50mm lens on a dslr

rowanh

Hi,

Just from reading some posts on here and elsewhere it does seem like a lot of people use a 50mm lens with a dslr as one of their main lenses. Is this the case and would people have bought one rather than a 35mm lens say for a specific reason as the 50mm lens really being 75mm or so in 35mm film camera terms is not really a standered lens.. If you were going to only have one lens would you prefer a 35mm or 50mm on a dslr that is 1.5 times the focal length?

Mr. Grieves

I'd definitely prefer a 30 or 35 mm lens on a 1.5 crop factor. Trouble is, most 30mm f/1.8's are lot more expensive than a 50 mm f/1.8.

dazftw

Crop factors can be different.. between 1.3 1.5 & 1.6 are the ones I know of! As for the 50mm, I can only speak for canon ones but the glass quality is great any image I take with it is tack sharp.

Howitzer

It boils down to: would you prefer to spend about €80 for a 50mm or about €400 for a 28mm or 30mm... it's a money thing.

The 50mm or nifty fifty's are the best to get for people just coming to dslr's.
Usually you are broke after shelling out for that first camera body.
The 50's quickly give you an idea of how good the images can be.
But sadly after that everything else near that quality costs at least 3 to 4 times as much, if not more.

I've a question for anyone who knows a bit about lens construction... how do the companys manage the 50mm lenses for so cheap? and everything else is a good deal more? Something about this range? Easy to construct? 5 bits of glass versus 7?

DMax

I've a question for anyone who knows a bit about lens construction... how do the companys manage the 50mm lenses for so cheap? and everything else is a good deal more? Something about this range? Easy to construct? 5 bits of glass versus 7?

Maybe not so much technical but more common sense explanation
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/5018daf.htm

Mycroft H

Howitzer wrote: »

It boils down to: would you prefer to spend about €80 for a 50mm or about €400 for a 28mm or 30mm... it's a money thing.

The 50mm or nifty fifty's are the best to get for people just coming to dslr's.
Usually you are broke after shelling out for that first camera body.
The 50's quickly give you an idea of how good the images can be.
But sadly after that everything else near that quality costs at least 3 to 4 times as much, if not more.

I've a question for anyone who knows a bit about lens construction... how do the companys manage the 50mm lenses for so cheap? and everything else is a good deal more? Something about this range? Easy to construct? 5 bits of glass versus 7?

The've been the bread and butter lenses for many decades. Fiftys reached their peak of development during the 1970s, in the years since then only multi coatings and auto focus has improved

Mycroft H

Howitzer wrote: »

It boils down to: would you prefer to spend about €80 for a 50mm or about €400 for a 28mm or 30mm... it's a money thing.

The 50mm or nifty fifty's are the best to get for people just coming to dslr's.
Usually you are broke after shelling out for that first camera body.
The 50's quickly give you an idea of how good the images can be.
But sadly after that everything else near that quality costs at least 3 to 4 times as much, if not more.

I've a question for anyone who knows a bit about lens construction... how do the companys manage the 50mm lenses for so cheap? and everything else is a good deal more? Something about this range? Easy to construct? 5 bits of glass versus 7?

The've been the bread and butter lenses for many decades. Fiftys reached their peak of development during the 1970s, in the years since then only multi coatings and auto focus has improved.


Because the 50 is a standard lens on full frame. I.e the diagnol of the 35mm film is roughly 50mm, its neither tele or wide. Wide angles require 'retrofocal' elements, they have to 'expand' a image smaller then the diagnol onto the sensor, thus requireing more expensive lens elements.

The same applies to telephoto lenses, though they have to 'squeeze' an image onto the diagnol.

The fifty requires no fancy elements and thats why its cheap

I hope i havnt confused ye.....

Mr. Grieves

It stands to reason then, if I've understood you correctly, that if the APS-C sensor size stays around long enough, 30 mm could become the standard, and hence cheapest, lens. I suspect it won't happen though; there's less standardisation of digital formats than there was when 35 mm was dominant.

Mycroft H

Mr. Grieves wrote: »

It stands to reason then, if I've understood you correctly, that if the APS-C sensor size stays around long enough, 30 mm could become the standard, and hence cheapest, lens. I suspect it won't happen though; there's less standardisation of digital formats than there was when 35 mm was dominant.

Yes the new nikkor 35mm f1.8 is aps-c only. I'm sure we will see more of these from other manufacturs in years to come, because i think aps sensors are around to stay.

GhostInTheRuins

landyman wrote: »

Yes the new nikkor 35mm f1.8 is aps-c only. I'm sure we will see more of these from other manufacturs in years to come, because i think aps sensors are around to stay.

Anybody have any experience with that lens? I don't like those new nikon lenses without an aperture ring/distance scale/non-motor focusing, but I'd really like a 35mm.