Why the 50mm Focal Length Is Overrated

I know, I know. I'm likely guilty of photography blasphemy here. The 50mm focal length, often referred to as the "nifty fifty," has long been one of the most commonly used in photography, noted for its versatility and often, its affordability relative to other focal lengths. Despite all that, I am here to argue that the 50mm focal length is overrated and not as useful as it is often touted to be. 

Limited Versatility

I know, 50mm lenses are supposed to be able to jump into a variety of situations with ease and produce competent images, and it is certainly true that they can. However, they are often the jack of all trades and the master of none, living somewhere in between or on either side of the better option(s). For portraiture, they are great for a half-body shot, but if you want to get in for a traditional headshot, it is likely better to bump up to 85mm. For landscapes, they are a bit too long to capture a decent amount of the scene and too short to really isolate single elements. Sports? Nope. Wildlife? Nuh-uh. 

Of course, I am not saying that 50mm lenses are totally unsuited for such genres and applications. Rather, I am saying there are often better, more purpose-specific options. Rare is it that 50mm is the ideal focal length. For landscapes, grab that 24mm or 24-105mm zoom. For portraits, grab an 85mm or 70-200mm if you want to be more versatile. Sports and wildlife? Head to the supertelephoto range. 

Limited Perspective

50mm is often touted as the focal length that is closest to the human eye, giving images a natural look. And while that may be generally true, I would argue that is a deficit, not a boon. If we all see with "50mm" lenses all day, every day, that makes it much harder for a photographer to create images that catch the viewer's eye by virtue of their novelty. People instantly respond to a 24mm or 200mm shot because it is so different than what they are used to seeing, even if the untrained eye can't articulate quite why that is.

Of course, you might argue that it is on the photographer to find other ways to be creative, but to that, I say: why not give yourself a leg up to start? Nor is this to say you can just slap on a more unusual focal length and use that as a crutch; no matter what you use, all the fundamentals of a good photograph — composition, posing, lighting, editing, etc. — must still be present. A bad photo is a bad photo whether it is shot at 10mm, 50mm, or 400mm.

Modern Zoom Lenses or Other Primes Are Often a Better Choice

50mm lenses were once considered a mainstay in almost every photographer's kit. I'm greatly overgeneralizing lens design, but in the simplest terms, the more extreme the focal length, the harder it is to design a lens that produces high-quality images, and the more expensive it will be. That is partially why, for a long time, the "nifty fifty" was so desirable, as one could get a lens with a wide aperture that produced decent images for around $100-200. 

Lens design has advanced by leaps and bounds even in just the last decade, and there are now fantastic options at just about every focal length and price point. No longer is the 50mm the most prominent "cheap but good" option; you can find something that fits your budget almost anywhere in the range. 

Taking that further: the paradigm used to be that many photographers would carry zooms for versatility and convenience and primes for wide apertures and image quality. However, modern zoom lenses continue to push the bounds of image quality and wide apertures, and that advantage held by primes has largely evaporated, at least in some cases. In particular, I am thinking of my Canon RF 28-70mm f/2 L USM. Is it expensive? Yes and no. In absolute terms, it certainly is. However, when you consider the fact that I no longer own any other lenses between 14mm and 85mm, its value becomes clear. Its image quality easily keeps pace with all but the best primes, its f/2 aperture is more than enough for 99% of situations, and its convenience makes it way more appealing to me than carrying three or four equivalent primes. Even more modest 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses of the world have taken huge strides forward, and the high-ISO capabilities of modern cameras mean that those f/1.4 apertures are not as necessary as they used to be. 

I'm Bad at It

It would be disingenuous to not mention the other reason I don't like the 50mm focal length: I am simply not good at creating compelling images with it. I do not find it inspiring or fun to work with, and it is a constant struggle to find a way to be creative with such a lens for me. Such a lens is functional at best: good for low-light situations where I need a wide aperture maybe, but even then, I will probably reach for that aforementioned 28-70mm f/2. In fact, I don't even own a 50mm lens anymore.

Of course, the need to be inspired by gear is undoubtedly a deficiency in my own technique and creativity; I will be the first to admit that. However, we all have our weaknesses and blind spots, and it seems no matter how many times I buy a 50mm lens and force myself to shoot with it, I just hate the experience and end up selling it a few months later. Many other photographers will cringe reading that, as they swear by the 50mm. That is the beauty of creative pursuits, though; we all filter the world through our own unique perspectives and strengths. Just don't filter mine through a 50mm lens, please. 

Your Thoughts

Do you like the 50mm focal length? Is it a go-to for you, or has it lost some of its usefulness with the advancements in modern lenses and cameras? Let me know in the comments.