Live data from Hacker News

Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

garyvoth.com

51–60 of 167 posts

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#51
post #15

> The 50mm lens, once the mainstay of 35mm photography, has been all but forgotten by today’s photographers. > Before falling to its current level of disfavor, the 50mm lens had a long and distinguished pedigree umm, I'm pretty sure nifty-fiftys have been top recommendation always for people wanting to explore beyond the kit zoom. And quickly checking some camera stores, indeed, they are one of the top selling lenses…

> I'm pretty sure nifty-fiftys have been top recommendation always for people wanting to explore beyond the kit zoom.

His article isn't addressed to "people wanting to explore beyond the kit zoom". It's addressed to people who just finished unwrapping "that new 35mm camera kit you bought to document your child’s early years", who accepted the default lens and have only a foggy awareness of the pros and cons of different lenses. His article is meant to turn these people into "people wanting to explore beyond the kit zoom".

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#52
post #3

I have a highly regarded, but old 50/1.4. I also have a cheaper 50-300/3.5-4. Big surprise - the 50-300 zoom looks MUCH better than the 50/1.4 at 50 mm. I'm talking about the colors, they are just better and more natural (less aberrations probably). Of course, if you have enough light since it's slower. I investigated this, and it turns out modern lenses have much better coatings and other optimizations. Conclusion:…

I completely believe you, at f8. I'm not sure I do if both are at f3.5. And of course the zoom can't do f2.8, f2 & f1.4 which are three good reasons to use the prime. (This is without getting into "character", because it's so subjective.)

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#53
This is good timing -- I am literally in the middle of researching lenses and film SLR cameras for a beginner -- I'm looking to get into film photography.

Anyone here have recommendations?

I am currently reading about the Olympus OM-1 and it all sounds great apart from the lack of exposure compensation (but that might just teach me the hard way).

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#54
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m curious, why is this?

In my limited photography experience, a prime lens forces you to move and work more to get a pleasing composition which teaches your eye better than twisting a zoom lens.

I think so too. You have to think more to get good shots, and although you lose zoom you get to use DoF as a creative dimension.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#55

Earlier 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…

You're personally excited about wide-angle lenses and you seem to be convinced that everyone else will feel the same way about them, for candids of friends and family, and I just don't think that's true. You say that longer lenses create "emotional distance" but this is, to be honest, one of the most horeshit photography opinions I've heard. The lens doesn't create emotional anything, it just changes what you get in the frame.

I like the way the photos in the article look. They're not your style.

I’ve spent time with a lot of other hobby photographers and there’s always a few people with preferences like yours, but it’s never been a majority, and most photographers I’ve met have the humility to recognize that their own personal choices aren’t automatically the right choices for others.

> Who cares. If you fail to capture a memorable moment because you were busy looking into the viewfinder focusing and framing, you fail, period. Very hard to do with a wide lens.

Framing is not a problem that goes away if you use wide-angle lens. You can shoot wide and crop later, but all you're doing is changing when you're making the framing decisions, and the crop-later approach has the disadvantage that when you crop, it's too late to reframe. Framing is not easier with wide-angle lenses versus normal lenses. It's easier to get something in-frame, but harder to keep something out.

There's no "default" lens which is right for everyone or every circumstance.

I'm also not sure why it would take me longer to frame or focus with a 50mm lens. For candids, I almost always use an autofocus camera these days. It focuses at the touch of a button.

> Wow. A prime of 90mm poses way too many constraints to work with.

I've been using a 90mm equivalent for a long, long time. It's my go-to lens for when a friend who's a makeup artist or costume designer wants a good picture of their work, or when somebody wants a simple portrait, and I think it's easy to work with.

Maybe I just got used to working within those constraints. And maybe... just maybe... you got used to working with the constraints of a 35mm lens, and you've forgotten what it felt like when you were first dealing with those constraints.

I've done a lot of personal with 35mm, 50mm, and 90mm equivalent primes. There's a reason why people who get a set of three prime lenses most often get three lenses in this range or something similar--like 28mm, 45mm, 110mm.

