50mm: Awkward Focal Length on Crop?

First, if this topic has come up before I apologize, please direct me to the discussion

Does anyone else find the 50mm focal length on a crop a bit awkward?

I've had a 50 1.4 for almost a year now and there was always something that bothered me about the length, like a weird in-between.

I purchased a used Sigma 50-150 2.8 II not to long ago and it's been stuck on my camera. I love the portraits I've been taking.. but I rarely drop it below 100mm. The 100-150 range seems great.

I'm thinking the compression of the 50 has a lot to do with it. Even though the magnification is = to 80mm, the compression is still = to 50mm, right? I also think it may be because I don't like to be very close to my subject..

Regardless, I just feel as if my 50 will never see the light of day again, and I want to get in to macro work and get another prime for portraits, so I thought the Canon 100 2.8 Macro would be perfect.

Thoughts?

The best thing about having a 1.6x crop body is that it kinda tunrs a boring 50 or so lens into a wonderful portrait lens. I have many 50 or so lenses and love them. Gene

This is probably why. You're also in the minority here, most would probably find the 50mm a touch long if anything. Nothing wrong with that, it's exactly the information needed to recommend you a lens! When I read the title I was thinking 35 or 28mm, but obviously not!

Now, with that being said, the 100mm F/2.8 macro is a GREAT lens. However, you won't see much difference in portraits between it and your 50-150 F/2.8 @ 100mm from a focal length/aperture stand point as they're exactly the same. Obviously it will let you do macro. So your basic choices become:

85mm f/1.8 (or F/1.2 if it's in your budget, but I'm guessing not as you didn't say the 100L) This would 1 1/3rd stops faster than your zoom.
100mm macro - Just as fast, but would give you macro and probably an upgrade in IQ
100mm F/2 - No macro, but 1 stop faster
135mm F/2L - No macro, 1 stop faster and maybe you'd like this extra length?

You're already starting with a fast lens for a zoom, so part of the question is do you find the lens you have too slow (really a depth of field/bokeh question) or do you want an increase in IQ? There are options that give you both of course (85mm F/1.2L comes to mind) but not cheap.

Loxley wrote in post #15875295
I purchased a used Sigma 50-150 2.8 II not to long ago and it's been stuck on my camera. I love the portraits I've been taking.. but I rarely drop it below 100mm. The 100-150 range seems great.

Going decades back in time, professional 135 format film photographers shooting in studios used lenses of about 80-100mm range for sitting portraits in studio setting. Shooting distance was about 10' to frame a waist-up studio portrait or head and shoulders portrait. If someone was doing tight headshots for someone in acting or for professional licensing photos (hairdressers, barbers, etc.) it would be with lenses about 135-180mm range. And although the camera-to-subject distance was about 10' it generally would need maybe 25' of shooting space to set background, separate subject from background, and give sufficient room to work without being cramped.

With your APS-C format camera, divide the above FL general practices by 1.6 to find the equivalent FL on your camera, to do similar shooting to what conventional portraitists commonly did. Otherwise you need to stand 1.6 times farther away, to shoot with the same cropping.

vengence wrote in post #15875334
You're already starting with a fast lens for a zoom, so part of the question is do you find the lens you have too slow (really a depth of field/bokeh question) or do you want an increase in IQ? There are options that give you both of course (85mm F/1.2L comes to mind) but not cheap.

So far I've been happy with the IQ and speed of my 50-150 2.8.. I really just want to get a macro lens, and if it can double as a portrait lens with better IQ, great! I think 2.8 suits my shooting style as of of now. What about extension tubes on the 50-150?

I found it a bit awkward for myself, but it really depends on how and what you shoot. A 35mm prime worked out better on crop for me.

I think you answered your question right here:

> I rarely drop it below 100mm. The 100-150 range seems great.

Seems like 50mm is too short for you and something between 100 and 150 would be ideal.

General advice from a framing perspective:

If you find yourself often taking a step backwards, it's probably too long. If you try to take a step back and you can't because you ran into the wall, then it's definitely too long!

If you find yourself often taking a step forwards, it's probably too short. If you dislike the results because you're too close, it's definitely too short!

Took me years on this forum (or any other) to realize, to come to grips with the fact that there are people who's longest lens is 85 and people who's shortest lens is 135.

Loxley wrote in post #15875420
So far I've been happy with the IQ and speed of my 50-150 2.8.. I really just want to get a macro lens, and if it can double as a portrait lens with better IQ, great! I think 2.8 suits my shooting style as of of now. What about extension tubes on the 50-150?

Then get the 100 F/2.8. If you want 4 stops of IS, then get the 100 F/2.8L.

You probably don't want extension tubes. With the minimum focus distance of ~40", you'd need a LOT of tubes to get you down to macro range at 150, something like 4"+ You'd probably be better off getting the 100mm

gasrocks wrote in post #15875580
Took me years on this forum (or any other) to realize, to come to grips with the fact that there are people who's longest lens is 85 and people who's shortest lens is 135.

Odd, isn't it? But, if all you want a camera for is to bird, what would you do with a lens shorter than 135? If all you want to do is landscape, 85 is so looooong.

Loxley wrote in post #15875295
First, if this topic has come up before I apologize, please direct me to the discussion

Does anyone else find the 50mm focal length on a crop a bit awkward?

