50mm lens

[naznomore_92]

Well it has happened. After only having my Nikon D60 for 2 weeks, I already want a new lens. I currently have a 18-55mm lens that came with my camera. I have been looking at a 50mm lens as my next lens, but I have some questions. What is the difference between my 18-55 lens and and the sleek but stubby Nikkor 50mm lens that I am so interested in. I hear people saying that the 50mm is good for portraits and landscapes which is starting to become my main focus in photography. I want to see some pictures that people have taken with this kind of lens. What is the benefit if having this 50mm lens. I know there are people that use then and really like them I want to hear your comments so I can make my choice. Thanks fam.

[another view]

Welcome to the club...! A 50mm lens can be good at and also bad at a lot of things. A zoom of course has a lot of focal lengths so it's more versatile and because of that usually quicker to use. Do you shoot a lot at the long end of your 18-55? Is 55 long enough or do you usually wish it was a little (or a lot) longer?

Here's why the 50 is so popular and why I have one myself - it's incredibly sharp and fast, all for a very decent price. By 'fast' I mean the aperture so you can shoot in very low light with very little depth of field. While that's not something you always want, in most situations it does take a fast lens to do it.

If you think a longer lens might be better for you and you want a prime, you might want to consider the 85mm f1.8 - it's more like $350 though I think.

[freygr]

On the D60 a 50mm lens is the equivalent of a 75mm lens on a full frame sensor or film camera. That is a good portrait focal length along with the small DOF available with most 50mm lenses @ F2 to F1.4 apertures.

[Anbesol]

Once you get yourself that 50, you will never ever use your 18-55 to shoot people again! I dont exactly know why you heard it is good for landscape, nothing particularly special about it for landscapes, its even a bit too telephoto for most landscape. But it is a great general purpose and specialized portrait lens.

It is also good for very low light photography, being an f/1.8. The 50 prime is a lens that belongs in everybodys bag, you just have to decide whether you want the f/1.8, the f/1.4, or the f/1.2 ;)....

[freygr]

clip....
It is also good for very low light photography, being an f/1.8. The 50 prime is a lens that belongs in everybodys bag, you just have to decide whether you want the f/1.8, the f/1.4, or the f/1.2 ;)....

The f/1.2 is a pre AI lens and may not fit on the D60, and also it would be a full manual lens with you needing a light meter as the D60 meter would not work.

[Franglais]

We are having the same discussion in the Nikon forum. Read this carefully.

When people talk about the "sleek but stubby" 50mm they usually mean the $200 50mm f1.8 and not the $450 50mm f1.4. Be aware that the 50mm f1.8 will NOT autofocus on the D60. I try to point people towards the 35mm f1.8 DX which is also $200 and will autofocus on the D60. OK someone just reminded me that it's new and difficult to find but I managed to get one.

Why are people so enthusiastic about the 50mm f1.8/f1.4 lenses? There are several reasons:

1. It's a prime lens so compared with a zoom it's smaller, feels better and has superior optical quality for less $$$
2. F1.8 or f1.4 is really a wide aperture so you can get very limited depth of field and shoot in low light, something which is difficult with a zoom

As for the usefulness - a 50mm on the small sensor is a short telephoto (equivalent to a 75mm on a full-frame camera). Personally I don't find this view very useful. I prefer

a) A "normal" view for walking about in dark places (the 35mm). I typically place myself at about 10 feet from a person or group of people and take a picture when something is happening. I also like the normal view for urban landscapes on a prime because there is no distortion
b) A slightly longer view for available light portraits. I position myself at about 6-8 feet and do a picture from waist up. Nikon are supposed to be releasing another DX lens this year. I hope it will be a 60mm f2.8 Macro

[Loupey]

I think the 50mm primes are so popular because of their price.

How else can one get an f/1.8 lens for under $100 and an f/1.4 for little over $300 (Canon prices - sorry don't know other makes)?

So at these prices, the performance is admirable so the following is devoted. And the reason why they're so cheap in the first place is that the manufacturers are good at making these lenses from the decades of providing them with film cameras as "starter" lenses.

[gryphonslair99]

The 50 is popular on a crop sensor for it's characteristics as well. Although a 50mm on a crop body gives you the crop of a 75mm lens it still retains it's "normal" view characteristics in terms of the lack of distortion. Lenses wider than 50mm tend to stretch features while above 50mm they tend to slightly compress features.

