Everyone's favourite lens - the nifty fifty 50mm!
Portraits, street photography, low light, narrow depth of field, it's just absolutely digitalcameratastic!
We had this thread on the DCM mag site, and so I thought I'd start it up again here, as we had a request!
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3541/3365078019_259dd734ed.jpg)
Here's my starter for 10 - sunset over garage in Swindon.
Post your favourite 50mm images here!
I quite pleased with this one taken at 16:30 in Birmingham yesterday. No flash, ISO 1000, 1/60s. :tup:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2631/4110095861_124796eacf.jpg?v=0) (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2631/4110095861_124796eacf_b.jpg)
Click for bigger size.
Chris that is a great pic, I love the colours in it...
Here's a couple I took with mine at an amateur panto earlier this year. Both taken with my 20D at iso 400 with only the available light in the theatre.
one from last year - Nikon 50mm f1.8D plus Fuji S5Pro
(http://cameracraniums.com/gallery/albums/userpics/normal_2989028417_f82e5b7e50_o.jpg)
Here we go:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2471/4021371629_9107f21d9f.jpg)
Couple from the archives
Canon 350D 50mm shot
(http://cameracraniums.com/gallery/albums/userpics/normal_2212238257_d60f4a7fcb_o.jpg)
Nikon D70 50mm shot
(http://cameracraniums.com/gallery/albums/userpics/normal_2066256220_70484c506f_o.jpg)
(http://cameracraniums.com/gallery/albums/userpics/normal_Trafalger%20Trunk.jpg) (http://cameracraniums.com/gallery/albums/userpics/Trafalger%20Trunk.jpg) (http://cameracraniums.com/gallery/albums/userpics/normal_Hand%20Rail.jpg) (http://cameracraniums.com/gallery/albums/userpics/Hand%20Rail.jpg)
Taken this week at the Trafalger Trunk Exhibition. Yer can't beat a 50mm
I have a Canon 50mm 1.8 but hardly ever use it, only time I found it really useful was at London aquarium where no flash was allowed, this thread renewed my interest so this morning it was dug out of the cupboard & pointed at the dog. Maybe I am too lazy to use my feet to zoom or I have not realised its potential yet but I will keep it handy and play with it again.
(http://cameracraniums.com/gallery/albums/userpics/normal_IMG_4091web.JPG) (http://cameracraniums.com/gallery/albums/userpics/IMG_4091web.JPG)
Wide open
(http://cameracraniums.com/gallery/albums/userpics/normal_IMG_4056web.JPG) (http://cameracraniums.com/gallery/albums/userpics/IMG_4056web.JPG)
f2.8
Bump this thread. :tup:
Went to my brother-in-laws 60th B'day last night so I thought what a great way to test the low light capabilities of the 7D and the 50mm 1.8.
He's the drummer and his son-in-law is the bassist. Overall the lens wasn't too bad and the iso never went over 1600. Shooting manually was challenging because of the lights dimming and brightening all the time so this led to quite a few blown faces. Also 50mm on a 1.6 crop in a small venue is slightly too big. 35 mm would be ideal.
Hmmm. £1120, Just have to stand further back for now. ::)
A couple more.
Quote from: chris@seary.com on November 16, 2009, 11:36:06 PM
Everyone's favourite lens - the nifty fifty 50mm!
Not mine. I have one on loan from a friend, but its only used when I really have to. Much prefer the 85mm f1.8.
Well I adore my 50mm. Allegedly the 3rd best prime lens ever made behind the Contax Planar and Canon 200 f1.8 (I can't begin to think how much that might cost :o) The colours and rendering of details which somehow are soft and sharp at the same time are soma to me.
Here's a snap of a rose I took about a week ago. It is a jpg straight out of the camera. I added the © and resized it.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2707/4340380452_8c0bcfbe26.jpg) (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2707/4340380452_8c0bcfbe26_b.jpg)
Image replaced.
Quote from: Tringle WP on February 07, 2010, 06:12:46 PM
Well I adore my 50mm. Allegedly the 3rd best prime lens ever made behind the Contax Planar and Canon 200 f1.8 (I can't begin to think how much that might cost :o)
Not sure how it got to be 3rd best - on what basis? :)
I can think of loads better, in terms of sharpness and bokeh.how about 135 f/2, 200 f/2, 50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.2, 300 f/2.8, etc etc.
In terms of cost, then I accep[t, there are non better. :)
"There's a reason why this received the 3rd highest MTF score from respected lens review site photodo, sitting right behind a Contax Planar and a Canon 200 1.8."
That's as far as I bothered to look (after I'd bought it) , because frankly I don't care. It's superb lens.
I knew that statement would wind you Cankon boys up. ;)
I think I'll post a larger image - the resizing has completely knackered it.
LATER. Any resize I apply to this is destroying it. I can't get the image down to a size for this site with the detail preserved, so when I've done the school run I'll post it to flickr and do a link.
Triangle, you're not winding me up! I am thinking of Canon's nifty - its not that good.
