50mm Prime why so popular

[syburn]

On a 350D it is equiv of a 80mm. I dont understand why one would want this ,due to the crop factor.

What is the reason that its so popular?

What is so good about having a fixed lens at 80mm?

Based on my earlier post about lenses that are close to a human eye, I would think people would want a 32mm or something.

Can someone tell me what im missing!


Thanks,

Simon

[SkipD]

I suspect it's largely because 50mm was the "normal" length for 35mm cameras and there are so many of us old fogies who can't change the old paradigms.

On the other hand - in the 35mm days, an 80-90mm lens was perfect for portraiture. That would make the 50mm lens fit that use with many of today's digital SLR's.

I have several fast zooms - all f2.8 max aperture - which, so far, do everything I need. If I had to go to even faster lenses for indoor people work, for example, I would likely get some primes. The choices would probably include a 24mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, and a 50mm f1.4.

[tim]

The 50mm F1.8 is popular because it's cheap, and it's better than the kit lens. It's not great, but it's great value. I sold mine for the 50mm F1.4, which I use for theatre and low light pics.

[Andy_T]

As Skip mentioned, it's a great focal length for portraits.
Of course, if you can afford it, the 50/1.4 or 85/1.8 are better suited for portraits because they have very pleasant bokeh (which the 50/1.8 has not)

In addition it is very sharp and also quite fast... making it a very worthwile addition for everybody who has the 18-55 kit lens which is ok, but neither particularly sharp nor particularly fast.

Best regards,
Andy

[jylitalo]

On a 350D it is equiv of a 80mm. I dont understand why one would want this ,due to the crop factor.

What is the reason that its so popular?

What is so good about having a fixed lens at 80mm?

Based on my earlier post about lenses that are close to a human eye, I would think people would want a 32mm or something.

Can someone tell me what im missing!


My personal guess is that its simply low price for low f numbers. If we take a look into local prices in Finland, we can come up with following list:
24/1.4 1350EUR
24/2.8 499EUR
28/1.8 489EUR
28/2.8 209EUR
35/1.4 1315EUR
35/2 289EUR
50/1.4 389EUR *cheapest f1.4 lens on list)
50/1.8 110EUR *cheapest lens on list*
85/1.2 1710EUR
85/1.8 411EUR
100/2 482EUR
135/2 1045EUR
180/3.5 1430EUR

So if you plot that into curve, you can see that 50mm offers cheap entry fee (in comparison to other lenses) for testing what you can do with fast prime lenses. And if you end up selling it, you can expect the price difference to be relatively small, since the initial investment was pretty small in comparison to what other lenses cost.

Another issue is that 17-40/4 + 70-200/4 seems to be pretty popular setup nowdays and 50/1.8 offers cheap way to have something in that 40-70mm gap between those two zoom lenses.

[Mohawk]

For my 20D, I picked up the Canon 50mm 1.4 for the speed, and the portrait abilities of the lens. The bokeh is very, shall we say, pleasant. It is a nice lens indoors, as you will not need to use a flash in most situations. And the 50mm works great in small groups if a fast f2.8 zoom lens is not available. Mines a keeper.

When I bought my 1DMKII, I went ahead and bought the Canon 85mm 1.2L for the same reasons. Talk about a lens! I still drool when it is mounted on the camera. You will never see such creamy bokeh out of any other lens. And there is a learning curve, as you can cream out a subject if not careful, it's that sensitive.

And you are correct about the 30-35mm range. I have one of those Canon 35mm 1.4Ls on my list. My zooms will have to fill the want for awhile, buying another rig/semi, expanding the business. It really sucks being a lens junky, as this is not a cheap hobby.

Mike

[benhasajeep]

The 50 F1.4 will be my first good Canon lens.

[boomerang]

Because the 35mm 1.4 is triple the price :)

[buze]

I find the 50 on the x1.6 to be nice to isolate your subject.. 85mm is a bit too long for me for general purpose, but the 50mm f1.4 is a nice "piece of the background" (field of view), and with the f1.4 (and potentialy Neutral filter) you can even sometime *remove* the background as well and keep your subject nicely isolated... and that at a reasonable distance from it...
In other words, I really like that focale :D

[Hellashot]

On a 350D it is equiv of a 80mm. I dont understand why one would want this ,due to the crop factor.

What is the reason that its so popular?

What is so good about having a fixed lens at 80mm?

Based on my earlier post about lenses that are close to a human eye, I would think people would want a 32mm or something.

Can someone tell me what im missing!


Thanks,

Simon

The human eye sees almost 180 degrees, so I'm not sure what the people saying that 50mm is a human eye. I don't see why people like 50mm or even 85mm fixed length on a dSLR of 1.6x mangification factor. I'd rather have the kit zoom lens on my camera all the time than my 50mm f1.5 which I use for low light and portraits.

[Andy_T]

I'd rather have the kit zoom lens on my camera all the time than my 50mm f1.5 which I use for low light and portraits.

Well, preferences vary :lol:
I'd take the other one and zoom with my feet.

A better alternative to the kit lens is the Sigma 18-50/2.8 EX. Range of the kit lens, but fast and with very good image quality.

Best regards,
Andy

[Lotto]

Because of the thread like this:lol: . Everyone says it's a must have, and it is.

[Sean-Mcr]

The human eye sees almost 180 degrees, so I'm not sure what the people saying that 50mm is a human eye. I don't see why people like 50mm or even 85mm fixed length on a dSLR of 1.6x mangification factor. I'd rather have the kit zoom lens on my camera all the time than my 50mm f1.5 which I use for low light and portraits.

