50 MM Lens, yes or no (Page 2): For the price of the 50 1.8, it's worth it just to have it. It's a very nice little lens.

nikonnate Loc: Woodbury MN

For the price of the 50 1.8, it's worth it just to have it. It's a very nice little lens.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Strodav wrote:

... it's not unusual for me to take dozens of shots at different zoom factors at different heights from the same spot with the 70-200mm.

How do you shoot at different heights from the same spot?

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

NickPJr wrote:

I'm a Canon guy - 5D IV and 5Drs I shoot mainly landscapes but recently, I'm gravitating towards some portrait but cant decide if this is something I want to do. Current lenses are 70-300, 100 -400, 24-105 and 16-35. All are L.

I have often heard that a 50 MM lens replicates what the human eye sees. I have been considering adding new glass but am needing guidance from the experts. What are ya'll thoughts?

TIA,

Nick

A 50mm is always nice to have but the EF 85mm f/1.8 is an excellent, low cost portrait lens for a ff camera.

CO

A focal length equal to the diagonal of the sensor is considered normal. For a full frame camera it would be a focal length of 43mm. Manufacturers have started to produce 45mm lenses. Tamron, Sigma, Samyang, and Rokinon are all producing 45mm lenses. I have the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 SP VC lens that I use on my full frame Nikon D750. I use it for full length portrait shots.

45mm lens on full frame camera

(Download)

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

NickPJr wrote:

I'm a Canon guy - 5D IV and 5Drs I shoot mainly landscapes but recently, I'm gravitating towards some portrait but cant decide if this is something I want to do. Current lenses are 70-300, 100 -400, 24-105 and 16-35. All are L.

I have often heard that a 50 MM lens replicates what the human eye sees. I have been considering adding new glass but am needing guidance from the experts. What are ya'll thoughts?

TIA,

Nick

On full frame cameras such as yours, 50mm is one of my least used lenses. I find them boring and don't even bother carrying one typically. I prefer something a little wider... or a little longer.

I certainly wouldn't recommend one for portraiture with a full frame camera, if that's what you're thinking.

First "portrait" lens I'd suggest is an 85mm.... either an f/1.8 or f/1.4, depending upon how much you want to spend.

I'm not saying portraits can't be shot with 50mm. They certainly can. 50mm works especially well for portraits on an APS-C camera, where it will act as a short telephoto. But it also can be used for wider "environmental portraits" on full frame (as can 35mm or even 28mm lens). A wedding photographer might use one for full length portraits, couples and small groups, too.

But for individual portraits - in particular tighter shots or candids from a little distance - a short telephoto like 85mm will be better on FF. Especially if it's your primary or only "portrait" lens.

CO

Here's a good book I got not long ago. The author advocates the nifty fifty.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

RWR wrote:

How do you shoot at different heights from the same spot?

LV lifting the camera then going to my knees.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

NickPJr wrote:

I'm a Canon guy - 5D IV and 5Drs I shoot mainly landscapes but recently, I'm gravitating towards some portrait but cant decide if this is something I want to do. Current lenses are 70-300, 100 -400, 24-105 and 16-35. All are L.

I have often heard that a 50 MM lens replicates what the human eye sees. I have been considering adding new glass but am needing guidance from the experts. What are ya'll thoughts?

TIA,

Nick

Use what you have. You don't need a "portrait" lens until you start shooting portraits for a living. In the meantime, use the 24-105 - you've got it mostly covered with that lens.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Strodav wrote:

LV lifting the camera then going to my knees.

Then you’re spot is changing (the devil made me do it).

NickPJr Loc: Forney, TX

I so appreciate ya'll responses. Lots of good data to consider. Again, many thanks!

NickPJr Loc: Forney, TX

Taking yall's lead and advice and looking at the 85mm lenses from Canon, I see the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Lens, Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM Lens and the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens. Aside from the obvious price on the 1.8 is there a deficiency that can't be seen?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

There was a comment about the f/1.8 being on Canon's short list of sharpest lenses ... I have a copy of the IS L-version posted for sale. I haven't been using the lens enough as I had planned, and it's too valuable to sit on my shelf. All the L models at 85 are on the same short list, at higher points, both for sharpness and the amazing out of focus aspects at their widest apertures. When you get into the $$$$ for the L-models, you might rent a copy for a weekend / week-long trial.

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

I like my 85 for head shot portraits. But, for environmental portraits I always use my 35mm L.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

When is a man only one portrait lens away from shooting Mona Lisa portraits...

You can shoot portraits with many lenses. I have seen it done with the 200-400 f/4. Shoot with the range of what you have until you get a feel for what you need. I feel something longer than a 50 will be more to your liking if you even need to add one.

johneccles Loc: Leyland UK

I used a 50mm lens for a couple of years and although it was a brilliant lens producing excellent images, I found that my 40mm lends suited my style of photography much more, in fact this lens is left on one camera permanently with a 24-64mm mini zoom on the other.
I know that 50mm is supposed to have the same view as the human eye but this only a rough guide and can vary from person to person, my field of view is more or less the same as a 44mm lens which is why I use the 40mm.