A 35mm lens on a crop body provides the crop of a 50mm lens it still has a tendency to widen features. Something I personally do not find appealing in most portraits.

[Franglais]

The 50 is popular on a crop sensor for it's characteristics as well. Although a 50mm on a crop body gives you the crop of a 75mm lens it still retains it's "normal" view characteristics in terms of the lack of distortion. Lenses wider than 50mm tend to stretch features while above 50mm they tend to slightly compress features.

A 35mm lens on a crop body provides the crop of a 50mm lens it still has a tendency to widen features. Something I personally do not find appealing in most portraits.

I never heard that before. A DX 35mm on a crop body should give exactly the same picture as a 50mm on a 24x36 body, assuming there is the same level of optical distortion. There is no reason to have more optical distortion on the shorter focal length because the image circle is smaller on a DX lens which makes the lens design simpler (*)

Take a 24x36 body with a 50mm and a APS-C body with a 35mm, set them up at the same place and you would have the same view (almost - the 35mm is the equivalent of a 52.5mm).

If the focal length changed the view then point-and-shoots with an 8mm lens would give stretched portraits and a view camera with an 100+mm lens would give compressed ones

Perhaps I haven't understood what you're saying.

(* That's the theory. The first review I've read of the 35mm f1.8 DX says it does have rather strong distortion for a prime)

[freygr]

Note: To have the lens autofocus on a D60 or D40 series you need one of these models of lenses AF-I, AF-S, G, or VR lens. Link: http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/slr-lens.html

[Franglais]

Note: To have the lens autofocus on a D60 or D40 series you need one of these models of lenses AF-I, AF-S, G, or VR lens. Link: http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/slr-lens.html

Look closely at the end of the table.

For "G" lenses there is a note AF10 "Auto Focus is possible with G lenses only if they are also AF-S; G AF lenses will MF only"

The "VR" column is about VR working, not about auto-focus.

I didn't know that the D40/D40x/D60 will autofocus with AF-I lenses as well as AF-S. Apparently AF-I was first attempt at AF-S from 1992 to 1996.

[gryphonslair99]

I never heard that before. A DX 35mm on a crop body should give exactly the same picture as a 50mm on a 24x36 body, assuming there is the same level of optical distortion. There is no reason to have more optical distortion on the shorter focal length because the image circle is smaller on a DX lens which makes the lens design simpler (*)

Take a 24x36 body with a 50mm and a APS-C body with a 35mm, set them up at the same place and you would have the same view (almost - the 35mm is the equivalent of a 52.5mm).

If the focal length changed the view then point-and-shoots with an 8mm lens would give stretched portraits and a view camera with an 100+mm lens would give compressed ones

Perhaps I haven't understood what you're saying.

(* That's the theory. The first review I've read of the 35mm f1.8 DX says it does have rather strong distortion for a prime)

The size of the sensor does not negate the characteristics of a lens. The best and most obvious example would be a fisheye lens. You put that on a FF camera you get the fish eye effect. You put that same fisheye lens on a crop sensor camera you still get a fisheye effect, just not the edges image that the lens could produce.

Same thing with any lens wider than 50mm. Wider than 50mm you get a slight bit of distortion of feature. Granted it is slight compared to say a fisheye, but it is still there. That charcteristic is still present in the lens, you are just using the center portion of the FOV that the lens produces. Granted, the amount of distortion is generally smaller in the center than the edges, it is still present. For close single person portrait work even on a crop body, I prefer shooting at 50mm or above and taking a couple of steps back.

If shooting general family gathering type stuff it would with multiple people or full body stuff with a 35mm I doubt that it would be noticable.

A 35mm produces the same FOV on a crop sensor that a 50mm does on a FF, but it doesn't change the inherant charcteristics of the lens.

[freygr]

The 50 is popular on a crop sensor for it's characteristics as well. Although a 50mm on a crop body gives you the crop of a 75mm lens it still retains it's "normal" view characteristics in terms of the lack of distortion. Lenses wider than 50mm tend to stretch features while above 50mm they tend to slightly compress features.

A 35mm lens on a crop body provides the crop of a 50mm lens it still has a tendency to widen features. Something I personally do not find appealing in most portraits.

