Why the 50mm is NOT a good starter lens.

[lucas_jarvis]

The following is advice for beginners.

 

There was an article I read on photo.net when I first bought some

camera equipment. It stated that a good way to start was to buy a

50mm lens because it is considered a 'normal' lens. It's not

wideangle, and it's not telephoto. It's right in the middle and is a

very versatile lens if it's strapped to your camera at all times.

 

This is all true if you're buying a film body, but the article never

mentioned that you should take a different approach when buying a

lens for a digital body.

 

You see, with a canon EF-S mount digital camera like a 300D or 350D,

a 50mm becomes an 80mm because of the crop factor. This is now a

short telephoto. It's great for portraits, but now you don't really

have such a versatile lens anymore.

 

For those wanting a 'normal' prime that they can strap to their

digital body and leave it on, they should be considering a 28mm or

35mm. While both won't equate to an exact 50mm, they will get you

pretty close. You can decide wether you like a little bit wider, or

a little bit longer.

 

I hope this helps anyone who is considering starting with a prime

and can only afford one lens at the moment.

 

Good shooting, and good luck!

[michaelging]

I agree with Lucas , and that a 35 or a 28 is better as a first lens even with a film camera.

[anupam]

I think it's commonplace knowledge that a 35mm is more suited for use as a normal lens on dslrs. The 50 now becomes a wonderful portrait lens.

[paul -]

A "starter" lens doesn't need to be a "normal" length prime. When I started shooting, the benefits of the then-stock-kit-lens 50mm prime were 3-fold:<br>- A single focal length (doesn't matter which) was recommended because it makes you <i>think</i> about your shot/composition,<br>- a 50mm/1.8 costs less than <i>any</i> other lens,<br>- and its optical quality blows away anything and everything else anywhere near its price range.<P>30 years later, it all still rings true.

[steve_levine]

It's my opinion that the camera company's should have waited to perfect the low cost full frame sensor, before un-leashing the horror of digital upon us. This "crop factor" thing, is pretty lame if you ask me.

[gluteal cleft]

"It's my opinion that the camera company's should have waited to perfect the low cost full frame sensor, before un-leashing the horror of digital upon us."

 

Yeah, because before digital, *all* film was the same size. Exactly the same size.

 

If the "crop factor" of digital is too much you, don't even bother with film. With APS, 35mm, 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 4"x5", and 8"x10", all having different "crop factors", your brain might just explode. And those are just the more common formats, there are plenty more.

 

steve

[raczoliver]

That is so true. Why should the 24x36mm image size rule the whole world? You should be very happy that you can use the same lenses for different formats. I would like it really much if I could use my Bronica S and PS lenses, made for 6x6 on an ETR, which is a 6x4.5 camera. And if manufacturers should have waited, then why until the sensor gets the same size as 35mm film? Why not any other size? It is alredy a very big thing that you can use the same accessories with 35mm and DSLRs. You get two different systems, and all you need to have two of is the camera body.

[raczoliver]

I forgot to say anything about the original question. Which focal length you like is totally a question of personal taste, and what is considered a "normal" focal length is also subjective. As soon as we limit the borders of photographs with solid lines we cannot talk about a certain focal length being equal to our angle of view, because that is not how humans (or other animals) see.

 

This article below has been circling around photo.net for a couple of years, and this for instance makes it very clear that you need different focal length for DSLRs if you want to achieve the same result.

 

http://www.vothphoto.com/spotlight/articles/forgotten_lens/forgotten-lens.htm

[mark_punch]

I totally agree with Steve Levine...the "crop factor" is lame, a real pain , that allows the camera companies to get away with a lot of short-cuts (small viewfinders etc.) and force everybody into new wide lens purchases. It's a marketing dream come true for them.

[awahlster]

Unless of course you want a telephoto lens for your work in which case the crop factor is a god send. You can buy a 300mm lens for a heck of a lot less then a 500mm lens NOW can't you. It is only on the short end of the stick that the crop factor is a problem. But then the problem wouldn't exist at all if you shot film the way I do everything seam to be in prefect alignment for me every time I pickup one of my Canon FD mount cameras.

[anthony_bhe]

I think that the focal length is probably less important than the fact that a prime lens forces you to think about composition because it restricts the possible picture-taking options available to you. And because a 50mm-ish length is narrow enough that it also forces you to think about what should be in the frame, since not everything will fit. I'd bet that anything between 35 and 60mm-ish is probably good enough for this.

 

Another thing, a fast 50 has benefits besides just the field of view it presents. Most of them are fast, are very good at selective DOF, have superb out-of-focus rendering, and give very good color. So, just because you have a 1.6x crop, doesn't necessarily mean you should go out and get a 35mm lens (although, to be honest, that is what I did!). A 50 can still give you a lot of the same real nice pictures, you just have to deal with the crop.

[steve_levine]

You guys are missing my point. The crop factor makes about 1/3 of my lenses useless, (unless I were a wildlife photographer).

 

Why didn't the camera company's create full frame sensors, right off the bat? Oh, I forgot it was too expensive. As if spending $5,000.00 on new wider glass, isn't "too expensive" for me? (All of my zooms used for wedding work, are obsolete with a 1.5 crop factor.)

[William Kahn]

The following is also advice for beginners:

 

Having a "normal" lens for *for the format you're shooting* is a good idea. It gives you a bench mark from which to measure the likely effect of lenses with longer and shorter focal lengths for that particular camera. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference what camera, because each format has it's own "normal" focal length. For DSLR (APS sensor) it's 35mm. For a 35mm camera, it's 50mm. For 6x6 MF, it's 80mm. for 4x5 LF it's (about) 200mm. Get the picture?

[gary_watson]

Thanks for re-inventing the wheel, Lucas.

[frank uhlig]

Lucas ,

 

you are restating the (painful to you, so it appears) obvious.

 

Your gripe about having to buy new lenses for a cropping DSLR sound like your personally made "user errors". "Who would heve thought of that" is a Duh kind of statement from those who do not think things through before leaping: thus an operator error.

 

Sorry about that. You can do better the next time. Just use that gray matter of yours a bit ... and do not complain if you don't and suffer.

[ross_wilson1]

The 50mm is a good starter lens, if you don't factor in the crop factor on your digital camera, that's hardly the lenses fault. Film did come first after all. That's especially relevent when you consider most digital users don't use primes. Perhaps 35mm lenses are NOT good starter lenses, because when when you put them on a film camera there quite wide!!

[fred_c1]

Steve, start saving for the Canon 5D. It will become affordable before you know it.

[._._z]

That article was written almost four and a half years ago, and nowhere mentions

digital. Not only that, but you'll find identical advice in any introductory photography

book found at any bookstore or library. <p>

 

Finally, the introductory text on this site about digital photography <u><A href =

http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/basics/>(http://www.photo.net/

equipment/digital/basics/)</a></u> provides information about sensor sizes and

crop factors and indicates that (and why) you need a wider-angle lens in digital to

match the equivalent in a film camera.

[jsbc]

Lucas,

 

a 50mm lens does not become a 80mm one for a EF-S camera.

 

IT stays a 50mm lens.

 

Nor will a 28mm or 35mm become a 50mm.

 

The FOV will be different - but we all know that. Anyway, personally, I think a fast normal prime is always useful, regardless of the format involved.