the 50 - what's not to love... no really what don't you like about them?

AnCatDubh

Ok, most of us love the 50mm prime, fondly referring to it as the nifty fifty and so forth. I actually have three of em, each with their own unique character and aesthetic beauty.

Apart from the obvious of not shooting anything particularly long range, what don't you like shooting with yours?

Borderfox

Nothing, I have the f1.4 and it gets lots of use. On a 5d its a superb lens with just the right focal length to capture great shots. I am thinking of upgrading to the f1.2 at the mo.

Ghost Train

sometimes I'd like it to be wider :pac:

pullandbang

I can't say there's anything I don't like shooting with it, but I do sometimes miss the zoom factor (or lack of). I know it's a prime but we get so lazy with the zooms and we get so used to composing the shot with our fingers rather than our feet. I just have the one 1.8 and for €50 (adverts.ie) it's the best piece of glass money can buy. I still miss not having the zoom though.........

Borderfox

Ghost Train wrote: »

sometimes I'd like it to be wider :pac:

Thats what the feet are for

.Longshanks.

The focus ring on the canon ƒ1.8 is too close to the edge of the lens. Otherwise love it!

Corkfeen

My only real issue with it is the build sometimes seems a bit flimsy next to other lenses. But otherwise I love it.

pixbyjohn

I love my 50mm f1.8 for its neatness at parties etc. but as a previous poster says, I sometimes miss having a wider lens on cos I can't move the restaurant tables back enough to get a group photo

wersal gummage

i found the 1.8 OK on the crop sensor camera. i actually gave it to a friend starting out (as well as a camera!) and i much prefer the sigma 30mm 1.4 - i think its a much nicer focal length on the crop camera.

would like to pick up the 85mm at some stage.

AnimalRights

I like mine for using in pub shots or other dark places but it lets me down for keepers compared to my 24-70L or 16-35L, if I had a 1 second chance to grab a shot it'd be one of the last 2 mentioned lens that would save me.

I find the 50mm 1.4 also doesn't travel distance too well at gigs ie if I'm shooting from across the room, if I have my 24-70L set at 50mm that will have a far higher chance of being in focus whereas the 50mm will have a lot of oof shots.
I own the 85mm 1.8 too and that has better contrast but I tend to miss the wideness of the 50mm. Pretty similar lens IMO.

Ghost Train

Ok, one other negative (for a non canon user) is the price. My 50mm's are manual focus

Kintarō Hattori

I have the Pentax F1.4 and I really can't complain. The build quality is fantastic and the results it produces can't be argued with. It's the lens that really kicked me into gear and for that it will always have a special place in my heart.

charybdis

I quite like the focal length as both as a normal lens on 35mm cameras and as a short telephoto on APS-C cameras, my problem with it is the focal length is the misguided attitudes towards it on the internet.

Such as:

• People not understanding what a "normal lens" is.
• People referring to it as being similar to "the human eye".
• People justifying their use of a 50mm lens on APS-C cameras because "it's what Henri Cartier-Bresson used". (Incidentally, check out the awesome bokeh in HCB's photographs.)

melekalikimaka

its great, but a good tele whoops its, a 24-70 is better for it for 90% of cases. its cheap and cheerful, not means the best

Diabhal_Glas

If I HAD to complain about the Canon 50mm f/1.8 It would be the noisy little motor, it kind of sounds like a dodgy cheap toy.
But for the price, speed, weight (Canons lightest EF) and picture quality Its an absolute bargain.
It looks so pretty on my old Canon 300 too

magicbastarder

i've the OM zuiko 50mm f1.4 - fantastic lens for portraits.

FoxT

- Autofocus is slow, erratic and noisy. My favourite lens, the 85mm f/1.8 is a far superior animal in this regard.

- The location of the focus ring is crap, it might as well be on mars for all the good it is to me. Also the focus ring is too sensitive. Its only like a qtr turn from infinity to 1m - should be about a full turn.

- The focal length is too long half the time

- The other half of the time, it is too short

But! It is cheap, and very sharp from f/2.8 upwards. It doesnt have LOCA issues like the 85mm. It is small, unobtrusive, and light.

