Why does one still recommend the 50mm as starter today?

[lb-]

I love all the passion but come on!

 

this poor little lens has gone from being useless for paid or serious work to being downright stupid!

 

hahahahahah.

 

so which 1.8 aperture 28mm or 35mm for under $100 was it that you recommend?

 

don't you guys feel the least bit embarrased posting this stuff?

 

there are no rules, nothing is "obvious".

 

you guys should just sell your canon crap and get a couple of leicas. way more fun to fondle. and there are more 50mm's in their lineup to argue about :)

[walter_degroot]

qactually the REAL normal 35mm fiolm camera lens was supposed to be a 43mm.

as far as I know, only 40mm lenses like the pentax " pancake" lens was made.

a 35mm f/2.8 lens would be a good substitute and may years ago was suggeted as a normal lens.

[gdanmitchell]

<p>Dan wrote:</p>

 

<blockquote>"By the way, Canon currently offers NO 50mm that has L qualities, not in

color, not in contrast, and not in wide open sharpness."</blockquote>

 

<p>That seems a bit extreme. The way I see it, the EF 50mm f/1.4 has L qualities, in

color, contrast, and in sharpness. (The latter is compromised only at the

widest apertures.)

 

<p>I own L lenses and I also have the EF 50mm f/1.4. My copy is definitely L class in all of

these categories, except that it is soft at f/1.4 - but I knew that going in and it is fine if I

stop it down a bit.

 

<p>I do not own nor have I used the 50mm f/1.8 but the consensus seems to be that the

image quality of a photo taken with this lens will likely be indistinguishable from that in a

photo taken with the f/1.4 version in most cases. Most of the issues around the f/1.8

version relate more to

the infamous "build quality" concerns than to its ability to resolve an image. But even this

may be less relevant in a "beginner's lens."

 

<p>Back to the original question... It is interesting to consider whether the 28mm or

35mm length is "most normal" on

1.6

crop sensor cameras. While 50mm is the commonly available focal length of "normal"

35mm/full-frame primes today, in the past this type of lens was a bit longer if I recall

correctly - perhaps

even 55mm or 58mm? Given that frame of reference, using the 35mm lens as a crop

sensor "normal"

prime

makes sense. I guess you could make a case for either 28mm or 35mm... or even for

24mm since a lot of

photographers used shorter than 50mm primes for "normal" photography with 35mm

cameras.

 

<p>Of course, there are not any hard and fast rules about this sort of thing. <i>Any</i>

focal length makes sense if it works for your

photography... :-)

 

<p>Dan

[fourfa]

Nikon and Zeiss both had 45mm f2.8 Tessar lenses.

 

But I don't buy this business about matching the field of view in the first place. Your eye has a field of view of about 180 degrees. Your brain is only dimly aware of most of the outer part. Your brain is actively aware of a dozen or two degrees, the rest being filled in by memory and guesswork processing (this is easy to demonstrate with various optical illusions) and frequent scanning. In other words, most of what we colloquially call the "normal field of view" is psychological, and looking through a camera lens doesn't resemble real-world vision at all.

 

So it should be no surprise that there's always argument on this point - psychologically, some people find 28mm or 35mm to be a more natural field of view, while some prefer 85mm. "True" normal field of view is illusory. What's the normal hair color of the human animal? Height? All different. Best to try a few focal lengths and see what works for you. Myself, I prefer 35mm on full-frame for a broad view, and 85mm for a focused attention view. Which one is more "normal?" I really don't care.

[fourfa]

Incidentally, some people have defined "normal" as where both eyes see the same magnification with a camera held to one eye, the other having an unobstructed view. Obviously this test depends heavily on the magnification of the optical viewfinder, so by this definition "normal" would be dependent on model and therefore highly arbitrary. I think this confuses many beginning photographers who buy a camera, and don't understand why their 85mm lens seems to match the naked eye when all the books (written in the manual focus days, with large high-magnification viewfinders) say 50mm does...

[JeffOwen]

I followed the advice and bought the 50mm f1.8 to supplement my zoom lenses. I have had it over a year now and taken many thousands of shots with with my 20D but none with the 50mm lens! I am sure it is great value and takes superb photos but except tests shots I have not found a situation that I might use the 50mm rather than my (non L) lenses.

