Catchnreel Loc: Long Island NY

I use this lens on a D7200 and as it has been mentioned prior, you can use it for anything. I've used for portraits, landscape and even night photography. All I had the day this sunset was taken was the 50mm. It's a great part of my arsenal of lenses.

dickwilber Loc: Indiana (currently)

Long, long ago (40-50 years), 35 mm cameras were the "big dogs" in photography. Everyone had to have one. And "top dog" in 35 mm cameras were the Single Lens Reflex (SLR) cameras, allowing "through the lens" (TTL) viewing, composing and focusing. And, at that time, lens design was slow, tedious, and problematical; but just about to get much easier and much better as lens designers began to utilize computers. The depth of the camera body had been established by the reflex mirror that is required to snap up out of the way to allow the light through to the film plane. This lent itself to a 50 mm lens focal length. Any shorter focal length required a "retro design" in order to allow that mirror the needed clearance distance - a more complicated and expensive design. Anything longer required more materials and a larger opening (to avoid a smaller, "slower" aperture) - more expense.

Thus 50 mm became the default "kit lens" focal length. Simple economics. Coincidentally, 50 mm is only slightly longer (50 mm versus 43 mm) than the diagonal of a 35 mm film frame, generally considered the approximation of the view of the human eye. So, much myth has grown up defending what was a simple economic decision.

Like many here, my first SLR lens was a 50 mm (Olympus OM series). Yes, it soon felt natural to view every thing in terms of that 50 mm lens. But as time went on, I developed a stable of lenses: 24 mm, 50 mm, 105 mm, and 200 mm. My “vision” evolved so that the 105 mm lens (a Kiron 105 mm Macro lens) became my walk around lens - it fit the way I saw the photographic world. I had friends who preferred the 50 mm, the 24 mm or 35 mm lens as their normal lens on their 35 mm film cameras. As I aged and my ability to focus quickly fell behind my photographic vision, a quarter century ago, I switched from Olympus to Nikon for their autofocus system. Nikon also had some excellent zoom lenses at that time, and I pretty much abandoned single focal length lenses for the flexibility of zooms! Today, for my particular version of photography, the "nifty-fifty" has limited utilitarian value; I will stick with my zooms and maybe a wide aperture 85 mm for it's bokeh, and a 105 mm macro lens.

macsmom Loc: S Carolina

For those of us on the beginner end of the spectrum -- why?

macsmom Loc: S Carolina

Oops, quoted the wrong one. So again, as one on the beginner end -- Why?

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Because the coverage--the angle of view--doesn't represent what I see. The 50 became the norm as representing what the eye "sees" when it was packaged with 35mm film cameras. Most DSLRs today are cropped sensors which means you are no longer getting the same view. It's as if you lose the peripheral portion of the framed view. Certainly it's still useful, just not as much. If it works for you, fine. It's also important to pick the best lens for what YOU photograph. If that is family/people, then the 50 is great.
For many new photographers the 50 is the first prime they've used, so they are amazed. And it's likely the least expensive prime available. Kit zooms are common; primes are not. I would wager that for most on UHH it's the only prime they have. FWIW, I think I have five of them. Nothing wrong with them, just that I've gravitated away from using them.
Hope this helps. But I would encourage you to read the earlier reference from Cambridge in Color in my earlier post.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

the "big dog" was the leica m3 with the 50mm f2 summicron. nikon owners couldn't wait to save up enough to get one!

macsmom Loc: S Carolina

LoneRangeFinder,

Thank you for your explanation of a 50 vs 35mm prime. I appreciate your taking the time to educate me. Charlie

dickwilber Loc: Indiana (currently)

Eventually, even Leica offered an SLR. And often they were sold with a 50 mm lens.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

ys indeed, however they were very heavy and bulky and never really took off. in conflict areas you saw nikon and leica rangefinders and nikon f cameras. the guys and women never used anything else.

i found the leica slr bodies to be awkward to use and larger than the nikon f, with a smaller selection of lenses. i always thought e leitz just did slrs to show they could do it. and even then the leica r3, 4, 5, and six bodies were manufactured by minolta. not until the r 7 did e leitz take control of the manufacturing of their slrs.