Overall It is....OK.The dealbreaker for me is the AF. Focus is just too erratic at f/1.8. I'm gonna sell it one day in favour of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4, I hope..
- FoxT

pullandbang

Here's a shot I took a couple of weeks back with my 50mm 1.8 - ISO400 from the North Stand in Old Trafford looking towards the Stretford End.
Now this size doesn't do it justice (800px & 72dpi) but the full size image I have is incredible. It's tack sharp and when you zoom in you can see the expressions on individual people's faces. A super lens (€50 as I said earlier )

Thecageyone

Yup, the lack of wide angle, otherwise great little lens. I was doing portraits of the kids today, and the best place for the natural lighting I wanted left me tight up against a wall to keep them in frame. Otherwise they turned out great. I did some right after with the kit lens to get a little wider and comparing the shots from each lens side by side really makes the 50 shine.

Bacchus

Bit off topic....

I'm considering getting a 50mm f/1.8 but I've a D90 so there is the crop factor to consider. I don't think it will be wide enough. So, I'm also considering the 35mm f/1.8 lens. That's roughly equivalent to 50mm on the D90. Aside from the focal length, is there much separating the quality of these lenses? Distortion? Vignetting? Focus?

Thanks

Borderfox

One other thing, when you use it on a full frame camera it makes a lot of sense rather than the crop cameras. I love using primes for work, the simplicity of them and there speed of focus and clarity really sets them above any zooms even the L ones

DaireQuinlan

I graduated to the AF version of the 50mm when my kid got that little bit too fast for manual focus. Snappy focus, great separation at 1.4, light, what's not to like. It's great for half length and full length portraiture, gets a bit short for headshots though, I prefer my 135 or 105 for that.

Heebie

Look for a 43mm instead of a 50 if you want the same effects you'd get with a 50mm on a 35mm camera.

Bacchus wrote: »

Bit off topic....

I'm considering getting a 50mm f/1.8 but I've a D90 so there is the crop factor to consider. I don't think it will be wide enough. So, I'm also considering the 35mm f/1.8 lens. That's roughly equivalent to 50mm on the D90. Aside from the focal length, is there much separating the quality of these lenses? Distortion? Vignetting? Focus?

Thanks

Heebie

I've got a phenomenal Canon 50mm f1.4 from the 1960's..that works great with the camera it came with (Canon Pellix QL) I just really wish I could manage to mate it with my Pentax digital cameras.

I should just get a 43mm K-Mount lens that's nice & fast.

magicbastarder

FoxT wrote: »

- The focal length is too long half the time

- The other half of the time, it is too short

so it's never any use?

AnCatDubh

ok, there's way too much 50 love going on in this thread. Perhaps it just is THE perfect lens

magicbastarder

i have an inbuilt dislike of zooms, actually.

DK32

I'm with Diabhal_Glas on this. The 50mm 1.8 motor sounds like a wind up toy. Still love the images it produces and for what they cost new, they are great value for money.

DaireQuinlan

AnCatDubh wrote: »

ok, there's way too much 50 love going on in this thread. Perhaps it just is THE perfect lens

It's certainly the most versatile, that's for sure. I think it and its sibling, my Helios 44-2 58mm (which is an honorary 50mm lens ) are probably attached to my camera about 75% of the time.

Now one focal length I just -don't- have time for is 35mm. It's a lame wannabe wideangle but wants to hedge its bets and stay on the normal side of the fence aswell. Pah.

I'm guessing here that all you people giving out about the noise of the motor are all canon heads, right ?

Borderfox

50mm f1.4 has a nice whisper quiet micro USM motor

DaireQuinlan

Borderfox wrote: »

50mm f1.4 has a nice whisper quiet micro USM motor

Yeah, canon heads seem to complain a lot aswell that the 1.4 and the 1.8 versions of the 50mm are built to completely different standards. Both Nikon versions are built pretty much the same from what I can see (excellently obviously just in case anyone sees the opportunity to jump in here with a cheap dig )

kmick

Canon 50mm 1.4 and its far and away the best lens in low light conditions I have used. It can take a picture by candlelight and the depth of field/bokeh is second to none. Its four times the cost of the 1.8 but its 10 times the lens.

