Nifty Fifty question

dinneenp

Hi,
I bought a SMC Pentax-A 50mm F1.7 but find myself having to step back a lot to get shots (kids in rooms etc). So I'm thinking of selling it.

I haven't had a chance to play around with it much yet (will be able to do so soon when I'm away from family for a week with work).

I know the nifty fifty is a much loved lens so am just wondering:

• what you use yours for
• why you like/love the lens
• do you encounter the same problem as me
• what would you suggest as a potential replacement (I suppose it depends on what exactly I want it for (mainly toddle & baby currently)

In DPreview.com I asked what alternative lens (high aperture) would you suggest and what price would they be roughly (2nd hand preferably). One with macro (or close to) would be a bonus.
The Tamron 28-75 f2.8 sounds appealing

1. the 35mm f2
2. Sigma 30mm f1.4
3. SMCP FA 35mm f/2 (used only)
4. SMCP FA* 24mm f/2 (used only)
5. Sigma 24mm f/1.8
6. Pentax FA24mm, f/2.0
7. Pentax DA35 f2.8 Limited macro
8. Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
9. 28-75 f2.8 tammy
10. DA40/2.8
11. M35/2

Cheers,
Pa.

magicbastarder

i prefer the 35mm 1.8 (on a DX body) to the 50mm 1.8; it's more versatile; the 50mm is a short telephoto on a DX camera.

sensibleken

I have the canon 50. I find it captures the light and detail for portraits fantasically. Lovely bokeh too.

edit: Price. dont forget price

jpb1974

Portraits on a cropped sensor body.

Portraits and Street on a full frame body.

Low light scenes.

Kintarō Hattori

I have the SMC P-FA F1.4 from Pentax and love it. It is the lens that stays on my camera 95% of the time. Yes I have to move around to get things into shot but it is totally worth it.

The 50mm is a prime lens. While it may not zoom it brings its own benefits to the party. Image quality is top notch- truely stunning sometimes and depth of field is fantastic. It was the lens that helped me kick things up a gear with my photography. I use mine for portraits and low light situations. Not having a zoom feature took a little getting used to but I learned to live with that and I've learned to 'zoom' with my feet.

Why did you buy the lens in the first place? What did you want/expect from it and yourself? You'll find that most photographers here love their nifty fifty and it's with good reason, so it's a little surprising to have someone disappointed with theirs.


Below are some of the images I've taken with it:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/liamandagnieszka/tags/smcpfa50mmf14

Promac

As others have said, it's a fantastic lens for portraits but as you've discovered yourself it's not a wide-angle or a zoom. It's a little odd to get used to, you sort of feel like you're missing a limb without the zoom - possibly more-so without the wide angle maybe.

It's hard to capture a room full of people with a 50mm on a cropped sensor. It can look fantastic though. I find I keep the 18-55mm kit lens on most of the time and then swap to the 50mm if I'm doing any kind of portrait stuff.

The next time you're going to a party or gathering try just bringing the 50mm, leave the aperture wide open (smaller number ~ 1.8 or so) for a shallow depth of field and see what kind of pictures you get.

My other half calls it the photo-shopping lens cause it makes everyone look great.

hbr

dinneenp wrote: »

what you use yours for

Indoor portraits and outdoor shots that don't require a wide field
of view.

why you like/love the lens

Better than the kit lens in low light. Low distortion and low
aberration. Greater control over DOF.

do you encounter the same problem as me

Yes.

what would you suggest as a potential replacement (I suppose it depends on what exactly I want it for (mainly toddle & baby currently)

If you want a 'normal' lens on a crop sensor, something around
35mm would be ideal.

dinneenp

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Why did you buy the lens in the first place? What did you want/expect from it and yourself? You'll find that most photographers here love their nifty fifty and it's with good reason, so it's a little surprising to have someone disappointed with theirs.

Bought it cos I have 1 toddler, 1 baby and wanted a lens for shots of them, indoors etc. Also read a lot of people praising it.

Kintarō Hattori

dinneenp wrote: »

Bought it cos I have 1 toddler, 1 baby and wanted a lens for shots of them, indoors etc. Also read a lot of people praising it.

If you want to capture great portrait photos of your kids then it's a superb lens. If you prefer capturing 'full body' photos then within small rooms it might be difficult.

AnCatDubh

emmmmmmnnnnnn..... maybe you just need to play with it more.

If your purpose is just the two kids one of which is very stationary (i'm guessing) then unless you are living in a shoe box, it should be ok as a focal length. The 50 is converting to about a 75mm on the digital body so a little additional space is useful but not essential.

I have taken head and shoulder type portraits in about 8 - 10 ft of space with that exact lens. There's no way it will take in an entire room, but that isn't what it is intended for and most likely a whole room will distract from the image anyhow - back to a basic rule of simplification of your composition.

