50 MM Lens, yes or no (Page 3): As far as I’m thinking every camera bag should have a 50 in it...

Jeffcs Loc: Myrtle Beach South Carolina

As far as I’m thinking every camera bag should have a 50 in it

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

A 50 prime? What aperture? Why? Doesn’t need matter?

Jeffcs wrote:

As far as I’m thinking every camera bag should have a 50 in it

mrtaxi Loc: Old Westbury NY, Fort Lauderdale, FL

I also most of the time with my canon 5d iv and landscapes with my 5DS. But for portraits anything under 85mm is too close and gets the subject nervous. My go to portrait lens is the Canon 100 f2.8L Marco. It’s sharp as a tack and price wise less costly than most L series.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

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

I have shot professional portraits for over 35 years. My favorite mm range for portraits was 100-200. So your 70-300 would do. Shoot wide open as you want the back ground to go out of focus. Distance your subject from the back ground also, do not have them up against it. Focus on the eyes.
One of the most miss understood beliefs in photography is that a 50 mm lens captures what the human eye sees. This is so WRONG. All of my photographer instructors have said the lens that comes closest to what the human sees WITH BOTH EYES OPEN is a 35 mm lens.
IMHO, my favorite portrait lens was the 70-200 mm 2.8 lens. Loved that lens for portraiture.

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

billnikon wrote:

I have shot professional portraits for over 35 yea... (show quote)

This is always what I've read about the 35mm. I didn't want to post it because some people attack here sometimes. So mostly I just lurk. Lol

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

NickPJr wrote:

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?

Here's a review of the 85 f/1.8:

https://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/85mm.htm

If it fulfills your needs you certainly won't get hurt on the price. I had one and really liked the results. Sold it when I made the move to an EOS R and RF lenses, otherwise, I would still have it.

Adamborz

This is my first post on this forum but I’ve been a photographer and drone pilot (Real estate) for some time.

I use a Canon 5D III, use 16-35 f/2.8L II, 24-105 f4L IS II, and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II zooms, with a 100mm f/2.8 macro (non L) and a nifty fifty (original).

For real estate I use the wide angle, for people and pets mostly the 70-200. However I’ve gotten some great pet shots with the 16-35 too. I love how small the 50mm lens is and will take it when I don’t feel like damaging a more expensive lens. Like a shoot at a swimming pool that was open to dogs on its last day... got some great shots with it and it’s the cheapest lens I own!

I would have posted a pic from the pool with the 50 but haven’t figured that out just yet 😎

Silverrails

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

I am not an expert, but I bought a Nikon 50mm 1.8g lens for my Nikon D3300 crop sensor camera, so my actual F.O.V. ( field of view ) is 1.5 x 50mm = 75mm F.O.V., which is very acceptable for Portrait Photography.

ltj123 Loc: NW Wisconsin

I have 85mm 1.8 for any portrait work. Also have 50mm 2.5 macro lens that works fine in this area. I'm strictly a long time amateur, but done several weddings and family/individual portraits over the years with VG results with little after processing.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

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

I think that you may be happy with the Canon 85mm f/1.8, it is an excellent portrait lens and punches way above its weight as far as IQ/$ goes, IQ wise it rivals or exceeds the IQ of the $1800 85mm f/1.2L. To buy new I think that lens currently sells for not much over $300, used it is in the $200 to $250 range. The 100mm f/2 is basically the same lens with a bit longer focal length, both are outstanding values and excellent performing lenses.

I think that the 85mm is a better focal length for portrait on a full frame, if you want to get into street photography then you may want to consider the 50mm.

BlueMorel Loc: Southwest Michigan

I have a nifty 50 and love it for closeups and it's relatively cheap, but I'd follow the advice of others here and get a longer lens - 80 to 105mm if just for the extra reach. I guess it depends on how much portraiture you plan on doing.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I’ve read that a short telephoto works well for portraits, provides a bit of distance, compresses the scene, and keeps the face in proper perspective.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

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

Yes. I have heard the 50mm is the lens that the eyes see. My father owned a film SLR Minolta SRT-101, with the then standard 50mm lens. He used that only lens for many years before he finally sold it to go digital. The Nikon FX 50mm f1.8 is one of my lenses. It's more than adequate for portraits on my crop sensor. You have great gear. On your full frame gear, you should consider the Canon 85mm f1.4 That's a better portrait choice, to me, than the 50mm. You should be able to take portraits with your 24-105mm lens.

GrandmaG Loc: Flat Rock, MI

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

The 50/1.4 is a great portrait lens on a full frame camera. I also have the 85/1.8 and 35/1.4. It depends on the framing you want for portraits...head & shoulders, full body, or something in between. Also, how much room you have to set up. In my home studio, I used a 35/1.4 because I don’t have a lot of room.

I actually prefer my Sigma 135/1.8 for outdoor portraits.

Hope this helps.

uhaas2009

My first lens was 50mm 1985. I used my feet a lot. When I use zoom lenses I forgotten to walk to and around my Subject.
I didn’t had really weird looking pictures (Lens distortion) till I used my first zoom lens.