I've had a 50 1.4 for almost a year now and there was always something that bothered me about the length, like a weird in-between.

I purchased a used Sigma 50-150 2.8 II not to long ago and it's been stuck on my camera. I love the portraits I've been taking.. but I rarely drop it below 100mm. The 100-150 range seems great.

I'm thinking the compression of the 50 has a lot to do with it. Even though the magnification is = to 80mm, the compression is still = to 50mm, right? I also think it may be because I don't like to be very close to my subject..

Regardless, I just feel as if my 50 will never see the light of day again, and I want to get in to macro work and get another prime for portraits, so I thought the Canon 100 2.8 Macro would be perfect.

Thoughts?

People pictures using a 50mm lens and a Canon 60D.

Loxley wrote in post #15875295
I'm thinking the compression of the 50 has a lot to do with it. Even though the magnification is = to 80mm, the compression is still = to 50mm, right? I also think it may be because I don't like to be very close to my subject..

I have no idea what you're thinking of with the "compression of the 50" statement. A lens' focal length, in itself, has absolutely nothing to do with perspective in images made with it.

The "magnification is = to 80mm" statement is also false unless you add a reference to the 35mm film format. In other words, a 50mm lens on an APS-C format camera provides the same field of view as an 80mm lens on a 35mm format camera.

Please read our "sticky" (found in the General Photography Talk forum) tutorial titled Perspective Control in Images - Focal Length or Distance?.

SkipD wrote in post #15875708
I have no idea what you're thinking of with the "compression of the 50" statement. A lens' focal length, in itself, has absolutely nothing to do with perspective in images made with it.

The "magnification is = to 80mm" statement is also false unless you add a reference to the 35mm film format. In other words, a 50mm lens on an APS-C format camera provides the same field of view as an 80mm lens on a 35mm format camera.

Please read our "sticky" (found in the General Photography Talk forum) tutorial titled Perspective Control in Images - Focal Length or Distance?.

I read that as depth of field.

SkipD wrote in post #15875708
I have no idea what you're thinking of with the "compression of the 50" statement. A lens' focal length, in itself, has absolutely nothing to do with perspective in images made with it.

The "magnification is = to 80mm" statement is also false unless you add a reference to the 35mm film format. In other words, a 50mm lens on an APS-C format camera provides the same field of view as an 80mm lens on a 35mm format camera.

Please read our "sticky" (found in the General Photography Talk forum) tutorial titled Perspective Control in Images - Focal Length or Distance?.

I think we have a terminology mixup; when OP mentioned 'compression' he was referring to perspective distortion(http://en.wikipedia.or​g …e_distortion_(p​hotography)) not field of view. This is tied directly to lens focal length regardless of sensor as OP suggested; coming back into the equation when you talk about equal framing (the perspective/field of view)

A 50mm lens will have the same compression regardless of sensor (with the compression being what makes longer lenses generally more flattering for portraiture). Hence; a 50mm on FF will be more flattering for portraits than a 35mm on Crop; even though they will have ~equal perspective/field of view. Another way to put it, a 50mm on medium format will have the same compression as an point & shoot with a 2.5x35mm crop @ 50mm)

w0m wrote in post #15875863
I think we have a terminology mixup; when OP mentioned 'compression' he was referring to perspective distortion(http://en.wikipedia.or​g …e_distortion_(p​hotography)) not field of view. This is tied directly to lens focal length regardless of sensor as OP suggested; coming back into the equation when you talk about equal framing (the perspective/field of view)

A 50mm lens will have the same compression regardless of sensor (with the compression being what makes longer lenses generally more flattering for portraiture). Hence; a 50mm on FF will be more flattering for portraits than a 35mm on Crop; even though they will have ~equal perspective/field of view. Another way to put it, a 50mm on medium format will have the same compression as an point & shoot with a 2.5x35mm crop @ 50mm)

Oos! My mistake. This is exactly what I was trying to say, thanks for the clarification.

I guess in the end it comes down to opinion and preference.. I prefer more 'perspective distortion' for my shots. I suppose the 50 will come out for 3/4 shots, though. The 100 2.8 macro will probably be a great multi purpose portrait/macro lens for me.

The first lens I bought was a 50 1.4 on a crop. Since I didn't have anything else I loved that lens still do. It's still one of my most used lens

w0m wrote in post #15875863
I think we have a terminology mixup; when OP mentioned 'compression' he was referring to perspective distortion(http://en.wikipedia.or​g …e_distortion_(p​hotography)) not field of view. This is tied directly to lens focal length regardless of sensor as OP suggested; coming back into the equation when you talk about equal framing (the perspective/field of view)

A 50mm lens will have the same compression regardless of sensor (with the compression being what makes longer lenses generally more flattering for portraiture). Hence; a 50mm on FF will be more flattering for portraits than a 35mm on Crop; even though they will have ~equal perspective/field of view. Another way to put it, a 50mm on medium format will have the same compression as an point & shoot with a 2.5x35mm crop @ 50mm)

You are quite wrong in believing that perspective (relative sizes of objects in a scene which are at different distances from the camera or your eye) is a function of focal length. Please read our "sticky" (found in the General Photography Talk forum) tutorial titled Perspective Control in Images - Focal Length or Distance?. There is absolute proof in the linked thread that perspective is controlled ONLY by the distances involved and not the focal length of the lens used.