mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

I use my 50 equivalent when I’m in the city and in museums. It’s light and inobtrusive.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

For many years, I did all of my photography with 50mm lenses on a succession of cameras. The earliest ones were f/2.8 lenses, so speed wasn't even a consideration. Now that I have become accustomed to using zoom lenses, none of my prime lenses come out much at all...they are just no longer in my "habit" except for a few special cases. I would never visit a place like, say, Carlsbad Caverns (widely varying subjects and distances, strictly controlled access) with anything other than a zoom lens now.

My advice is the same that I give to people thinking about an ultra wide zoom...make sure that you have a reason (your reason) first.

Carnpo Loc: North Carolina

I am satisfied with my Nikon G 1.8 lens. I use it on my FX cameras only (Df and D4).

stevetassi

Yes I actually do have these lenses(and I know how to use them).I’m asking the question because I want feedback from those who have a 50 regarding the low light capabilities so I can decide if I want to get one. Your response makes you come across as a jerk.

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

I believe you have wonderful Nikon Lens and Tamron covering most situations
The nifty fifty is a good lens. But these days their are many good choices
in primes to do new work. Things tend to lean a little more to wide angle
lens. A 16mm for a group shot. My video camera has a 24mm base and it
is really necessary. I have Sony equipment my Sony a7s II is an amazing
camera. Paired with the zeiss 55mm I highly thought of creative lens.
Frankly I dont get to use it much.
As a former post you might want more low light capability.
I owned a audio visual company years ago slides and sound
shows for corps. We had used Nikons with a Nikon 35mm lens for
all of our visuals. Just some thinking ideas. Good luck.

anotherview Loc: California

Essentially, zoom lenses have become equivalent to prime lenses, so I read. Your Nikon 24-120mm lens will do the job.

But this opinion may help clarify the use of prime lenses (AKA fixed focal length lenses): https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fixed-lenses-take-better-pictures.htm

tdozier3 Loc: Northern Illinois

I have a Nikon 50mm AFS 1.8G FX that I paid 176 bucks for on sale new for my D7500. I Don't use it a lot, but when I need to use it, it's there. It's a great little lens for portraits and low light shooting. It's very light and produces great bokeh and very sharp images.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

There’s a big difference in a nifty 50 and the 24-120 f4 and that is speed - >2 stops for a 50 f1.8 and 3 stops for a f1.4, not to mention the bokeh/subject isolation. You can trade those 2 -3 stops for lower ISO and less noise where flash isn’t a possibility, but you need to understand the DOF trade-offs when shooting wide open - your focus point becomes much more critical.

Toment Loc: FL, IL

35mm might be better...IMHO

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

50mm.... some people like em, some people don't.

I'm one of the later with "full frame" (like D750), I find 50mm boring and haven't carried one for years. I lean toward using slightly wider (35 or 40mm) and slightly longer (70 to 85mm)....on full frame.

HOWEVER, on an APS-C crop sensor camera, 50mm is a nice, fast, inexpensive, short telephoto that's simply great for portraits. I bought one and use it a lot for that purpose.

But that's just me... not you.

It really depends upon what you shoot. For example, 50mm on full frame can be a popular focal length for wedding photographers. They tend to shoot more full length portraits, as well as couples or small groups, or "environmental" portraits that are wider to show the individual(s) in their surroundings.

Plenty of responses here mention low light capabilities, which is true. f/1.4 is two stops larger than f/2.8... and what that means 4X as much light reaches the camera's sensor at those max apertures. f/1.4 can deliver 8X as much light as f/4.

An f/1.8 lens is 2/3 stop less fast than f/1.4.... f/1.8 still offers a little more than 2X the light passing through compared to f/2.8. Or a little more than 4X what an f/4 zoom can deliver. Not as much as an f/1.4, but an f/1.8 lens is typically a little smaller, lighter and often even less expensive. Either can be helpful in low light conditions.

But, in my opinion, even more important for many situations is the larger aperture lens' ability to blur down a background, as illustrated by some of the photo examples people have shared in this thread. An f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens can render considerably shallower depth of field than an f/2.8 or f/4 zoom.

50mm also are a thoroughly developed design that are usually capable of high image quality. They've been around since the 1930s and were very commonly the "kit" lens sold with SLRs from the late 1950s through the 1980s or early 1990s. Virtually every camera system offers one or more 50mm (or close to that focal length... there are close variants from 45mm to 58mm). On the whole, they're among the most affordable fast prime lenses, too.

Also, 50mm tend to be pretty compact lenses (as are many primes).... a lot smaller and lighter than many "standard zooms". As a result they can be less intimidating to subjects and attract less attention when out shooting, compared to some big honkin' zoom. 50mm have been very popular among "street photographers", for example.

Some will tell you that a 50mm is a "must have". A few may even tell you that it's not necessary, based upon their own experiences. I'd just say it entirely depends upon your needs... Depends upon what you shoot and how you want to render the images. If you shoot low light... if you shoot full length portraits and small groups.... if you shoot environmental portraits.... if you do a lot of candid shots or street photography... or if you do a lot of location shooting where you have little control over backgrounds and need to blur them into colorful blobs... a 50mm lens might be right for you. These may or may not be things you do now, or want to do in the future. Make your decision whether you need a 50mm or not based upon your particular needs.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

I love mine. Spend a day with it and you wii, too.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

That’s a quandary I deal with for myself. 50mm and 35mm are great general purpose focal lengths and there are good arguments in favor of both and the positive arguments outweigh the negative arguments for both. Right now I have a 50mm on my Df and a 35mm on my M10.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

A comprehensive, detailed and balanced response (as usual).

Winslowe

It's good to know that you're able to make your own decisions.