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

121–130 of 167 posts

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#121

Post by m348e912 »

coldtea wrote: post #113
ISL wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Fuji ever makes an X100 with a 50mm-equivalent lens (probably a 35mm f/2), they'll sell a boatload. Quite a few of them will sit on a shelf, though, compared with the 35mm-equivalent X100s of today. You can always crop in, but you can't crop out. If Fuji did make a 50mm X100, though, I'd be on the list. Ricoh made a great choice by bringing the GR IIIx to market. If I ever jump on the GR train, it'll likely be wit…

> If Fuji ever makes an X100 with a 50mm-equivalent lens (probably a 35mm f/2), they'll sell a boatload. Why would they? 35mm is much more versatile and better for family, travel, and street photography, which is what those cameras are used for.

I've spent some time with a full frame Canon SLR with a few different fixed focal length lenses. (35,50,&85mm). My favorite lens is the Zeiss Distagon 35mm/1.4 even though it doesn't have autofocus. That being said, I have moved to the Fujifilm x100v and I'm happy with the results.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#122

Post by macintux »

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…

> Almost all professional photographers who need to get the shot have moved to zooms for good reason.

Nitpick: I imagine you mean telephotos, not zooms.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#123

Post by [deleted] »

ISL wrote: post #87

If pointing someone to a single "normal" lens as a prime, I'd point them to a 40mm, not a 50. When I work with a 50 (which I very much enjoy; used one yesterday), I find that it is tighter in composition than my normal field of view. The 40 much-better matches my own perception and experience. The 50 is a more-careful tool. 35 is a little wide for me (but perfect for human/photojournalism work). If you want to try ou…

[deleted]

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#124

Post by dheera »

SECProto wrote: post #94
ISL wrote: post #87

If pointing someone to a single "normal" lens as a prime, I'd point them to a 40mm, not a 50. When I work with a 50 (which I very much enjoy; used one yesterday), I find that it is tighter in composition than my normal field of view. The 40 much-better matches my own perception and experience. The 50 is a more-careful tool. 35 is a little wide for me (but perfect for human/photojournalism work). If you want to try ou…

> If pointing someone to a single "normal" lens as a prime, I'd point them to a 40mm, not a 50. The article does have a section on exactly the issue (FOV) you note - it identifies that the 50mm lens is not the same with modern cameras (which have smaller sensors than 35mm film cameras), and recommends a 35mm lens for these cameras. Personally, I have a 35mm prime lens and quite like it, and I think it did help me imp…

Also worth noting that with mirrorless cameras, large-aperture 35mm full frame lenses can be made much more compact than their SLR counterparts, which need retrofocusing design.

On a mirrorless full-frame camera a 35/1.2 or 35/1.4 makes a fantastic, portable, all-around landscape and environmental portrait lens. Not so true for a 35/1.4 DSLR lens.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#125

Post by basicplus2 »

ISL wrote: post #87

If pointing someone to a single "normal" lens as a prime, I'd point them to a 40mm, not a 50. When I work with a 50 (which I very much enjoy; used one yesterday), I find that it is tighter in composition than my normal field of view. The 40 much-better matches my own perception and experience. The 50 is a more-careful tool. 35 is a little wide for me (but perfect for human/photojournalism work). If you want to try ou…

"Human normal" is actually 47.5mm

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#126

Post by mig39 »

oliwarner wrote: post #110

The Nifty Fifty is a forgotten lens? Since when? It's a classic, super cheap and usually very fast prime that's a recommended starter prime on every photography website I've ever visited.

I use my 50mm on a Canon full frame SLR for video. It's really great for "interview-style" videos.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#127

Post by ihuman »

cat_plus_plus wrote: post #99
trap_goes_hot wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fe…

Auto focus on something can be easier, however at this point you may not have enough focus points to hit the right thing, or the best shot can be a compromise focus between several things which is easier to achieve through analog interface.

> however at this point you may not have enough focus points to hit the right thing

Cameras these days have over 700 focus points, and some high-end ones have thousands.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#128

Post by skhr0680 »

323 wrote: 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:…

The Takumar 55mm SLR lens is really interesting to me because over 4+ versions of the lens it kept the same optical design but got dramatically improved coatings every few versions.

The single-coated version actually has quite good and natural color rendition in the right light, unfortunately the internal reflections are really noticeable with strong sunlight in the frame. I still consider the version with Zeiss coatings good enough for studio work.

Another interesting thing is that the f/1.8 and f/2 versions are both the f/1.8 lens, but the f/2 version has the iris calibrated to be wide open at f/2. Some people prefer the f/2 version because it has less vintage glow wide open while keeping circular bokeh balls.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#129

Post by bambax »

> Many of the world’s most evocative and best-known images were made under natural light with fast lenses and film. Creating such images is nearly impossible with “slow” zoom lenses, which are harder to focus and inadequate for use indoors without flash.

When I started doing photography 40 years ago, 400 ISO was considered crazy fast. I used Velvia 50 ASA most of the time for its amazing colors and depth.

Nowadays with a digital camera, 10 000 or even 12 000 (16 000?) ASA can produce usable pictures, if a little grainy. "AI" post-production tools can add bokeh or even refocus something after the fact.

I too love the 50mm. But times change.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#130

Post by cat_plus_plus »

trap_goes_hot wrote: post #112
cat_plus_plus wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Auto focus on something can be easier, however at this point you may not have enough focus points to hit the right thing, or the best shot can be a compromise focus between several things which is easier to achieve through analog interface.

Its not an analog interface. On the lens hardware side most lenses today focus by wire, and the EVF is digital, the focus peaking overlay is an edge + contrast-detection filter (which is imperfect due to JPEG sharpness misleading the engine to show an area as high focus when it isn't). Also the in the hardware/optical realm, the plane of focus is never flat in three dimensions, there is always a curvature to it (and…

I like optical viewfinders and say face closeup at an angle in low light can benefit from my discretion on what the best overall focus is rather than one sharp and one blurry eye. I know all of the other ideas like moving further away, or higher f stop and more lights. All I am saying is that once I am already looking at a shallow focus scene it's easier to rotate a ring till it looks good enough to me than hunt for best autofocus points with a joystick. Hopefully EVF distortions can be turned off on good cameras?
Post reply on HN