The first SLR camera I received as a teenager came with a 50mm lens that I used for many years, so I’m very familiar with the lens and how to capture what I want with it. This lens is universal and captures beautiful images that's why I always have it on hand.
The 50mm lens on a full-frame camera is the closest field of vision that you see with your own eyes. When you look at a scene and then put your camera up to your eye, that is what you will see through the viewfinder.
The 50mm lens is a prime lens, so there is no zoom you will have to physically move in or out to get closer or further away from the subject, which I think makes a better photographer, at least when you're still learning. The 50mm lens produces beautiful, high-quality photos, some are affordable if you go for a lightweight body like the one I use. This 50mm has been a great lens for me I have never had an issue with it.
The 50mm lens never leaves my camera bag. I use it on my landscape shoots when I need to get closer to the subject, I use it on my home and interior shoots to capture vignettes or views, and of course, I use it often for fashion and portraits. A 50mm is a workhorse and a must-have lens.
Very interesting and useful video but it has a wrong information: the multiplier factor for Fuji cameras is 1.5x and not 1.6x as said in video.
I think that the multiplier factor of 1.6x is exclusive of Canon APS-C cameras. All other APS-C cameras use 1.5x factor.
Let's see, I have about 10 50mm lenses from f1.2 to f3.5.
Only the f1.2 gets much use and is in my daily bag.
I do like it a lot as it has a very special look.
Good article.
10 of 50mm lenses that you have? How about donating some to the needy, like me? I have a Canon 6d dslr.
A "nifty fifty" might give you approximately the same magnification as your eyes. But do you have tunnel vision? I don't, which is why when I'm walking around I'm shooting with a wide angle lens.
In fact, the magnification of most classic 135 format film SLRs required a 60-65mm lens to give the same magnification as the unaided eye at anything other than macro distances. The whole "50mm is what the human eye sees" is an oft repeated myth.
I've always read that 43mm is the focal length that most closely mimics the field of view of the human eye, when used on "full frame" sensors. Perhaps 60-65mm is what would most closely approximate human vision when used with medium format sensors.
The human field of vision is 180 degrees horizontally. 43mm doesn't come remotely close to that on a 135 format camera.
What 43mm does is match the focal length to the diagonal measure of the film frame. This makes an 8x10 or 8x12 enlargement of the 36x24mm negative appear to be 1.0X magnification when viewed from typical handheld viewing distance of 10-12 inches.
60-65mm is what gives 1.0X magnification when viewed through most 135 format film camera's viewfinders.
43mm is what gives 1.0X magnification when viewing a 36x24 mm negative enlarged to an 8 inch (on the short, 24mm side) print at typical handheld distance from the eye of the viewer.
With digital, all bets are off with regard to viewfinder magnification as the size and coverage of viewfinders varies widely. But in general the smaller viewfinders of most digital cameras (even FF cameras such as the Canon 5D series or the Nikon D800 series) require 70mm+ FF "equivalent" lenses to give an object the same size in the VF as with the naked eye.
135 format film cameras tended to all have large viewfinders, even the cheapest entry level bodies. Manual focus prior to the late 1980s required a larger VF than what digital cameras, all with AF capabilities, have.
What we see when we look through a viewfinder doesn't really mean anything to anyone other than the photographer, and then it only means something for the moment during which he/she is taking the photo.
It's the look and perspective of the images we capture that matters, not what something happened to look like when we looked through the viewfinder.
Perspective has nothing to do with focal length or format size. Perspective is determined by camera position relative to subjects and anything else in the frame. Period.
Of course. I've noticed that you are really good at stating things that are painfully obvious.
Focal lengths that are much wider or much narrower than 50mm make it APPEAR as if the photo was taken from a different perspective that it was actually taken from. That is the relationship between focal length and perspective. It is not a tangible or quantifiable relationship, but it is very important nonetheless.
"Focal lengths that are much wider or much narrower than 50mm make it APPEAR as if the photo was taken from a different perspective that it was actually taken from."
Nope. Crop a wide angle shot to the same angle of view as a telephoto shot taken from the same spot and you have the exact same perspective.
https://www.australianlight.com.au/blog/post/myth_busting_focal_length_a...
The only relationship focal length has to perspective is when we *change the camera position* to get the framing we want with a different focal length.
I'm not talking in absolute scientific terms. I am talking about what average laypeople think or assume when they see a photo.
Average laypeople, and even many professional photographers, are usually wrong about some things. The idea that changing focal length without changing camera position will change perspective is one of those propositions.
Viewfinder magnification is what most folks think they mean when they say "50mm is the closest focal length to the human field of view."
No, it isn't. It has nothing at all to do with viewfinders.
Yes it does, at least some of the time. Many people make the "50mm is the closest focal length to the human field of view" claim when talking about shooting with both eyes open.
When people talk about 50mm (or more accurately 43mm) being the closest thing to human vision, they are talking about what the images look like, not at all about what it is like from the photographer's perspective when shooting.
It's not a binary question.
When *SOME* people talk about 50mm (or more accurately 43mm) being the closest thing to human vision, they are talking about what the images look like. When *OTHER* people talk about 50mm (or more accurately 65mm) being the closest thing to human vision, they are talking about what the images look like from the photographer's perspective when shooting.
Absolutes are almost never true.
I've noticed you often seem to project what YOU think about something onto the minds of ALL PEOPLE.
I'm a "people".
I don't think the same thing you do about many things (nor do a lot of other "people").
Ergo, not ALL people think the same way you do about everything.
correct ... but I speak about the vast vast vast majority and the way they see things ... which point you seem to miss by focusing on some obscure view instead of the normal view held by the masses
No, because most people have never looked thru a viewfinder at any point in their lives.
