I'm curious why folks love 50mm so much

I know that a lot of it goes back to the film days, but I'm just curious why folks adore the focal length so much. I liked the Sigma 30mm on a crop, but found it to be pretty much a 1 trick pony, a portraiture lens for torso and head shots.

Now I'm completely in love with the 35mm focal length on my 5D. I find it still awesome for portraits, but it's also an amazing FL for a walkaround. Wide enough for groups, and if you want that tight portrait, still not that wide that it distorts the subject. For me, it's also been great for landscape and cityscape because of the lack of distortion.

I'm sure that much of this is personal preference, but just curious what others think.

TaDa wrote in post #7180197
I know that a lot of it goes back to the film days, but I'm just curious why folks adore the focal length so much. I liked the Sigma 30mm on a crop, but found it to be pretty much a 1 trick pony, a portraiture lens for torso and head shots.

Now I'm completely in love with the 35mm focal length on my 5D. I find it still awesome for portraits, but it's also an amazing FL for a walkaround. Wide enough for groups, and if you want that tight portrait, still not that wide that it distorts the subject. For me, it's also been great for landscape and cityscape because of the lack of distortion.

I'm sure that much of this is personal preference, but just curious what others think.

i think most people either prefer 35mm or 50mm and you are in the first camp .

ed rader

When I shot film, I like 50mm, because it was just enough of a tighter view to normal vision that I didn't have to get TOO close to what I was shooting, but it was still wide enough for my taste at the time. I prefer a 30mm on a crop body, probably for the same reasons.

Also, some people are more comfortable and act more naturally if you're not right in their face with a camera. Backing up even a few feet can give just enough comfort that even though they know they're being shot, they don't feel like they're expected to perform.

50mm on ff works best for me as an everyday fl cuz it seems to best represent what I'm looking at--35mm is probably what I'm actually 'seeing', but what I'm focused on is in the 50mm range. I don't know if that makes sense, but I know I crop more with 35 than with 50. But you're right, it's definitely a preference thing.

I agree with Ed, its personal preference, people generally like the 35s or 50s. I believe the popularity of the 50 goes back to the film days.

Nanboh wrote in post #7180695
50mm on ff works best for me as an everyday fl cuz it seems to best represent what I'm looking at--35mm is probably what I'm actually 'seeing', but what I'm focused on is in the 50mm range. I don't know if that makes sense, but I know I crop more with 35 than with 50. But you're right, it's definitely a preference thing.

This is originally what I started to write, but I couldn't word it in a way that I thought made sense. "Closer than my eyes' field of view, but the same field of view as my eyes' focus".

ed rader wrote in post #7180217
i think most people either prefer 35mm or 50mm and you are in the first camp .

ed rader

+1 and I am in the second. 50mm is the shizz. I'm so upset that I don't have a good 50mm .

+2 and I too am in the second. 50mm is what the human eyes are supposed to see!

I don't have my 35mm anymore but when I did I had it on my 5D all the time and used it mostly for outdoor walk around the city shooting. I would prefer the 50mm indoors for general shooting.

DigitalSpecialist wrote in post #7181354
+2 and I too am in the second. 50mm is what the human eyes are supposed to see!

I've argued against this point in the past before, because I don't think it's correct, but I won't here because there is certainly something quite comfortable about the 50mm look.

Distortion comes to mind. I think 35mm is the "sweet" spot where if you go lower. Subjects will start to get longer noses, feet and "fatter". This is due to the need to get closer to fill the frame. Unless is a group shot.

Lens distortion (from http://photozone.de)

24LMkI 0.74%
28f/1.8 1.18%
30f/1.4 1.52% sigma.
35L 0.48 <<
50L 0.76%
50f/1.4 0.43%
85L 0.19%

I never shot film in the past so i didn't get my 50mm favourtism from those days. My first prime was the sigma 30 which is (more or less) normal on the 1.6 croppers. I just got used to that field of view and now carry it forward to the 5D2 with the 50mm. I seriously contemplated the 24 or 35L and put my 24-70 on those FLs respectively for a week each and found them too wide for my shooting habits. 50 just seems to be the preferential sweet spot for me.

keener wrote in post #7181533
I never shot film in the past so i didn't get my 50mm favourtism from those days. My first prime was the sigma 30 which is (more or less) normal on the 1.6 croppers. I just got used to that field of view and now carry it forward to the 5D2 with the 50mm. I seriously contemplated the 24 or 35L and put my 24-70 on those FLs respectively for a week each and found them too wide for my shooting habits. 50 just seems to be the preferential sweet spot for me.

me too. i have the 16-35L II when i want 35mm (or shorter) .

ed rader

I have no interest in 50mm.

Enjoy 35mm and 50mm, although I find the latter more flexible.

malla1962 wrote in post #7181808
I have no interest in 50mm.

I have no interest in anything longer than 50mm. (Emoticon would be here had I not imposed a personal moratorium on their usage back in 1995---hey, it's only cost me one good friendship!)