Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

Personally, I went from the 50 to a 40/2.8 which had a much faster focus speed and better build quality -- and I basically never shot wide open anyway because the focus plane would be so narrow as to be unusable. And the 100/2, which was just an awesome lens, good color, shape, everything.

But in the intervening 15 years, DSLRs are now dead, mirrorless is hanging on, and basically, it's computational photography from phones. Best camera is the one you have and so that's where it's done. It doesn't hurt that Apple has more R/D budget for their phone than the entire legacy camera industry.

But given the prices of the 5d on ebay now, I might must pick up the camera I lusted for then and couldn't afford, so that it can spend time gathering dust on the shelf like the other DSLRs.

50mm is great for street portraits or fashion shots. This is where you 1) can't come too close to not spook the subject, 2) want tighter framing, 3) want to put your subject on a little bit of a pedestal so to speak, or 4) want to make a huge print out of your shot.

However, for candid "photos of your own loved ones" as in the article, I think you'll find it a pain. In these circumstances I can't recommend enough a wide lens instead. Try both and make your conclusions.

- On the surface a wide lens makes things look "farther away", but in fact what it does is emphasize the actual distances in the scene-- meaning with close-up shots it gives a strong sense of presence, which is presumably what you want. 50mm might be good for fashion portraits, but for shots like in TFA it's IMO way too long and puts unnecessary emotional distance between you and the subject (this was my first feeling when I looked at author's photos).

- The article sidesteps the fact that F-number is not the only factor in motion blur. 1/8 second with a 21mm lens is not great but it'd look loads better than 1/8 with a 50mm lens that would be very unforgiving as far as any shake.

- Framing and focusing is much less finicky. For casual snaps most of the time you don't even need to look at the screen: with close-ups it's self evident where the camera is facing, and if something is happening right now a little distance away just point your camera in the general direction and you'll most likely have it in frame. And if you have some time to frame for aesthetics, it's still easier because unlike a long lens with background separation a wide one wouldn't over-emphasize every object that happens to be near your subject.

Get a prime lens compact like Ricoh GR, it's too wide for street portraits but your loved ones will not object if you occasionally use it in close proximity.

Looking back over the past 10 years, the best and most photos that I've taken were with a simple ~$300 Sigma 50mm f 1.4. I do have Canon L glass, but the bokeh and low-light speed just dominate most other considerations.

There's also one super important benefit/limitation that I love: With a prime lens, you zoom with your feet. That's not actually bad, you just need to get in people's faces to have them close up. And that in and of itself (often) yields great shots.

¹https://sunbane.com/gary-voth-photography-the-forgotten-lens...

I have 50mm and 28mm eqv. converters for it but hardly ever use them.

Recently I've really got into shooting landscapes with it, which is daft as no one shoots landscapes at 35mm. It would generally be regarded as not quite wide enough or not quite long enough. Still I think that's part of the appeal for me.

Limiting yourself to just one fixed prime is, in a way, very liberating. It's one less thing to think about and it forces you to walk about to get the framing you want.

Having said that if I was taking money to shoot someone's wedding again I would definitely break out my old Nikon DSLRs and a pair of zoom lens.