Most people born since around 1900 have. Almost everyone in the first world have over the past century. Keep fooling yourself if you must.
Most people born since 2000 have never looked thru a viewfinder, or even owned anything with a viewfinder. And the vast majority of humans do not even live in the first world where nonessential electronic devices are so commonplace.
The screen on a phone is a viewfinder. It frames. It magnifies (either fractionally or greater than 1X). Even most folks in the third world have used a phone to take a photo at one time or another, even if they've never actually owned one.
No. Only optical viewfinders are actually viewfinders. You need to be a lot more stringent with words and definitions.
That's funny.
Those waist level cameras from almost a century ago had what their makers labeled the "viewfinder" on top of the camera that was held at the photographer's belly when framing a shot. If you use it to frame a photo, it's a viewfinder. You're insisting that eye-level viewfinders are the only kind of viewfinder. If that were the case, the term "eye-level viewfinder" would be redundant and never would have been created to differentiate eye-level viewfinders from other types of viewfinders. Back in the day, several 35mm SLR makers (Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax) offered waist-level viewfinders that could be attached to the eye-level viewfinder. They specifically called them "waist level VIEWFINDERS". B&H currently has a used "Nikon Waistlevel Finder F - Model 1" in stock. They also have a Rolleiflex TL70 Plus in mint condition in stock. You might want to look at the waist-level viewfinder on that beautiful twin lens reflex camera.
have no idea what you're talking about
What wide angledo you use & why? 35, 28, 16mm?
EVERY photographer? Seriously? Is that really what you believe?
I see no reason for me to own a 50mm prime lens. I'm not necessarily interested in taking photos that look the same way that my eyes see things. My interest in photography is in presenting things in a very different way than they appear to the eye. I mostly want to present an interpretation of reality, not reality itself.
I guess a 50mm prime could make some images that I want to make if I coupled it with extension tubes, or with teleconverters, or a speed booster. But what's the point? If that's the only way I would want to use a 50mm then I'm just better off buying the appropriate focal lengths instead of adding a bunch of things to a 50mm to get the look I want.
For once Tom & I agree on something! There's no single lens for "everyone".
The greatest photographers do present reality, but they do so in a way that the rest of us have never seen it presented before.
Sorry, but there's no single lens that "EVERY" photographer should own. Not everyone shoots the same things, and not everyone wants to shoot even the same things in the same ways.
Anyone who claims what they themselves "must" own is universal for all others is just looking for validation of their own individual preferences.
Personally, I've had 50mm 1.8/1.4 lenses since my first SLR in the mid 1980s. I can't tell you the last time I used my 50mm prime. I can tell you the last times I've used my 35mm, 85mm, and 135mm primes on my FF bodies. For me the 50 is too long compared to the 35 and too short compared to the 85.
But I don't feel the need to convince anyone else that my preferences are their "must haves". If someone else likes to shoot with a 50mm prime, I say, "Have at it." If they do exceptional work with a 50mm prime I'll say, "Great work!" But that won't make me feel any less secure because I don't care for shooting with a 50mm prime. It just means the vision of the world I want to show with my photos is different from theirs.
There's no such thing as a lens that "everyone" must have.
quote: "The 50mm lens on a full-frame camera is the closest field of vision that you see with your own eyes."
But that would be my argument for the 40mm lens. That's closer to a true "normal" focal length. (Also, I lurve my Voigtländer 40mm f1.2 a lot.)
43mm gives approximately 1.0X magnification when a 36x24mm negative is enlarged to 8 inches on the short side (8x10, 8x12) and viewed from a typical handheld viewing distance of 10-12 inches.
40-45mm doesn't come remotely close to the 180 degrees horizontal field of human vision.
Never used a 50mm since taking it off my Olympus OM2n in 1982. 😁
But maybe I need to review this decision.
The photographer captures the beautiful images, not the lens. It is the tool he/she uses to capture the image, and any lens used well will capture an equally beautiful image.
It is bad advice to suggest moving closer if you are too far from the subject. The position of the camera determines the image's perspective. When you move you are creating a completely different image.
If you are happy with your subject but are too far away you should use a longer lens to bring the subject closer but retain the perspective you were happy with.
Great point, Ted.
"Zooming with your feet" is a terrible piece of advice, because, as you say, that will change the perspective. We should not use camera positioning to make up for having the wrong focal length. We should just have the right focal length so we can shoot from the most visually inspiring perspective.
This is why I like zoom lenses. 28-105 is my favorite.
The only lens I use now is my 17-70 2.8. Obviously this only applies to myself, but I can’t see why I’d spend money on another lens unless I wanted something wider or something with more reach. I haven’t wanted either in the last 2 years, so I’m still not tempted.
I know the advantages of having a few primes, but none of those advantages would make my photos better. Being a better photographer would make my photos better, so I’m focusing on that (sorry) rather than buying more gear.
I've had a nikon 50mm for ages and rarely use it. 99 percent of the time when ive been on holiday, the perspectives i get with my zoom lenses wouldn't have been possible with the 50mm. Its okay saying use your feet to zoom, but if you physically can't, due to the space you're in, then you'll miss the shot. It's also not as sharp as my other lenses. The only thing i like about it is the great bokeh. But for the type of pictures i take, it's a moot point.
20mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, the one I never use because it serves no real purpose is the 50.
Anytime I use it, I find instances where my 35 would have got me a shot that my 50 is too long for, but when using a 35, I never wish I had my 50.
If the 50mm lens never leaves your camera bag, how do you take pictures with it? Is there a hole in your bag that you shoot though? LOL
I worked in a retail camera store from about 1972-79. Most photographers ditched their 50 and chose a 28 or 35 and an 85, 100, 105 or Pentax's 120. I haven't used one in 45 years. Interesting...