PaulieC

OK, enough gushing...

The Canon 50mm 1.4 is useless for Infrared as it shows a large bright spot in the centre...

apart from that, it's lovely

CabanSail

I take my 50 f1.8 with me a lot but do not shoot with it that much. I guess I tend to shoot a lot wider & the 50 is often too long on a cropped body. I now have a selection of primes & the 20 f2.8 is getting a lot more use & is rather a nice piece of glass. Have also been having a bit of fun with the 105 f2.8 Macro.

So ... my 50 is lovely and fast but too long. Will get more use if when I move to Full Frame.

rubdub

on the 1.8 the AF hunts like a motherf*cker, but other than that I love it... especially the price!!

charybdis

Okay, an actual complaint about most 50mm lenses:

Most 50mm lenses are usually double-gauss, planar-style designs that generate undesirable (in my opinion) double-line or "ni-sen" bokeh that can, depending on the background, render out-of-focus areas busily.

Some lens designs are a little better than others in this regard, in my (limited) experience it appears that Zeiss 50mm lenses do this more pleasantly than Canon/Nikon 50mm lenses, and the Sigma 50/1.4 that uses an entirely different lens design doesn't seem to have the problem at all.

Then again, the majority of photographers don't know about this - and, arguably they shouldn't - they're just content to call shallow depth-of-field or the out-of-focus areas of an image or out-of-focus blur circles, "bokeh".

freddyhard

Borderfox wrote: »

Thats what the feet are for

aka manual zoom - and use the spare eye to watch where you're walking while zooming.

DaireQuinlan

charybdis wrote: »

Most 50mm lenses are usually double-gauss, planar-style designs that generate undesirable (in my opinion) double-line or "ni-sen" bokeh that can, depending on the background, render out-of-focus areas busily.

Some lens designs are a little better than others in this regard, in my (limited) experience it appears that Zeiss 50mm lenses do this more pleasantly than Canon/Nikon 50mm lenses, and the Sigma 50/1.4 that uses an entirely different lens design doesn't seem to have the problem at all.

Yes that's true actually, the Nikon 50mm 1.4 has it particularly bad. I think it's down to the corrections neccessary for spherical aberration on the fast lenses though, as opposed to the lens design (although I guess those corrections are neccessary -because- of the lens design). In an interesting (or perhaps now :-)) experiment, try putting a big blodge of unfocused, busy, materiel IN FRONT of the plane of focus. You'll find it doesn't suffer from ni-sen bokeh, but -does- suffer from the twirly effect of uncorrected spherical aberration. Most lenses are optimized to reduce this as much as possible behind the focal plane, resulting in the double-line bokeh.

Thecageyone

I have the minolta 1.7 for my Sony, it's a noisey little bastard, but I still love it. great for portraits and it kills the kit lens for long exposures too.

duffarama

On my film cameras I much prefer a 35mm lens, similar to a 50mm but just that little bit wider and without being too wide. I'm actually quite particular!

28mm - can't use, we just don't get along
35mm - perfect, could shoot all day long with just a 35mm lens and not feel I was missing anything
50mm - always looking for more width and finding myself in a position where I can't go back any further to fit the subject into the shot

Sleepy

Have the Canon 50 1.8 on a crop sensor and my only real complaint with it is that the AF is slow and noisy...

My main complaint, however is that Canon doesn't manufacture a similar budget range of other primes (e.g. a 20mm, a 35mm, an 80mm) with the same wide aperatures.

FoxT

Yes , Magic B, I almost never use the 50 f/1.8. TBH the focal length isnt the problem so much as the AF. I have ordinary lenses - ie ones that get no hype, like the sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 which have given me far better value. Compared to the 50, the sigma doesnt have the aperture I want, but it focuses properly almost always. The 85mm I have is a bit long but at f/1.8 delivers nice smooth out-of-focus blur. The 50 is a bit rough in this regard. There is no point (for me) in buying an f/1.8 lens if I have to run it at f/4 all the time to compensate for poor AF. I have a zoom for that!