With the manual focus on that lens I always find shooting at the extreme of f1.7 to be a little soft (this is to be expected, widely reported etc..., combined with not the steadiest of hands - though I appear to be getting better at that if the weekend is anything to go by).

When up so close you are dealing with fairly extreme depth of field, 75mm(ish) focal length, f1.7, and distance to subject of just a couple of feet - but close it down just a little and that lens is pure magic. It has beautiful contrast and fantastic sharpness. I have no issues at all at f1.7 on my Pentax film bodies due to their split prism viewfinder.

I'd suggest to hold onto it and play with it some more. Set yourself up a test environment (or two). Make it nice and colourful, make it contrasty, make it interesting, and then shoot it all the way up and down the apertures varying your shooting angle etc.. Also introduce a tripod for the test environment.

Good luck with it.

goldseeker

:)I got it to photograph my baby girl, when she was born. Quality is superior for the price. Much better than kit lens with canon. It is soft wide open, if you like bokeh you will have to sacrifice sharpness. I use mostly 4f aperture. But I too find it not wide enough. I guess because of cropped sensor 1.6x can not get more people into frame in my living room

gerk86

ah sure keep it, that and a 28mm prime are all you need for the street. Great little lens.

dinneenp

gerk86 wrote: »

ah sure keep it, that and a 28mm prime are all you need for the street. Great little lens.

It's all about the money. I have to sell the nifty fifty if I want a replacement.

jpb1974

I have to sell the nifty fifty if I want a replacement.

The Tamron 28-75 f2.8 sounds appealing

I'd say you'll have to sell something else too if you want a Tamron 28-75. They're about 3-4 times the price.

Thecageyone

nifty-fifty lenses are great. When I first got mine I was the same - felt I didn't have enough room indoors. But I learned to move my ass if it means pinning it to the wall - that's what I do. I use mine for just about everything. Portraits, landscape, I've shot gigs with it, group shots, general mucking about shots ...

I always bring another lens when I head out, but almost always end up changing to the 50mm and just walking to zoom :cool: can't beat the quality of a prime. I'd like something wide too, but not to replace it, to accompany it for tighter spots. Just don't have the funds to go for what I'd like [any wide f/2.8 for example] but I'd not sell the 50mm to go towards one. Not much worth in that for the sake of a bit wider. Just back up.

DeVore

Got it. Love it. Improved my shots in a single stroke and when you get the hang of it it gets even better.

"Zoom with your feet" hahaha... thought that many times myself...

DeV.

dinneenp

jpb1974 wrote: »

I'd say you'll have to sell something else too if you want a Tamron 28-75. They're about 3-4 times the price.

This is my lens

Tamron €375 here

True, I'd have to add about €175 to get the other lens...hhmmmm

jtang

I was in a similar position a while ago, I have both the 50mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/2 for my cropped canon body. Overall I prefer the 35mm to be my general lens for stuff, and the 50mm gets used only every so often, since with the 35mm I don't have to walk too far back to get a shot.

Before getting the 35mm I really had a choice of the 35mm, 28mm or 24mm primes. I think the 28mm would have been the best choice (would be about 46mm on my canon body), but price/performance wise the 35mm was a better buy on a tight budget.

One problem I had with the 50mm on a cropped body was, that people/stuff would just get in the way when taking snaps of people/stuff on a street, the 50mm feeling like a 85mm on my canon body, just annoyed me :P btw I don't mind walking to zoom, but there are drawbacks having to walk back (instead of closer to the object) but I guess it depends on what you are taking pictures of.

dinneenp

Think I meant the Sigma 28-70 f2.8... A hell if a lot cheaper than the Tamron

charybdis

I don't really think the 50mm focal length is actually all that good for a general lens on APS-C DSLRs. I'm not saying it's not a useful focal length or you can't take good photographs with it, but the reason it's widely recommended and used isn't because of how ideal for general use it is, it's because 50mm prime lenses are usually relatively really cheap.

If you actually want a fast prime for general use (and are using an APS-C DSLR), get something in the 21mm - 35mm range, f/2.8 or faster.

magicbastarder

charybdis wrote: »

it's because 50mm prime lenses are usually relatively really cheap.

because of their 35mm heritage, no doubt.

Thecageyone

I've taken close ups of people with a 70-300 on the long end. using your right eye on the view-finder makes it easy to use your left to watch out for random shot invaders.

charybdis

magicbastarder wrote: »

because of their 35mm heritage, no doubt.

Yeah, exactly. It's easy to make a fast normal lens that's both cheap to produce and is useful enough that there's a big market to produce them in huge volumes. 50mm lenses are cheap because they're designed for the 35mm format, but aside from being cheap, they're not particularly suited to crop-sensor DSLRs, at least not as a general lens.

