If you are using a crop format a 35mm would be better. I shot Weddings for several years using a 50 mm lens on a 35mm camera. - Dave
Mac
Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.
wilsondl2 wrote:
If you are using a crop format a 35mm would be better. I shot Weddings for several years using a 50 mm lens on a 35mm camera. - Dave
Yes, 35mm on a crop sensor.
I have a nice 50mm f1.8, among my 10 other lenses. I've taken between 30,000 and 40,000 pictures since I got the "nifty fifity." Other than test shots that convinced me the "fifty" was no sharper than my zooms, I've taken exactly ZERO pictures with the "fifty."
However, back in my Pentax film days, a Pentax 50 f1.4 "SMC Takumar" was on one of my Pentax bodies 90% of the time.
Nice video. Seems to me that one major advantage of the nifty-fifty is the f-stop range. Using f1.4 or f1.8 certainly provides different capabilities and results than using the typical f3.5 of a zoom.
Yes, and for many of us the 50mm is actually a 75mm applying the crop factor. At 75 mm it is close to the 85 suggested by Kodak years ago for portraits. I will agree that I love my zooms because they are handy and assume the being that is needed for the moment.
The title of this thread is missing one highly important word that is in the introduction to article on this subject, that being "sometimes." It reads as follows:
<<....a 50mm "Nifty Fifty" lens is sometimes all you need to shoot some amazing photos.>>
My first reaction on this was that the premise in the title is absurd. For example, try going into the Rocky Mountains to shoot landscapes with nothing but a 50mm and a huge amount of frustration would soon occur. But then I read the first part of the article. The qualification "sometimes" makes all the difference, the premise then being reasonable.
jut someone who wanted to rub some folks fur the wrong way. there was time that many cameras only came with a 50mm lens. you made do with what you had. 50's are nice but there are too many good choices to limit yourself.
This was worth watching. Thanks for posting it.
Really hard to get decent images of a Grizzly using a 50.
Teton Viewer wrote:
The title of this thread is missing one highly important word that is in the introduction to article on this subject, that being "sometimes." It reads as follows:
<<....a 50mm "Nifty Fifty" lens is sometimes all you need to shoot some amazing photos.>>
My first reaction on this was that the premise in the title is absurd. For example, try going into the Rocky Mountains to shoot landscapes with nothing but a 50mm and a huge amount of frustration would soon occur. But then I read the first part of the article. The qualification "sometimes" makes all the difference, the premise then being reasonable.
The title of this thread is missing one highly imp... (
show quote)
I agree, the title was misleading just as you say. I don't know why they feel they need to do that. News reporting does the same thing with their misleading headlines.
Bob Boner wrote:
Really hard to get decent images of a Grizzly using a 50.
Hey, just stand your ground and get that shot. You will get great accolades posthumously.
Mac wrote:
http://www.iso1200.com/2017/12/7-reasons-why-50mm-lens-is-all-you-need.html
Yep, looks like this video was made by that same guy who once said he went bear hunting with a pocket knife that had a 3-inch blade!
Beercat
Loc: Central Coast of California
I agree with much of what was said ....
When I'm in a mission shooting a wedding ... you can not use flash. I'll stick my 50mm f/1.4 on one FF and my 85mm f/1.8 on my other FF. I don't like shooting above 2500 unless I need to so using these 2 lens works fine when it's dark and you can't use flash.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.