Which is the best 50mm?

<p>Hey, don't forget the Canon 50mm f/0.95 that is sitting on my Canon 7 rangefinder right now? Does that count? I think that mine dates back to about 1965.</p>

<p>It certainly is not the sharpest lens wide open (to say the very, very least), but it is bright and pretty contrasty! Stopped down, it isn't bad at all, but that sorts of defeats the purpose of having such a fast lens, right?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Photographers tend to be obsessive about sharpness and lines of resolution, OK me too. Portrait customers generally want to look their best, meaning they do not want to see every flaw and line in their skin. They frequently want to look younger too. Money is a part of this equation so the Canon 1.8 will work fine for under a hundred dollars but you will still have to do some post processing to smooth skin, blackheads etc. There are better lens but do you need them for that purpose?<br>

Jim</p>

<p>I own a 50MM 1.8 and its sharpness and contrast is likely better than most ANY zoom. It does feel cheap but it's a low cost lens. When used wide open, it does blur the background nicely.</p>

<p>A 1.4 or a 1.2 lens will give you a shallower DOF and better bokeh, especially with a distant backgrounds, like outdoor portraiture.</p>

<p>I love my <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=909607"><strong>Canon 85MM 1.2</strong></a> and bought it specifically for <strong><a href="../photo/10799237&size=lg">portraits</a>.</strong></p>

Guys, now you went and did it! Scared Rebecca off, it seems :)

<p>No doubt you have your reasons for wanting a 50mm, but usually something a little longer is best for individual portraits, like maybe 85/1.8 or 100/2.. I haven't myself used it (have 100IS 2.8L8) but 100/2.8 macro should be a good portrait lens as well giving you an extra capability close up. Of course if you are talking about group portraits you probably want something a bit wider than 50, say 35/2, which many people think is very good and comparatively cheap.as a macro.</p>

<p>Have to agree with others on AF v MF. I think I was as good as anyone with flying birds with an FD300/4 plus 1.4 and 2 X converters, but remember trying to do indoor portraits of my fast moving daughter with a Pentax 67 and 165/4 lens. Usually lucky to get 1 out of 10 focussed in the right place, and then you have to change the film. MF for me now (58) is strictly for things that don't move, except where zone focussing.</p>

<p>Nigel,</p>

<p>Next time you bump into<a href="http://www.google.vg/images?q=steve+mccurry&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=QpfETJ3JOcKAlAeVxPEE&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=3&ved=0CD8QsAQwAg&biw=1314&bih=714"> Steve McCurry</a> remember to tell him that he shouldn't be using a 50mm. That has to be one of the silliest comments in this thread, and it is absolutely overloaded with them. Besides if Rebecca has a crop camera the 50 is working as an effective 80, that gives her the same FOV as the legendary 85 f1.2 portrait lens on a ff camera.</p>

<p>Scott</p>

<p>Where did I say she shouldn't use a 50mm? Just responded to her indication of what she will be using the lens for - of course if using an APC camera, a 50mm would indeed be a standard portrait length. Re. your last comment, 50mm on a crop is equal to 80mm on a full frame irrespective of maximum aperture, so I don't see the relevance of "legendary 85f1.2 portrait lens". Therefore I would include your response in the "overloaded" category.</p>

<p>I own the 50mm 1.2L. Prior to that owned the 50mm 1.8. HUGE difference! the 1.2L is much more sharper and produces amazing bokeh over the 1.8.</p>

<p>Isn't is pretty well agreed upon that modern Zeiss lenses are no better optically (and in some cases even worse) than their Canon EF counterparts? Of course, if we're talking older Zeiss lenses such as the Jenas, that's a different story! :-)</p>

<p>Also, I agree with Scott and the others who extoll the virtues of autofocus. I know that my "keeper" rate has greatly increased since I started using AF gear.</p>

>>> Isn't is pretty well agreed upon that modern Zeiss lenses are no better optically (and in some cases

even worse) than their Canon EF counterparts?<P>

 

Pretty well agreed? By whom? I'm all ears. And also one who actually <a href= "http://www.citysnaps.net/blog/">shoots</a> with one (as well as canon lenses).

<blockquote>

<p><a name="00XXaf"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2257221">Ty Mickan</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /></a>, Oct 23, 2010; 07:30 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Are you using a DSLR with a matte focusing screen, shooting wide open at close<br />distances? If not then your experience is not relevant to what Rebecca will<br />experience when shooting head and shoulder portraits wide open. If you are than<br />I question just how precise your focus actually is because under those<br />conditions a matte VF will appear to be in focus even if the plane of focus is<br />a couple inches in front of or behind the desired target. It's not a matter of<br />your skill or eyesight or how good you think you are. The matte screen is<br />insufficient to the task. At 5x7 it won't matter. At 16x20 it will be painfully<br />obvious.</p>

<p>no i don't use a dslr, i upgraded years ago. but like you say, you use the right tool for the job. i'm not sure how Rebecca ended up with a DSLR, and not some other type of camera that may have been better suited to her pursuits. <br />So we weren't talking about shooting weddings, but indoor portraits, and again I say an 85mm at 1.4 is rarely going to be used at moderate distances, let alone closest focus. and more likely at f4 or thereabouts.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ty,</p>

<p>Using an RB67 like you do isn't going to give the shallow DOF that a 1.4 or 1.2 lens is on a 35mm FF camera for example. What are you photographing with on the RB? An f3.5 or f3.8 lens. For you the RB67 may be an "upgrade." For wedding work I would say exactly the opposite. I would never go back to shooting with my RB67 for weddings again. To slow. I'd stick with DSLRs, or 35mm film, or faster MF bodies like the Mamiya AFD or Contax 645. The RB67 is not suitable at all. I use a Pentax K20D, Canon 7D, Pentax Z1 (35mm film), Nikon F5 (film), Contax 645 (film) and a Holga.</p>

<p>As a user of many old cameras with various focussing screens, I can say that Daniel is completely correct in stating that with most of the modern matte screens, one cannot achieve accurate focussing at f1.2 or f1.4 with moving subjects....let alone still ones. And yes, photographing weddings for going on 20 years gives me the experience to state that with confidence.</p>

<p>If you disagree, maybe you could point us to your wedding site where we could see the ultra shallow DOF photographs to see an example of what you speak.</p>

<p>Dave, not sure how you came to the assumption that I use an RB67 for weddings? I don't, and I agree that it is not an appopriate rig to use. I use a Leica MP and a Leica M7, with a 1.4/35mm Summilux-M Asph, and a 1.4/75mm Summilux-M. The last SLR sytem that I used for weddings was my D3's, but I wouldn't go back. I have just started to supplement my Leica's with an Olympus EP-1 for a small percentage of shots.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, there seem to be 3 50mm lenses: a 1.2, 1.4, and 1.8. What difference does the small change in aperture make, and which one might best fit my needs?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Besides the differences described earlier, the 1.2 is designed to create nice looking background blur, which may be important for you, if you shoot portraits. If the lens is too expensive, take a look at Sigma 50/1.4 - I don't have it, but it has pretty good reputation for portraits as well. If you have FF camera or do not mind larger distance from your subjects, consider also Canon 85/1.8 (or the new Sigma 85mm lens).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you are than<br />I question just how precise your focus actually is because under those<br />conditions a matte VF will appear to be in focus even if the plane of focus is<br />a couple inches in front of or behind the desired target. It's not a matter of<br />your skill or eyesight or how good you think you are. The matte screen is<br />insufficient to the task.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, the matte focusing screens designed for manual focusing (Ee-S, for example) are quite reliable. And you still have AF confirmation LEDs in your viewfinder.</p>