AnCatDubh

dinneenp wrote: »

This is my lens

Ach, that's not the A-50, that's the F-50 The A-50 is older and is manual focus. Built like a tank too.

I don't have the F-50 1.7 (the one I referred to was the A-50 f1.7), but I do have the FA-50 1.4. This is a fantastic lens. I'm not familiar with the F-50 but it is supposed to be very similar to the FA series and if so is a damn fine lens.

dinneenp

The Sigma 24-60 f2.8 seems to be within my budget (basically sell my SMC Pentax-F 50mm F1.7 and maybe add a 'little bit of money' if needed.
The Tamron 28-75 is a fair bit more expensive...

There's no such thing as a stupid question but...
the way I see it a zoom is more versatile than a prime lens.
Can someone tell me what advantage a prime would have over one of the above zooms?

• higher aperture so better in low light. (I'll have to test some low light shots from 2.8-1.7 to see the exact difference)
• quicker. Is it 'significantly' quicker ?
• more depth of field

jpb1974

higher aperture so better in low light. (I'll have to test some low light shots from 2.8-1.7 to see the exact difference)
quicker. Is it 'significantly' quicker ?

These are effectively one in the same.

When some says a lens is fast or quick usually what they mean is that the lens has a large aperture opening (e.g. F1.8, F1.4, F1.2) which lets in lots of light and therefore will allow for faster shutter speeds.

When shooting in low light situations you typically want as fast a shutter speed as is possible... so having a large aperture is advantageous.

Kintarō Hattori

dinneenp wrote: »

...Can someone tell me what advantage a prime would have over one of the above zooms?

Image quality. Prime lenses are head and shoulders above zoom lenses. A good prime lens is simply outstanding in the detail it picks up.

jpb1974

Couple of quick reads here:

http://photocritic.org/prime-lens/

http://digital-photography-school.com/prime-vs-zoom-lenses-which-are-best

it’s far easier to mass produce a prime lens: Because it only has to be sharp at one focal length, the optics are a hell of a lot simpler. So they can concentrate on getting it to be really good, rather than just being good enough.

magicbastarder

dinneenp wrote: »

[*]more depth of field

(the option of) less depth of field, or, if you like, more control over depth of field.

dinneenp

Hi (again),
I've checked Flickr etc. for images but could ye share some of your shots with a nifty fifty lens that you like/would use to promote the lens?
Cheers,
Pa.

Thecageyone

You've seen mine already, as you fav'd one

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cagey75/sets/72157623710307441/

Only 17 on there but all taken with a 20yr old minolta f/1.7 on a sony A200 body.

AnimalRights

Old pic on a 40D cropped cam wide open 1.4

Yv

Think I posted this on Boards before but this was with a 50mm 1.8 on a cropped sensor.



I love having the 50mm for those moments when it really works so much better than a zoom (like here), but I would love having a 35 or 28mm even more - the money needs to go on more important stuff (like rent!) before I can invest in one of those bad boys though!

Another thing to note about primes is the lack of distorion of verticals & horizontals (am I right there, or is it just the 50mm?) - if you want perfectly straight lines from a zoom be prepared to spend serious quids. That's in my experience anyway.

Thecageyone

Pushed further back in my set above, but still remains one of my personal favs -




Camera Sony DSLR-A200
Exposure 0.001 sec (1/1000)
Aperture f/2.8
Focal Length 50 mm
ISO Speed 100


Oh, and that is a beaut AR, if you could get that close every gig a nifty is all you'd need

Kintarō Hattori

Adriatic

I was hoping to invest in a nifty fifty for my nikon soon, is a f1.4 worth it over the f1.8 (in terms of price)?

Thecageyone

Since I switched to Nikon I'm after one too, the f/1.8 would do me grand. If you have the money spare go for the faster one. But it's not a necessity really. I sold my minolta one for €100 - they may be cheap as chips but they hold their value.

magicbastarder

if you're on a nikon, well worth looking at the 35mm f1.8 as well. it's closer to a standard lens on your body than a 50mm.

Thecageyone

I'd love one of those, bit pricey for me atm though. Been bidding on cheap old lenses on ebay, but of course because my wee paypal account is so tight I'm constantly out-bid in the dying minutes. Baxtards.

sineadw

First one I ever took with mine, waaaaaaay back, with the 350D:

dinneenp

gerk86 wrote: »

ah sure keep it, that and a 28mm prime are all you need for the street. Great little lens.

I haven't taken much street photos but when I do I normally use a long zoom so
a. I can get shots without people noticing and stopping/staring at the camera.
b. amn't very comfortable getting in strangers faces, find that if I do take a pic they give me looks...

I was thinking of something like 28-75 f2.8, thinking that I could use this to zoom in a bit and have dof. And 28 is good for indoor...thoughts?