It might well see 180 but that's not in focus, 50mm is seen in photography as close to how the eye see's focus wise

[blue_max]

The human eye sees almost 180 degrees, so I'm not sure what the people saying that 50mm is a human eye. I don't see why people like 50mm or even 85mm fixed length on a dSLR of 1.6x mangification factor. I'd rather have the kit zoom lens on my camera all the time than my 50mm f1.5 which I use for low light and portraits.

Most of what we see is periferal vision. However, we are asuming that we are looking through a mask of the proportion of the photograph. The image is neither zoomed in, nor distored in a wide angle sense. Presumably that makes it easy to manufacture and reletively cheap, hence it's appeal.

It may well be more difficult to get the 'wow' factor with a 50mm lens, but that is where the art is.

Graham

[Hellashot]

Most of what we see is pheriferal vision. However, we are asuming that we are looking through a mask of the proportion of the photograph. The image is neither zoomed in, nor distored in a wide angle sense. Presumably that makes it easy to manufacture and reletively cheap, hence it's appeal.

It may well be more difficult to get the 'wow' factor with a 50mm lens, but that is where the art is.

Graham

Everyone definately has their own opinion on this, as they should.

[gunichan]

The 50mm 1.4 with 20D is simply magic with a newborn baby. It's not hard to move around to frame what you want, no flash required, a bit hard to get focus sometimes (but hey) and great shots.

[dsze]

The human eye sees almost 180 degrees, so I'm not sure what the people saying that 50mm is a human eye. I don't see why people like 50mm or even 85mm fixed length on a dSLR of 1.6x mangification factor. I'd rather have the kit zoom lens on my camera all the time than my 50mm f1.5 which I use for low light and portraits.

I'd take the 50 or especially the 85f1.8 over the kit for ANY assignment. They are great lenses. Nothing against the kit lens, it does a fine job....but it just doesn't compare to these 2 primes.

-daniel

[KevC]

50 was always the most popular focal length, therefore the most research and technology as gone into it. It's easiest to make sharp, and since so many are produced the cost is low.

I <3 my 50/1.8, and can't wait till I can get the 1.4. 80 is a good length for portraits!

[willg]

as far as sharpness goes..my 50mm 1.8 is as good as my 70-200 f/4 L...in the contrast/color area it falls a bit short but i still think its a must have if you don't get the 1.4

[ed rader]

>>as far as sharpness goes..my 50mm 1.8 is as good as my 70-200 f/4 L...in the contrast/color area it falls a bit short but i still think its a must have if you don't get the 1.4<<

i'd say that's a fair statement. my mark I is on ebay now. for portraits i prefer my tamron 28-75 or canon 70-200 f4L.

i figure i may still need a fast lens but i'll wait and see. if i do i'll prolly strongly consider the canon 35 f2 because the length is more usable than the 50.

....the sigma 30 1.4 also sounds good but is way more than i would want to spend.

for now, i am very happy with the three zooms:cool: !

ed rader

[jylitalo]

as far as sharpness goes..my 50mm 1.8 is as good as my 70-200 f/4 L...in the contrast/color area it falls a bit short but i still think its a must have if you don't get the 1.4

Let's not forget, that there is third option for 50mm prime, which is 50/2.5 macro. Even though its noisy, hunts in low light (since its macro without USM) and only offers 1:2 macro capabilities, its good enough for my needs on 50mm range.
For me, 50mm lenses usage is pretty much limited to taking pictures of flowers and other small (static) items, because 50mm on 1.6x camera always seems to be too narrow or too wide for me.
I use 85/1.8 as my low light lense on tele end as well as generic tele on hiking trips (if I am 3-7 days trip with tent, etc. and have to cut down weight and size) and 35/2 (or possible 28/1.8 or Sigma 30/1.4 in future) is used for generic low light use.

[lostdoggy]

The human eye sees almost 180 degrees, so I'm not sure what the people saying that 50mm is a human eye. I don't see why people like 50mm or even 85mm fixed length on a dSLR of 1.6x mangification factor. I'd rather have the kit zoom lens on my camera all the time than my 50mm f1.5 which I use for low light and portraits.

180 deg only if your eyes protude from your eye socket and closer to your ears, and that is not an opinion.
If your eyes can see 180 deg then you would be able to see the ends of a ruler placed directly paralle to your eyes with the center of the ruler on your bridge of your nose while stare straight ahead.

The only reason you think that you cansee 180 deg is because your eye ball scans side to side rapidly and by turning yur head. If you where to look directly at an object your angle of view is much less then 180 deg. The 14mm lens has an wide angle of view of 114 deg and the 20mm has a wide angle of view of 94 deg.

[Sailare]

These 50mm lens offer the absolute lowest price and very sharp high quality output. Sometimes that's all one can afford when starting out.

The sigma 50mm EX DG is the sharpest 50mm made. At 4.65 and rated "outstanding" it is several points higher than any other 50mm lens. It is also a 1:1 macro, which is what I use it for more than a general 50mm type shot. Light weight and light price at about $ 250.

by the way, instead of thinking of it as an 80mm equivilant, consider it a 50mm with in camera cropping.

[booggerg]

On a 350D it is equiv of a 80mm. I dont understand why one would want this ,due to the crop factor.

What is the reason that its so popular?

What is so good about having a fixed lens at 80mm?

Based on my earlier post about lenses that are close to a human eye, I would think people would want a 32mm or something.


Why do you think people would only want 32mm?? are you saying all lenses that are non-wide is undesirable?