It's easy to fall in love with the look of a wide-angle lens and then get disillusioned with it. You find that you're including too much stuff in-frame that you don't want, or you find that you're shooting too close to people and they look distorted. That's why I recommend that people spend some time with a wide-angle lens before deciding if they want to purchase a camera with a fixed wide-angle lens, like the Ricoh GR III. The Ricoh GR III is like $900 and forces you to use a 28mm perspective or crop in post--not everyone is going to like that.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#56
This article was actually published more than 20 years ago, https://web.archive.org/web/20020603153119/http://vothphoto....

Some of its advice is timeless, but its context is back when your phone did not take great pictures. Instead, most people carried around no camera at all, and events went undocumented. Then, among people who decided they wanted to take pictures of wherever they were going, they bought point-and-shoots, which did not let you change the lens. Then, for those wanted to get serious, there were entry-level DSLRs, which often were sold with a bag and a kit lens, and for the vast majority of these owners, the thought of buying another lens seldom crossed their minds.

In short, this article is meant to expose the problem to people who did not even know they had a problem, and to offer a solution that was last thing they would have guessed.

(I don't think the author meant to mislead us about the original date of publication. It looks like he recently moved everything to Wordpress and may not be savvy enough to fix the date.)

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#57
post #20

I'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 owned the original X100 and used it for several years as my only camera. I tried to like it, embrace the "liberation" etc. But it did not work out and it got me to dislike the 35mm focal length.

35mm is kind of good as a universal focal length - wide enough for most needs and tele enough for basic "environmental" portraiture. But it's also "boring" in the sense that it can do most things, but does not really excel at anything. I noticed that I use it more and more as a point and shoot and my photography stagnated.

Then I got into another "need more lenses" phase settling again for mostly (though not exclusively) a single lens - but this time 53mm (= fuji xf 35mm). I feel more creatively alive - the lens is more fun in the sense that it excels more, but also requires more thought into it.

YMMV.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 50mm is easy to manual focus It's not. Especially at f/1.4.

Have you ever used a manual focus lens on a mirrorless camera with focus-peaking[1] on? It's so easy to focus, it feels like cheating. It makes a 50mm usable wide open. (This is assuming your subject is relatively static or at least cooperative. Small children and animals really benefit from autofocus or a smaller aperture.)

1. For those unfamiliar with the term, focus peaking is a feature of most mirrorless cameras that highlights areas of the image that are in focus, usually in bright red. It makes it very intuitive to adjust the focus precisely, so much so that you soon find yourself subconsciously making fine adjustments by leaning slightly forward or back, rather than manipulating the lens.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#59
post #45
post #4

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…

Yep. The Nikon 50mm 1.8 is such a steal and provides for amazing photos.

I love my 50mm f/1.8. I've used it so much over the years and it produces beautiful shots. I also have an old 50mm f/1.4 (which can be had for a steal[0]) and while it's nowhere near as sharp, it has a really dreamy quality about it.

[0] https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/product/nikon-af-nikkor-50mm-f-1-4...

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#60
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 50mm is easy to manual focus It's not. Especially at f/1.4.

Have you ever used a manual focus lens on a mirrorless camera with focus-peaking[1] on? It's so easy to focus, it feels like cheating. It makes a 50mm usable wide open. (This is assuming your subject is relatively static or at least cooperative. Small children and animals really benefit from autofocus or a smaller aperture.) 1. For those unfamiliar with the term, focus peaking is a feature of most mirrorless cameras…

Yes, I used many manual lenses on my Fuji XT-10 and XT-2 - 12mm f/2, 35mm f/1.2, 56mm f/1.4 (all crop of course) among others. The only one I would say was easy was the 12mm (for obvious reasons).

> This is assuming your subject is relatively static or at least cooperative.

Well, there you go, that's a pretty important caveat. It makes e.g. candid photography pretty challenging.

Post reply on HN