Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

garyvoth.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 167 posts

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#71

Post by _ph_ »

oldstrangers wrote: post #24

I love a good prime lens. Took this with a Sony FE 24mm f/1.4 ( https://roambyland.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/ss-1-of-1-... ). 50mm is probably too 'in the middle' for my uses, as a 24 + 70-200 has really replaced my need for a 50, and the ability add in a little compression of the foreground with the zoom is really nice. If I had infinite space in my bags I'd have a 50 for sure. If I was just using one camera I'…

On the other side, the neutral way, the 50 renders szenes is the appeal and the challenge for the photographer. A wide-angle or strong tele lens add a lot to the picture themselves, by their extreme angles of view. The 50 does nothing like that, puts all the burdon on to the photographer. Yet, a lot of the most iconic pictures have been taken by a 50.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#72

Post by rhn_mk1 »

vwoolf wrote: post #37
solardev wrote: 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…

I have a Sigma 30mm 1.4 in Fuji X-Mount ( https://www.sigmaphoto.com/30mm-f1-4-dc-dn-c ), which is ~45mm full-frame equivalent (FFE), and it's one of the most cost-effective lenses in existence, given its quality relative to its price. The downside around the "perfect framing" is that focal length will change perspective: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photog... (take a head a shoulders portrai…

Focal length doesn't do anything to perspective. Perspective is dependent on the location (distance) relative to subject.

Different focal lengths will make you want to change your position, to get the entire subject in frame, or, conversely, to get more details. Then you will change your perspective.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#74

Post by _ph_ »

muro wrote: post #9
podiki wrote: post #2

Title should be "The Forgotten Lens" though as a fan of the 50mm just "The" Lens works for me :) The 50mm f/1.8 Z lens for Nikon is really magical, I love any chance to use it.

Same here, have a bunch of lenses, but this one is almost always on the camera. I'm tempted by the 50mm 1.2, but its price gives me pause and I'm worried about its weight.

One shouldn't get too crazy about aperture. On a modern 35mm camera you rarely need the f/1.4. Certainly not for gathering enough light and usually the DOF is small enough at f/2 already. So you can get a much lighter and cheaper lens by not going for the fastest aperture.

A nice alternative are the Voigtländer lenses, which are available or adaptable to modern mirrorless cameras. They tend to be less pricy and quite compact. I personally love my Voigtländer 50/3.5. It isn't the fastest lens, obviously, but lovely, compact and has a great image quality. Steve Huff had a glowing review of it some time ago.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#75

Post by _ph_ »

trap_goes_hot wrote: post #70
jeffbee wrote: post #13

These are still useful on a micro four-thirds body, just not in the way you might expect. With a speed booster, you reverse most of the magnification and throw a huge amount of light on those small sensors. A Nikon 50mm AF-D on a .71x speed booster and an m43 body is a disturbingly fast setup at ~70mm equivalent field of view. All that said, the state-of-the-art fast primes for the m43 systems have left the classic 5…

Modern lenses will always benefit from modern materials, design and manufacturing techniques. That said the benefits of M43 as a format are shrinking with the advent of small compact FF cameras. Your 25mm f/1.2 lens is equivalent (from a field-of-view and depth-of-field standpoint) to a full-frame 50mm f/2.4 lens or thereabouts.

You can get very compact 35mm bodies now, but lenses tended to grow in recent years to cope with the growing pixel counts. So overall a mFT kit will be significant smaller than 35mm unless you talk about a Leica M :)

The Olympus 25/1.2 is a stunning lens, but certainly large for a mFT lens. it is still slightly smaller than a Leica 50/2 L-mount lens.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#76

Post by trap_goes_hot »

jetrink wrote: post #58
The_Colonel wrote: post #50

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…

Sure, but using auto-focus is even easier. I can achieve focus in under a second. And with subject detection + eye-AF, there really is no comparison.

In my opinion, focus peaking is somewhat useful for video, macro and astro. I say somewhat because it depends on the implementation. Some implementations (e.g. Sony) also apply in-camera picture settings (which adds sharpening to the output of the JPEG engine - which feeds the EVF), which can give you a false sense of sharp-focus. You'll see a ton of red, when actually the red is coming from the JPEG sharpening, not the change in focus.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#77

Post by q-base »

petargyurov wrote: post #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).

Get a Nikon FE! There are tons of cheap Nikon glass. It has exposure compensation as you mention. It has a brilliant way of turning of the light meter so it won't drain your battery, when not in use and is just an overall pleasure to use. Some of my best photographs has been captured on my Nikon FE.

https://www.35mmc.com/10/02/2022/appreciating-what-you-alrea...

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#78

Post by trap_goes_hot »

_ph_ wrote: post #75
trap_goes_hot wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern lenses will always benefit from modern materials, design and manufacturing techniques. That said the benefits of M43 as a format are shrinking with the advent of small compact FF cameras. Your 25mm f/1.2 lens is equivalent (from a field-of-view and depth-of-field standpoint) to a full-frame 50mm f/2.4 lens or thereabouts.

You can get very compact 35mm bodies now, but lenses tended to grow in recent years to cope with the growing pixel counts. So overall a mFT kit will be significant smaller than 35mm unless you talk about a Leica M :) The Olympus 25/1.2 is a stunning lens, but certainly large for a mFT lens. it is still slightly smaller than a Leica 50/2 L-mount lens.

Lens size and weight changes due to many aspects - number of extra corrective/aspherical/low dispersion elements, the _equivalent_ aperture, the number of focusing motors, whether the lens has optical image stabilization, whether it is weather sealed, whether it is made out of plastic or metal, etc, etc.

Its not easy to just isolate for sensor size. But _in general_, you can make small full-frame lenses which will be equivalent to micro four thirds lenses. The problem is that they won't sell. Today, few people want f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6 primes for full-frame. Most people shooting full-frame want F/1.2, F/1.8 or F/1.4 primes.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#79

Post by throwaway290 »

klodolph wrote: post #61
throwaway290 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We aren't talking about studio or generally professional photography are we... But yes, the longer the lens the more emotional distance. A wide lens puts the viewer right in the middle of the action.

I’ve never heard someone talk about “emotional distance” as being related to focal length and to be honest it doesn’t have the ring of truth. Longer focal lengths don’t even create physical distance. What happens is that people sometimes choose to step farther away when using a longer focal length, but you don’t have to do that.

Common hobbyist wisdom is that you use a longer lens to make the subject feel closer without coming closer. This is subtly wrong. In the eye of the viewer the distance eliminated through focal length is felt in a different way. If you want a photo that takes you back to being close to someone, come close and use a wider lens.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#80

Post by TomK32 »

It's an old piece and maybe not of of the famous lenses, but all I could afford in the late oughts: A Konica Autoreflex T4 with the 50mm/1.8 pancake and I did some great photos with it. Nowadays I often use it on a modern 4/3rds with an adapter (not so pancake) and still gives me a nice handling.
Post reply on HN