[lovcom_photo]

Lucas, I'd buy the digital Leica's but they produce cra@p images, even with their awesome lenses....at ISO 400 it is NOISE CITY baby!

[lovcom_photo]

Images from my Canon 35L vs those from my 50mm F1.4, in regard to color and contrast are VERY DIFFERENT, sir....same holds true when comparing 50mm F1.4 images against those from the 24-70L, 24L, 84L, 135L, and 200L.

 

You don't agree? Try it yourself, and see.

 

The Canon 50mm F1.4 is to L glass as Bush is to JFK!

[trothwell]

I would recommend a 50mm/1.8 lens to a beginner using either a 1.6 crop camera or a full-frame camera. Why? Because the the focal length is fantastic? Not an a crop camera, but I still found it usable.

 

No, the reason I would recommend it even for 1.6ers is that for a mere $80 you can see a rather drastic difference in image quality between the 18-55 kit zoom lens and the 50/1.8. Once I saw that, I understood why I might need to spend more money on lenses to be able to get high-quality results.

 

I just bought the $900 135/2 lens a couple months ago. Not the most expensive by any means, but far more than I would have paid as a beginner thinking that a kit zoom lens was as good as it got. And I'm very happy with the 135 lens -- it was worth $900 to me, now that I understand why it's so good.

[savas_kyprianides]

Coming from years using the glued-on zoom of the Olmpus E-10, I was very happy to start

out with a 50mm 1.4 on the 5D. I learned a lot working within the single focal length. I can

see how people would benefit from having one less thing to think about.

[lovcom_photo]

Trevis, why not suggest a beginner with a 1.6 cropper get the cheap yet capable 35mm prime? Is our photography to be driven by $$?

 

The $70 for the F1.8 is a great buy ONLY if one can use 50mm...otherwise it is a waste of $ even if it is only $70.

 

Paying $70 for a 50mm lens when a 35mm or 28mm would be more "normal" is a waste of $70, yea?

 

If one wants to be assured of better quality from primes, one does not have to pay $100 for the F1.8 50.

[matt_chamberlain]

<i>I would recommend it even for 1.6ers is that for a mere $80 you can see a rather drastic difference in image quality between the 18-55 kit zoom lens and the 50/1.8</i><br><br>And for a mere $0 you can walk into your local camera shop, mount the lens, and see a rather drastic difference in image qualtiy between the 18-55 kit zoom lens and the 50/1.8. Then you can buy a lens that works.

[lovcom_photo]

Well Matt...one could spend $11,500 on a brand new cheap Hyundai just to make sure that a $80,000 BMW is a better car, yea?!? lol

[matt_chamberlain]

yeah, good one dan.

[lb-]

so is george bush a hyundai? I'm so confused.

[25asa]

Give me a 50mm f1.2L anyday. My 1.8 lens is my most used lens, even on my XT. Sometimes I just need a shot with no perticular look, but just to get it. And the 50 is sharp so that helps. I use zooms and just put a 24mm on hold. But my 50 will always be used. Now if Canon would stop all the rumours and just release the 50L I'd be happy.

[gdanmitchell]

"The Canon 50mm F1.4 is to L glass as Bush is to JFK!"

 

I guess if you are of the conservative persuasion you might take that to mean the the

50mm f/1.4 is one fine lens. Or if you were a Nader voter it would confirm your belief that

all the major party candidates are the same anyway, right? :-)

 

But then, it probably also depends on whether you are referring to Bush MK I or Bush MK

II.

 

Absolutes can be dangerous...

 

:-)

[KenPapai]

> so which 1.8 aperture 28mm or 35mm for under $100 was it that you recommend?

 

A rookie doesn't need a 50mm lens as a starter lens on a 1.6 cropper. If this is not obvious then nothing could ever satisfy you.

 

> don't you guys feel the least bit embarrased posting this stuff?

 

Of course not. It's answering a rookie's question. You need to simplify.

 

> there are no rules, nothing is "obvious".

