Who here would sooner eat their 50mm lens than shoot with it?

In my film days, I've always had a "normal" lens too, whatever the format used.

But I find it boring, uninspiring. So now, for the 5D3, I don't have one.

I've always hated it also. The only system I haven't tried it on is my medium format bodies.

Always loved my 50, didn't use it as often as I should of until recently. Went full frame a few weeks ago and it is rapidly moving up my list of used lenses.

I never shot film or ff.

With that said I like the 50mm focal length on a crop camera.

It's a funny business, people disliking a focal length. There used to be a dislike for 135mm too. We don't even refer to the sensor format, we just don't like some numbers.

It's numerology. Some have a devotion to the rule of thirds. Some are concerned about sensor aspect ratio, like 3/4 as opposed to 2/3, or rectangles with the golden ratio.

Myself, I'm not a numerologist and just select the focal length that is right for the moment.

The 50 on a full frame is boring. Too short to be a great portrait lens, not wide enough to be interesting for most shots. At one point I had 3 of them that I had acquired in various ways and didnt really shoot with any of them.

I've read a lot of silly things like this on these forums. There was another thread about tripods where someone claimed "photos taken from eye level are boring". Think about that one, specifically about what percentage of photos taken with DSLRs are taken with the camera at the photographer's eye level...

Interesting subjects and composition make for interesting photos. Focal length will certainly factor into composition, but here are no inherently boring focal lengths, nor any boring values for fields of view. If all your photos at 50mm are boring, it's not the lens's fault.

The only 50s I hated were bad copies.

It might have been me, because more often than not eye level (standing) is boring. Its what we see every day. Giving the viewer a slightly different look by changing the angle and changing the perspective is the first step in making more interesting images. You can take interesting photos with any lens, but the fifty is anout the last place you shoukd start.

I have said this on POTN before, and even started a thread about it. Anyway I have really noticed a difference in the look of my pictures since I have had to use a wheelchair to get about. I used to think that I tried to vary my angles of view, but looking at many of my images that doesn't seem to be quite as varied as I thought they were. I guess all I have to worry about now is being stuck at not much more than half as tall as I used to be.

Alan

gonzogolf wrote in post #17684224
It might have been me, because more often than not eye level (standing) is boring. Its what we see every day.

But sometimes that is precisely what does make a photo interesting, the ability to feel like you're there, seeing the subject from a human point of view, particularly if it's a subject that is very small or very huge relative to a person. The same holds for shots with a 50mm lens. You just can't make these kinds of generalizations.

Most of the time though, a boring point of view has little to do with whether the photographer is standing, and more to do with where they are standing, and what's around them. Standing eye level is not so boring if you're standing on top of a mountain taking a photo of a distant valley waterfall. Getting on a stool or laying on your stomach isn't going to make any difference either, the change of perspective of a +/- a few feet will be insignificant with a distant subject (think of 99% of wildlife photos). Similarly, shooting everything from a worms-eye view isn't a magic bullet for making photos "creative". There is a time an a place for everything.

In the end, it's your subject or composition that are boring or not, not your lens or whether or not you were standing up or sitting down when you took the photo. I've seen plenty of stunning, non-boring photos taken from standing eye-level, with 50mm lenses, from ordinary places where people walk though every day. I expect a majority of the most interesting street photography photos I've seen meet these criteria, as well as countless stunning landscapes.

Although I prefer zooms, a few times a year I put on the nifty and go out for a walk. I find that I always come back with interesting photos. Regardless whether it on my 60D or the 5DIII.

I find that the mid-range 40-70 mm that most people find boring can be an exiting challenge. To see everyday objects with a different eye (viewpoint really, but the viewpoint is... the same).

This maybe the difference between an amateur and a pro photographer. I don't do it for a living, so I am not jaded (please don't take offense, if you shoot a few hundred a day, you can't be as exited about the 'unique' point of view... Uniqueness being in the eye of the beholder...).

Here are a few everyday things as seen through the nifty (my feel is like passing by, stopping, taking a step back, having a double take...)...:

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …1024_zpse6797f6​b.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …1024_zps65b09a4​d.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …rk/IMG_5669g102​4.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …87DT_zps383c8cc​9.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …82DT_zps74a803e​4.jpg.html

texshooter wrote in post #17683325
I'm seriously considering getting rid of my 50mm lens because doing so will force me to be more creative with my 35mm and 85mm primes. Anybody hate 50mm?

I tried to like 50mm. The only 50mm I keep is an old Super Takumar 50 F1.4 that I use for video because it's sharp wide open and super smooth to manually focus and cost nothing basically. Great lens. But I only use it for video.

I far more favor 35mm, or, I go straight to 85~90mm for most things. I find I tend to want really wide (10-22) wide (35) or telephoto (85~600).

Very best,

I stated above that the 50 1.4 is my least used lens. I used it more on crop. On full frame, not so much. Reading this thread kind of highlights the fact that I don't like it because I don't know how to compose an interesting photo at that focal length. Perhaps some practice is in order?

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17684394
I stated above that the 50 1.4 is my least used lens. I used it more on crop. On full frame, not so much. Reading this thread kind of highlights the fact that I don't like it because I don't know how to compose an interesting photo at that focal length. Perhaps some practice is in order?

Why compromise your style just to prove you can shoot with a 50?