File :-(, x, )
50mm is homo Anonymous
So yeah this is /p/ and everyone says buy a entry level dslr and 50mm prime. Why? Because its good glass for cheap? Sounds fair enough.

The problem is its pretty much a useless lens. Ok its reasonable for portraits.. but still not as great as something longer like 80mm or 100mm. Its pretty good for live music i suppose.

Otherwise its pretty dumb. Its an akward focal length to walk around with. On street you are limited to having a single subject or moving so far away the subject moves into the background.

I think the only reason why people recommend a cheap 50mm as a first lens is so that kids with their new dslr want some noticeable bokeh to show how proffessional they are. Well fuck that.

Luckily i got out of this cheaply by purchasing an old ricoh 50mm for 20 bucks. Now i'd like to pass this on to everyone in buying first lens town, save your money for a lens with a normal to wide field of view if you want a walk around lens or a longer lens for portraits. Leave the 50mm for people who want minimum depth of field per dollar for wank factors. Crop sensors have killed the nifty fifty lets move on.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2005:03:22 12:48:11Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width333Image Height411
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
almost got me
6/10
>> Anonymous
Nah nah nah i'm serious. People pay 100 bucks on a useless 50mm lens when they should be saving for a 24 or 30 etc. ESPECIALLY when they spend 800 big ones on a body!
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
>Crop sensors have killed the nifty fifty lets move on.
Sadly, yes but it still has its use. On 35mm film, the favorite primes were 24mm for wides, 50mm normal, and 80mm for portrait. The fifty just happened to be cheapest to get at larger apertures and so was widely used as a normal. With crop however, it's become 16 for wide, 30 (or 28) for normal, and 50 for portrait and the 50 is still the cheapest if you want a large aperture.
>> Anonymous
I don't really regret buying my nifty fifty but this man is right. 30mm is now where it's at.
>> Anonymous
Ok so what i've heard, 50mm lenses are generally cheap because the focal length is easier to design and manufacture.

I think it a bit sad that someone would prioritize a wide lens over a useable focal length. Portraiture is only one part of photography and i feel it would be more important that an amateur gets a lens they can take around with them. Then they can use the long end of their stock lens for portaits. Thin DOF isn't that important compared to choosing correct lighting and location IMHO.
>> Anonymous
just be glad that you live in a crop camera world - your 3 inch dick, full frame is equivalent of 4.8 dick
>> Anonymous
>>253361

Real mature scradley. Go back to your F 1.7 anus.
>> Anonymous
>>253362
burp
>> Anonymous
>>
>>Ok so what i've heard, 50mm lenses are generally cheap because the focal length is easier to design and manufacture.

Not true, they're cheap because the make the largest numbers of them. Look at MF, the least expensive lens you can get for 6x6 is an 80
>> Anonymous
>>253373
Oh ok. So why the current trend with crop bodys all over the market and 50mm still way cheaper than everything else?
>> Honest So You Dont Have To Be !9UISPtwBPo
Not sure if troll or not... but if you are, 8/10

I love my 50mm Prime, its my main lens...

It dosnt matter what people say, or that its now cropped into a 75-80.. Fact is, there still very good lens...

There is no "better" focal length for portraits, never has been, and never will be. just the best for that current situation.

If you use a lens long enough, you become a expert at using that one lens (relative to your skills with your other kit ofc). Personally, i know exactly what its going to look like when i put the camera to my eye, and am sure any other prime user can say the same...
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>253373
The focal length is not inherently easier to manufacture, but the optical formula is. If you look at a diagram of say, a Zeiss ZM 50/2 Planar, and a Zeiss 80/2.8 Planar for Hasselblads, you'll see the similarity. Planars (pretty much the base design for all modern 50 for 35mm and 80s for MF) share similar symmetrical designs with comparatively few, spherical elements. Meanwhile you need to pack ashpherical elements and exotic glass into, say, wides to make them any good. And zooms require many elements.

Of course I understand how retarded I am using Zeiss as an example to talk about "cheap" lenses, but the principles are there.
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
>>253395
btw, why is the 50mm f/1.4 three times for expensive than the 50mm f/1.8. Is it because it isn't priced for manufacturing costs but rather its use by professionals?
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>253404
I have a nagging hunch that it really is due to higher costs but I have no knowledge on the subject. I have some old camera ads saved somewhere that could give a look at the price differences in the past I think, though I'd have to find them first.
>> Anonymous
" useless lens " lol you don't know shit or are just trolling GTFO faggot
>> Anonymous
I'd say get a 55mm Marco, they're more expensive but worthwhile.
>> Anonymous
>>253444
Ok maybe no lens is useless. Sure, a crop 50mm has uses in portraiture and uh what else. Its too impersonal and generally akward to be used on the street. Ok so the better phrase would be 'of limited use'.

So mr faggot/ troll hunter. Prove your worth. How is the 50mm so good. All you have said is a generic amart arse comment while i am have a proper conversation here with valid points on both sides.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>253459
>It's too impersonal and generally awkward to be used on the street.
For you, maybe. You can do street with a short tele like the 50mm. Just because most street is shot with a wide doesn't mean *all* street has to be shot wide. 50mm isn't long enough for you to run into creepy-stalker-in-the-shadows issues.
>> Anonymous
nifty fifty is win. maybe you dont know how to use it
>> Anonymous
>>253459
You do realize that not everyone shoots street, right? And even those who do, don't always shoot street the same way you do. 50mm is great for street portraits, since it's a good portrait lens in general. No, it's not a good normal, because 50mm isn't normal on crop, it's still one of the lenses that everyone should own.

