter speed, which is huge when it comes to stopping motion.
 

Dawg Pics

Senior Member
With all of the flexibility available, no wonder it is so difficult to pin-down what lens for what purpose. You just have to go shoot and see what works for your style.
Thanks for all of the information.
 
Top