50mm subject

[sanjay_chaudary]

<p>Hi, I have a 50mm f1.4 lens . I bought it for low light, but am not using it that much, as I do not have space in my photobag and end up using 28 - 105 mm zoom more often.<br>

what subjects does one use 50mm for generally?</p>

<p>thanks and regards<br>

Sanjay</p>

[SCL]

<p>I use mine for everything....nature, architecture, portrait, macros, panoramas. Some people say that it is the universal lens....I prefer a slightly shorter lens, but 50 works just fine for lots of things.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I generally use it for portraiture. Of course <em>which</em> 50/1.4 lens you have will affect how effective it is in this role, as some have extremely poor performance WO and near. Even a poor one though can be used effectively by f2, which gives an order of magnitude greater subject isolation than a 28-105.</p>

<p>For general purpose shooting though, the zoom is almost <em>always</em> more versatile.</p>

 

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Depends too, on what body you're using it on: full frame or crop. It's the traditional "standard" lens on full frame, provides normal perspective. it's compact and fast, quite sharp, well suited for walkabout when you don't want to be burdened.</p>

[anthony_r.1]

<p>Check out Vicki Heger on Flickr. She uses a 50/1.4 on a crop body wide open for almost every shot.</p>

[sanjay_chaudary]

<p>Hi, thanks a lot. I think I will just try it out. I have the canon eos lens and shoot on a film body - so its a full frame. <br>

I have the 100mm usm macro (non IS) from canon. can the 50mm be used for macro and do I need to reverse it? is it worth it considering that I already have a 100mm macro lens?<br>

<br />I will check vickis page. thanks</p>

[james_elwing]

<p>I would say mostly, not worth it. Most people seem to favour 100mm for macro. Your 50 should get down to 40mm at least, anyway.<br>

Extension tubes may be the most satisfactory way of getting it to do high magnification if that's what you want, for auto metering and stop-down. I think they usually say a f1.4 is too fast to deliver a really good macro, for which it was not designed.</p>

[sanjay_chaudary]

<p>thanks. I have the canon extension tubes, let me experiment.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Bokeh shots are about it as far as I'm concerned. You 24-105mm is a far more versatile lens. Sell it. A 70-200mm with ETs is better for most macro shooting.</p>

[james_elwing]

<p>I would fool around with it to get some fairly close-ups at full aperture for extreme DOF. The 70-200 David recommends will give you a similar DOF affect at 200, but it's less intimate. Maybe with extreme ISO settings, low light lenses are now dinosaurs/ white elephants. I don't believe it, but maybe it's true.<br>

Otherwise, focusing a lens like that, close, with an extension tube, involves a fair bit of moving the camera in and out from the subject and letting the autofocus take up the slack to achieve sharp focus. </p>

[sanjay_chaudary]

<p>Thanks, I have the older 28 - 105 usm and not the 24 - 105. I also have a 100 - 300 mm usm lens. I am using film , and shoot ISO 100 - 400. </p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>You are not going to want to waste film shooting WO at macro distances - you'll want to stop it down a LOT. Wide open, the DOF alone will destroy the image, much less the poor IQ. If you were shooting digital it'd be easy to see (and quick and free) - and then to delete, but there's really no point in doing it with film.</p>

[sanjay_chaudary]

<p>thanks. the 50mm is not macro lens, but a regular one.</p>

[sanjay_chaudary]

<p>I tried viewing Ms. Vicki's flickr stream, but its not open to public and am unable to send mails either</p>

[ruslan]

<p>I <em>will</em> buy EOS 6d Mk2 (when it comes) with 50/1.8 STM. </p>