I use a 17-35 to cover the wide-to-normal range and then the 50 and I can manage pretty well with that. In all honesty though, I probably use the 50mm more than anything because I either need the extra speed (when shooting bands), or the 17-35 would be inappropriate. Usually when I do shoot street, I shoot film and I do use a 50mm on film as my normal, although honestly I'm shopping for a 90mm lens at the moment so I can get some slight tele too.
>> Anonymous
This thread is mega-fail.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>253392
>>If you use a lens long enough, you become a expert at using that one lens (relative to your skills with your other kit ofc). Personally, i know exactly what its going to look like when i put the camera to my eye, and am sure any other prime user can say the same...

Truth. Hated the 50mm when I got it, thought that all those people who recommended it were just recommending me the cheapest lens with thin DOF for that LULZ PROFESSIONAL BORKEH look. After one year with it, I find it has more use than my zooms. My 50mm is stuck in front of my crop DSLR, never felt the need for another lens. Heck, the kit lens is now used just 10% of the time - for group shots when I really need to get that much people inside the frame. I use it to cover performances, portraits, candids, and even some street. Heck If I can get away with it, I use it for landscape simply because its way sharper than the kit.

Also, I know that I spent over 9000 moneys on a body only to skimp on an 80 dollar lens. I have limited funds and after the 50mm, the next thing I bought was a fast laptop, a crappy used car and a used flash. Three things which are much more useful to me photographically than my kit lens. That said, I'm now saving for a 100mm macro for Christmas.

Pic related. What finally made me appreciate my 50mm prime.
>> Anonymous
>>253667
Why does everyone think the 1.4 is so that you can get LULZ PORFESSIONAL BORKEH? I've never been very interested in narrow-DoF effects. The reason I have a 1.4 is because I can shoot a good 3 stops faster than with the kit lens.

Does no one take photos indoors or at night any more?
>> Anonymous
>>253676
>The reason I have a 1.4 is because I can shoot a good 3 stops faster than with the kit lens.
>Does no one take photos indoors or at night any more?

Logic doesn't work in 4chan Land.
>> Anonymous
I suppose my interests are different. I take my camera everywhere. I don't usually go out to take photos I just wait until something strikes me and i feel a normal gives the best oppitunity to capture whatever i need. Anything too long or two wide gives each photo a certain flavor that i may not want. What i'm saying is if you use a 50mm on a crop body, every photo has the same flatness which may be good half the time but inappropriate the rest of the time. I don't need that I want to determine the flavor of my photos through composition and lighting.
>> Anonymous
>>253392There is no "better" focal length for portraits, never has been, and never will be. just the best for that current situation.

oh wow, someone's never used a 135 or 200
>> Anonymous
I'd bet you suck at taking picture regardless of the lens, and you're blaming the 50mm because you can't use it for shit.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>253876
I have used 135 and 200mm portrait lenses. Sometimes the 50 is better suited for the task. Or even my 35.
>> Anonymous
>>253876
>>oh wow, someone's never used a 135 or 200

oh wow, someone's never shot portraits
>> Anonymous
>>253676
My 1.8 is 3 1/3 stops faster than the kit lens (f/5.6 at 50mm for me). A f/1.4 would be 4 stops quicker. I presume the USM and more blades in the aperture also increase the cost a little compared to the 1.8.

I got the nifty fifty for the same reason you did. It lets me do low light photography without a flash. I also have a film SLR and its the lens I use on that.
>> Anonymous
>>253912

yeah, you
>> Anonymous
>>253459
Countless street photographers have proven how well it can be used . You really need to prove how bad the 50mm is not the other way around and you have not really done a good job so far
>> Anonymous
>>253343
I too was one of those who bought 50mm lens for dslr, quite unusable lens for everyday photography when you have 1.5 crop.

However I do not regret buying that lens because shortly after I came across used F90X that got me into the wonderful world of film photography. Ever since after that ive been shooting film with the 50mm.
>> else !L6xabslN96
i dont get it. i thought 50mm was regarded perfect for street photography, especially with subjects.

unless you guys are talking about street photog. being fisheye gimmicks...
>> Anonymous
>>253989
>50mm was regarded perfect for street photography

That was with film cameras.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
So what do you guys think of a 30mm? It's a "normal" lens for APS-C, anyone use it for their main dslr lens?
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>253996
I've used it a bit. Unfortunately, I try to compose outside the center, and the center's brutally soft. It's seriously godawful to unusable outside the center.

It's the perfect focal length for me though - it lets me get full-body shots indoors in a normal house. (@ 1.6 crop)
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>253997
*outside the center is brutally soft
Center's sharp as a tack.
>> else !L6xabslN96
>>253991
oh yea, forgot about that.

but i still reckon its very useful for shooting at night without having blurry noisy-as-fuck photos. especially for shows and concerts, the crop factor actually helps in that it becomes a medium-tele which is perfect!

i'm thinking of getting the 50mm nikkor or the sigma 30mm. i have an interest in documentary/photojournalism and portraiture(altho not so much in a studio). which would be most useful to me?

<-- nikon d40, yes i know bout the non-focusing on the 50mm.
>> Anonymous
got the 1.4 and that combined with the sigma 30 are easily my most used lenses.

they both work great for street, IMO i preferred the 50 for street and the 30 is good for indoor people shots and other general shots.
have an 85, dont like it. too long and therefore, too limited for me.

regarding going wider, i often find with landscapes using my 12-24 i end up with too much foreground and too much sky...
30 seems to work well for landscapes for me lately, also works well as a panorama maker lens in portrait.

tl:dr
each to his own, i looooooove my 50mm, even on a crop.