 

Sometimes there are rules and obvious facts. Recommending a 50mm starter for a newbie on a 1.6 cropper is STUPID. And if the 28mm or 35mm prime costs more than 100 dollar why is that a problem anyway?

[kbroderick]

I have a strong feeling that the Sigma 30/1.4 (which is on my list of lenses to buy, budget

permitting) is going to end up being a better walkaround / hike / single-prime-lens

solution for me on my 20D.ﾠ However, there's very little chance I would've been willing to

drop $300 (used) or $400+ new for that prime when I bought the 20D, and it's also a bit

heavier.ﾠ The 50/1.8 is a great low-light lens for learning because it's both cheaper and

simpler than a flash, it's one of the sharpest consumer-priced lenses out there, it's

extremely light, and it's widely available.ﾠ As another poster already pointed out, it's also

the cheapest introduction to fast glass out there (even L zooms top out at f/2.8, and

consumer zooms generally don't even come close to that).ﾠ It's not perfect, but no lens is,

and it's a darn good starting point for understanding why fast glass is helpful.

[lb-]

I guess nothing will ever satisfy me :(

 

but it's cool.

 

some folks need to create rules and set limitations on themselves to feel comfortable. I'm not judging.

 

if you feel that it's a rule or a fact that a 50mm lens on a 1.6x body is stupid for a beginner thats fine.

 

but at least recognize that this is really just your opinion, and not a fact.

[KenPapai]

Hey lucas bro!

 

What's a beginner gonna do with a 50mm lens indoors?

 

Since WHEN was the equivalent 80 to 85mm lens recommended as a Starter Lens?

 

I guess for the Artiste there are no rules; however for the beginner and someone trying to learn there need be.

 

In your (seemingly chaotic) world a 200mm or a 15mm fisheye are all the same. Best of luck.

 

-Ken

[trothwell]

<blockquote>And for a mere $0 you can walk into your local camera shop, mount the lens, and see a rather drastic difference in image qualtiy between the 18-55 kit zoom lens and the 50/1.8. Then you can buy a lens that works.</blockquote>

 

<p>

Touche'.

[lb-]

it's true ken.

 

in my world the 15 and the 200 become the same. Both just tools. no big emotional investment.

 

the beginner may find a 50 to long for some shots. But then they may find 2.8 too slow for some shots.

 

the beauty of a tool is in realizing it's correct use.

 

a $70 50mm 1.8 AF lens it's it's own tool. Not at all the same as a 50mm that costs 3-4 times as much. not the same as a 35 1.4 that costs 10 times as much.

 

it offers someone just starting out the opportunity to experience a very fast aperture without spending much.

 

that alone is worth $70 in my book and makes it anything but "stupid".

 

I've been dealing with the very stressful "crop" factor for a long time. the zuiko 30 2.8 being the "standard" FOV for the half frame 35mm.

 

but I've found ways to deal with the stress........<div></div>

[trothwell]

<p>

Just thought I'd toss up a few photos taken by a relative beginner with 50mm lens (either 1.8 or 1.4) on a 1.6x DSLR:

</p>

 

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.trevisrothwell.com/photos/20051022-new-puppy/IMG_1222.JPG">new

puppy</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.trevisrothwell.com/photos/20051029-on-the-farm/IMG_1463.JPG">cow</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.trevisrothwell.com/photos/20051111-st-louis/20051111-st-louis-019.jpg">knish and soda</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.trevisrothwell.com/photos/misc-photos/20051204-ornament.jpg">ornament</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.trevisrothwell.com/photos/misc-photos/chesspieces.JPG">chesspieces</a></li>

</ul>

 

<p>

The best photos ever? Nah. But I learned a lot, despite having the

"incorrect" focal length of 50mm on 1.6x camera. :-) :-)

[trothwell]

Ah, but to clarify -- I would certainly recommend the 35/2 over the 50/1.8 if my advisee was willing to spend a bit more. My initial point was that the 50/1.8 is an inexpensive way to learn about differences in lens quality. (As has been suggested, going to a well-stocked store to demo various lenses may be a better way.)

 

50mm on a 1.6 camera is a fine focal length, but not what is _usually_ desired.