These aren't dead! You can still find a variety of fast 50mm lenses, from a cheap f/1.8 for like $150 (which is still way better than most kit lenses) to a very nice f/1.4 upgrade at like $400 all the way to absurdly expensive ones. https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/premium-50mm-le... Their primary advantages: * Amazing "bokeh" -- the quality and look of the background blur that modern phones mostly try to…
Absolutely agree, but have to add a small nitpick: 50mm primes used to be lightweight. The trend is towards Sigma Art / Zeiss Milvus/Otus dimensions, and that means much better edge sharpness but ~1kg in weight.
Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens
41–50 of 167 posts
Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
I cannot recommend a 35mm for close-up pictures of people. The perspective is too weird. I have a 35mm lens, I used it a lot, and it has its uses--and the main way I use it is to capture more of the room or more people when I'm taking pictures indoors. Going too close with it results in distorted pictures which is fine as an artistic choice but it's not the choice most people want to make. The Ricoh GR III has a 28mm…
Feel free to maintain your opinion, but I can't agree with it. > I cannot recommend a 35mm for close-up pictures of people. Also a little too long. Emotional distance, framing difficulty, yada yada. 28mm is probably the best bet for casual candids with relatives for the reasons I listed. > The perspective is too weird. Who cares. If you fail to capture a memorable moment because you were busy looking into the viewfin…
Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens
#43Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens
#44This sentence is confusing and wrong.
A perspective that "closely matches that of the human eye" has nothing to do with the focal distance of a lens.
Such a perspective is obtained whenever you look at a photograph from such a distance so that you will see it under the same angle under which it has been seen by the photo camera.
For a normal 50 mm lens, that means that you must look at a 4:3 photograph from a distance about twice the height of the photograph, e.g. from about 60 cm when looking at a photograph whose height is 30 cm and whose width is 40 cm.
The normal focal length of around 50 mm has been chosen after some experiments about which is the maximum vision angle under which a painting or photograph can be seen, when looking at the complete ensemble, and not at details, while being able to perceive correctly the perspective relationships inside the image. The conclusion was that the aspect ratio must be around 4:3 and the viewing distance about twice the image height.
So it is a distance that feels comfortable for humans when looking at the entire image. Being much farther away diminishes the perception of small details, while being much closer makes difficult the perception of the complete image simultaneously.
When a photograph is taken with a wide-angular lens, one would have to look at the image from a too small distance, to match the original perspective. When a photograph is taken with a long-focus lens, one would have to look at the photograph from too far away, to match the original perspective.
N.B. The correct viewing distance for the normal perspective is from about twice the height of the image. I have no idea who has originated the very widespread myth that the right distance is the diagonal of the image. A computation for either 4:3 or 3:2 images would show that their diagonals are much less than 50 mm, when viewed from the corresponding angle of a normal lens (e.g. the diagonal of a 36 mm x 24 mm image is 43 mm). Moreover, 50 mm is at the lower limit of the normal focal lengths. Many normal camera lenses had slightly longer focal lengths, up to 54 mm, or even 56 mm, which were even farther from the diagonal lengths of the images.
Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens
#45These aren't dead! You can still find a variety of fast 50mm lenses, from a cheap f/1.8 for like $150 (which is still way better than most kit lenses) to a very nice f/1.4 upgrade at like $400 all the way to absurdly expensive ones. https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/premium-50mm-le... Their primary advantages: * Amazing "bokeh" -- the quality and look of the background blur that modern phones mostly try to…
Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens
#46These aren't dead! You can still find a variety of fast 50mm lenses, from a cheap f/1.8 for like $150 (which is still way better than most kit lenses) to a very nice f/1.4 upgrade at like $400 all the way to absurdly expensive ones. https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/premium-50mm-le... Their primary advantages: * Amazing "bokeh" -- the quality and look of the background blur that modern phones mostly try to…
I can't live without mine!
Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Feel free to maintain your opinion, but I can't agree with it. > I cannot recommend a 35mm for close-up pictures of people. Also a little too long. Emotional distance, framing difficulty, yada yada. 28mm is probably the best bet for casual candids with relatives for the reasons I listed. > The perspective is too weird. Who cares. If you fail to capture a memorable moment because you were busy looking into the viewfin…
It used to be pretty common in ye olde dates for studio photographers to use 85 or even 105mm lenses to get flatter fields and a little distance from the subject.
Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens
#48I've had a couple of Fujifilm X100 cameras with their fixed prime lenses over the last few years. For me I've grown to love the 35mm eqv. focal length they provide. 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 e…
In return, 50mm is usually cheaper than even 35mm options. On APS-C cameras this ends up being 75..80mm, which is already in the realm of portrait lenses, i.e. somewhat more restricted in its use than on FF bodies.
Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens
#49I've had a couple of Fujifilm X100 cameras with their fixed prime lenses over the last few years. For me I've grown to love the 35mm eqv. focal length they provide. 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 e…
I use A Fuji body as well (xe3) and also find the 35mm f/2 my go to lens (52mm FF equivalent). Fujinon glass is excellent so if you want to walk around on a vacation instead of a wedding I’d definitely just grab the 18-55 zoom instead.
I have some old glass for my Pentax SP1000 which I was able to adapt to shoot on the new mirrorless. Some of the bookeh really is magical on those Super Takumar lenses. The crop is a bit of a mess, but photos are nice.
Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens
#50If you have an SLR or mirrorless camera, don't yet own any prime lenses (a lens that doesn't zoom), and you want your photographs to get a lot better very quickly, go buy the 50mm f/1.8 lens your camera manufacturer makes and only use that for a couple months.
Mirrorless cameras don’t care what brand their lenses are and 50mm is easy to manual focus. You can get an old Canon FD lens anywhere.
It's not. Especially at f/1.4.