-FoxT

magicbastarder

bloody hell - i just checked ffordes, and they have one of my fifties in at the moment - which i bought from a friend for eighty quid!

https://secure.ffordes.com/Shop/Store/Itemdet.asp?Type=secd&sub=1&Code=OY&SubCode=ML&id=113030&promo=0

ianflynn

my only problem with my 50mm is the camera itself, doesnt have an in built foucs motor so needs lenses with focus motors on them, which the 50 doesnt have. so manual focus all the way. I dont always get the focus right.
(nikon D5000)

Heebie

That actually made me think of one feature that is seriously lacking in DSLR's.. a focusing screen.
I can pretty much always nail focus with my old Canon Pellix QL from the 1960's.. because it has a killer focusing-screen built into the prism assembly that is just for this purpose.
I don't think I've yet seen a DSLR that has one.. they really expect you to use auto-focus all the time or have absolutely astounding vision.

I wonder if anyone makes aftermarket focusing screens, or if they are available from any manufacturer as an option in a DSLR. =O

ianflynn wrote: »

my only problem with my 50mm is the camera itself, doesnt have an in built foucs motor so needs lenses with focus motors on them, which the 50 doesnt have. so manual focus all the way. I dont always get the focus right.
(nikon D5000)

ianflynn

Heebie wrote: »

That actually made me think of one feature that is seriously lacking in DSLR's.. a focusing screen.
I can pretty much always nail focus with my old Canon Pellix QL from the 1960's.. because it has a killer focusing-screen built into the prism assembly that is just for this purpose.
I don't think I've yet seen a DSLR that has one.. they really expect you to use auto-focus all the time or have absolutely astounding vision.

I wonder if anyone makes aftermarket focusing screens, or if they are available from any manufacturer as an option in a DSLR. =O

mine doesnt even have a prism, its a mirror

Heebie

Generally the eyepiece has you looking directly into a prism, on the far side of which is a mirrored surface which lets you see the light hitting the main mirror in front of the shutter down in the main camera body.
Without a prism.. things would be all upside-down & backwards.
Generally a focusing-screen would be on the lower surface of the prism immediately above the main (moving) mirror, along with things like the heads-up displays for shutter speed etc.. They just tend to not be there on digitals.

ianflynn wrote: »

mine doesnt even have a prism, its a mirror

charybdis

Heebie wrote: »

That actually made me think of one feature that is seriously lacking in DSLR's.. a focusing screen.
I can pretty much always nail focus with my old Canon Pellix QL from the 1960's.. because it has a killer focusing-screen built into the prism assembly that is just for this purpose.
I don't think I've yet seen a DSLR that has one.. they really expect you to use auto-focus all the time or have absolutely astounding vision.

I wonder if anyone makes aftermarket focusing screens, or if they are available from any manufacturer as an option in a DSLR. =O

All SLR cameras have focusing screens, even DSLRs.

Most DSLRs have focusing screens optimised for slow zoom lenses and tend to show greater depth-of-field in the viewfinder when using wider apertures. Most DSLR manufacturers offer aftermarket, user-replaceable focusing screens, I'm sure you could find an appropriate one without much effort.

Heebie wrote: »

Generally the eyepiece has you looking directly into a prism, on the far side of which is a mirrored surface which lets you see the light hitting the main mirror in front of the shutter down in the main camera body.
Without a prism.. things would be all upside-down & backwards.
Generally a focusing-screen would be on the lower surface of the prism immediately above the main (moving) mirror, along with things like the heads-up displays for shutter speed etc.. They just tend to not be there on digitals.

There are both prism and mirror designs for SLR eyepiece assemblies. And, again, DSLRs have focusing screens.

AnCatDubh

think these are the kind of thing you are referencing;

http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/page--Custom-Focusing-Screens--store.html

I know of people who have had great success with these on various pentax dslr's.

ianflynn

AnCatDubh wrote: »

think these are the kind of thing you are referencing;

http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/page--Custom-Focusing-Screens--store.html

I know of people who have had great success with these on various pentax dslr's.

Still only new to this, but is this a worthwhile upgrade?
or will I just wait till I can afford a D90 :rolleyes: