what lens is equivalent to a 50mm on a 35mm film camera

50/1.6 = 31.25mm. The closest prime seems to be the SigMa 30mm f/1.4, but lots of people are happy with various 35mm and 28mm lenses.

Canon lenses that are close at the 28mm and 35mm lenses.

 

By the way, your post illustrates that problem with the many posters who tell new crop

sensor camera buyers to rush out and pick up the 50mm f/1.8 lens. While it is a fine lens,

especially at the very low price, it is not a "normal" lens in the traditional sense of the

term.

 

There is, of course, nothing sacred about the precise 50mm length. The lenses regarded

as "normal" on film SLR cameras varied between the low 40mm range that the mid 50mm

range. Many think that a 35mm film SLR lens in the mid- to -upper 40mm range is more

suitable as a normal lens. For this reason, some photographers using crop sensor camera

might prefer a 28mm or even a 24mm prime for that sort of shooting.

I have recently bought a 50 mm lens for an eos400d but hadn't realised that the

image is cropped and is not the same as an image taken using a 50mm lens on a

35mm film camera (yup ok should have known.......)

 

what digital lens can i use to get the same angle of view as a 50mm lens on a

35mm film camera ?

 

it needs to be consistent - i.e. point and shoot (not changing the zoom every shot)

Keep the 50 for short tele and get one of any any number of excellent zooms in the 16/17 to 35/40 range.

 

The problems with small sensor cams is that people don't seem to know that all the EOS lenses will work on them.

Keep the 50 for a short tele and get a 35.

 

The problem with all the small sensor cams is camera manufactures never really supported them with anything but consumer quality zooms.

BTW, a 50mm lens on a 1.6x crop body is 80mm, which puts it in the ballpark of popular focal lengths for portraiture.

 

And I echo what Ocean Physics said, any of the EOS lenses will work on your Rebel, it doesn't have to be a "digital" lens. The EF-S lenses may only work on bodies like the Digital Rebels, but you aren't limited just to the EF-S lenses.

David.... A 50mm lens on a 1.6x body is still a 50mm lens - exactly the same magnification, just less of the image compared to 1x. Such a common misconception it is laughable.

"David.... A 50mm lens on a 1.6x body is still a 50mm lens - exactly the same magnification, just less of the image compared to 1x. Such a common misconception it is laughable."

 

You're right -- I should have said that the field-of-view from a 50mm on a 1.6mm is equivalent to the field-of-view of a 80mm on a 1.6x crop. The fact that you needed to make that correction is what's laughable.

 

Test it yourself -- take two shots from the same spot, one on a FF body with a 80mm lens, the other with a 50mm on a 1.6x body. Then see if you can discern any real difference in the final prints attributable to the different native focal length of the lens.

David, you obviously understand what I am getting at. What I was trying to convey in general is that so many people think that attaching a 50mm lens to a 1.6x camera magically makes it an 80mm lens. For the same print size, e.g. 7x5in, the image from the 1.6x camera is enlarged making it appear as if it was taken with an 80mm lens on a 1x body. Myabe that analogy is another way of explaining it, but then I've had a few glasses of wine...

I've looked into this as well. My two cents. I have the 50/1.8 on a 30D. You get the normal view, just less of it. I've also taken my 17-85 zoom, put it at 30ish, and compared it to the 50. While you get to "see" more of the view, it looks different than the small view of the 50. So it really depends what you are looking for. I've thought about just a fixed 35 or 28, but I'm not sure if I want that perspective, because then what I'm really getting is a smaller viewed 35 or 28 as opposed to a full framed 50.