It's not the lens that I don't like a such, but the focal length - it just doesn't do it for me. I've used the 50mm f/1.2 and that didn't impress either. Wider is fine, longer is fine, its just 50mm :)
Quote from: anglefire on February 08, 2010, 07:10:49 AM
Triangle, you're not winding me up! I am thinking of Canon's nifty - its not that good.
It's not the lens that I don't like a such, but the focal length - it just doesn't do it for me. I've used the 50mm f/1.2 and that didn't impress either. Wider is fine, longer is fine, its just 50mm :)
I know what you mean about the focal length - it's a bit of an in betweeny.
Quote from: Tringle WP on February 08, 2010, 08:59:04 AM
Quote from: anglefire on February 08, 2010, 07:10:49 AM
Triangle, you're not winding me up! I am thinking of Canon's nifty - its not that good.
It's not the lens that I don't like a such, but the focal length - it just doesn't do it for me. I've used the 50mm f/1.2 and that didn't impress either. Wider is fine, longer is fine, its just 50mm :)
I know what you mean about the focal length - it's a bit of an in betweeny.
The whole point of the 50 in days gone past (35 mm film) was that it was pretty much the same angular scale as the human view, i.e. no magnification (as opposed to the angle of view/width that the eye can detect, which is larger) when applied to 135 film. Now with the 1.5 or 1.6 crop factor, this has converted it to a 75mm lens, or a small telephoto - but a good size for portrait work.
So, for the "new" digital era, the 50 should really be a 33 1/3 mm lens. Giving a more wide angle than the current 50. Alternatively, go full frame.
I am a bit surprised how resilient in the community the focal length is for specifying the lens size, whereas what most are interested in is the angular width the lens provides - for this, a 75mm on a full frame would give the same angular width as the 50mm on a 1.5 crop factor sensor, e.g. ~27 degrees. Then again, the focal length is invariant with the sensor size.
H.
But surely the main reason it's a favourite lens with so many is the fact it's the one universally affordable f1.8 prime. So you can get those shallow DOF or low light photos you want without breaking the bank.
Quote from: greypoint on February 09, 2010, 07:09:50 AM
But surely the main reason it's a favourite lens with so many is the fact it's the one universally affordable f1.8 prime. So you can get those shallow DOF or low light photos you want without breaking the bank.
Undeniably so! Just not my favourite! Its a lens I do turn to if space is tight and light is low, but my first choice is my 85mm f/1.8. Which I go off ebay with a manfrotto 3way head for about £180. Both were basically mint!
I actually like the fact that it is a short telephoto on an APS-C camera. On a full frame it is either too short or too long. I've still got the 35-70 zooms from my film days - at least the Pentax one works with the DSLRs.
And as for affordable - well the Cankon ones might be, but the Pentax ones are really dear, even on fleaBay.
If you really want a Prime lens for an APS sensor that mimics the 50mm on full frame you could go for the Sigma 30mm f1.4. It's had some cracking write ups and I know some members will already have one...
On Sunday I'd gone out in Zierikzee (NL) with just the 50mm on the camera.
It definitely required a bit of stepping back to frame the shots.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4006/4343397528_69ee46975f.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/h_evans/4343397528/)
:D Zierikzee is a lovely place!
I am from Domburg/Middelburg myself. If you are ever in that area again I recommend Veere for some nice photography locations.
BTW I have the Sigma 30mm and it is a fantastic lens.
I know it's a bit "Off topic" but since we'er on about the Sigma 30/1.4 does anyone use one on a full frame camera (Jonathan? :))
I was wondering how it would be on my D700.
Graham.
Quote from: Graham on February 09, 2010, 04:50:34 PM
I know it's a bit "Off topic" but since we'er on about the Sigma 30/1.4 does anyone use one on a full frame camera (Jonathan? :))
I was wondering how it would be on my D700.
Graham.
Does the D700 have a 5:4 mode? 5:4 on a D3 with the 30 gives a really nice result - lovely vignette :) I reckon it would vignette a lot in FX mode. And of course push you down to 5 MP in DX :(
One from way back - SOOC.
(http://homepage.mac.com/jonathan_ryan/filechute/DSC_3294.jpg)
Quote from: Jonathan on February 10, 2010, 11:28:18 AM
Quote from: Graham on February 09, 2010, 04:50:34 PM
I know it's a bit "Off topic" but since we'er on about the Sigma 30/1.4 does anyone use one on a full frame camera (Jonathan? :))
I was wondering how it would be on my D700.
Graham.
Does the D700 have a 5:4 mode? 5:4 on a D3 with the 30 gives a really nice result - lovely vignette :) I reckon it would vignette a lot in FX mode. And of course push you down to 5 MP in DX :(
Does the D700 have a 5:4 mode?...Not sure, I'll have to have a look. I could of course crop off most of the vignetting but that would kind of defeat the purpose.
I did a google search and the consensus seems to be don't bother!.....Which makes me all the more interested. (Reble that I am.)
Thanks for the thought, and back to "Nifty fifty" Graham. :)