I have to disagree with this post and your later post. The design of the lens has more to do with it's look than the focal length of the lens. An Ideal lens will give you the exactly the same view with any focal length lens if, the angle of list the same. The differences you see are from the trade offs made by the lens manufacturer.

Given that almost all 50mm lenses have been optimized for almost all optical factors it's performance will always trump that of non-name and cheap lenses.

[Franglais]

...
Same thing with any lens wider than 50mm. Wider than 50mm you get a slight bit of distortion of feature. Granted it is slight compared to say a fisheye, but it is still there. That charcteristic is still present in the lens, you are just using the center portion of the FOV that the lens produces. Granted, the amount of distortion is generally smaller in the center than the edges, it is still present. For close single person portrait work even on a crop body, I prefer shooting at 50mm or above and taking a couple of steps back.
...

A fisheye is not designed to produce a rectilinear image so it's not a valid example.

We agree that lenses have a stretching effect (see comment at the end)
We agree that the effect is progressive as you go out from the center towards the edge of the image circle

Compare a 50mm on a 24x36 with a 35mm on an APS-C. The image circle on the 24x36 is bigger therefore the stretching effect at the edge is greater and finally the result is the same as a 35mm on APS-C.

I thought for a while you were talking about perspective. When you talk about fitting a 50mm (or above) for portrait work and taking a couple of steps back then you improve the perspective - the person's nose doesn't seem to be oversized. I like to work at about 8 feet and the "75mm view" of the 50mm is too short. Hope Nikon's next DX lens will be a 60mm..

Comment 12 hours later:

I've looked around for any mention of optical distortion that widens the subject the further you go from the center. Not a word. Distortion is barrel or pincushion. I think that what we're talking about is just perspective. With a wideangle lens you start to see things at the edge of the frame from the side and they appear broader compared with things in the center that you see head-on. It's not linked to the focal legth of the lens, it's linked to the view that you get through the lens

[gryphonslair99]

A fisheye is not designed to produce a rectilinear image so it's not a valid example.

We agree that lenses have a stretching effect (see comment at the end)
We agree that the effect is progressive as you go out from the center towards the edge of the image circle

Compare a 50mm on a 24x36 with a 35mm on an APS-C. The image circle on the 24x36 is bigger therefore the stretching effect at the edge is greater and finally the result is the same as a 35mm on APS-C.

I thought for a while you were talking about perspective. When you talk about fitting a 50mm (or above) for portrait work and taking a couple of steps back then you improve the perspective - the person's nose doesn't seem to be oversized. I like to work at about 8 feet and the "75mm view" of the 50mm is too short. Hope Nikon's next DX lens will be a 60mm..

Comment 12 hours later:

I've looked around for any mention of optical distortion that widens the subject the further you go from the center. Not a word. Distortion is barrel or pincushion. I think that what we're talking about is just perspective. With a wideangle lens you start to see things at the edge of the frame from the side and they appear broader compared with things in the center that you see head-on. It's not linked to the focal legth of the lens, it's linked to the view that you get through the lens

You are correct, Distortion was not the right word to use. Perspective would have been a better choice. You understand though what I was talking about. I used the fisheye as an example only to get the point across, not as a solid example of the difference in perspective of different focal lengths. I prefer 8-12 foot range personally and my 85mm on a crop body puts me closer to12 feet or so.

Two things that make me cringe in the digital world are when I hear people taking and they express that a crop sensor body provides magnification, thus a 50mm becomes a 75mm lens, and the transition concept from the P&S world to DSLR with the "power magnification" of lenses. I just wanted the OP to understand that a focal length is a focal length and it does not change, nor do the characteristics of that focal length. Other things may negate them to a point, but they do not change and that is something to keep in the back of their mind when they are shooting.

[Franglais]

Well I hope we managed to answer the original posters question because we got onto a different subject - the difference between distortion and perspective. It certainly made me think.

Here are a couple of images I made on Sunday. Same lens, almost the same focal length - 11 or 12mm. The optical distortion must be about the same so the difference is all down to perspective, which amazes me.

In the first one I held the camera horizontal and in the second one I tilted it up. See what a very wide-angle lens did to a square building.

[Dylan8i]

I hope it will be a 60mm f2.8 Macro

they just released an af-s 60mm macro 2.8. i doubt they would make a dx version. its already a pretty small cheap ( $400) lens. i would recommend the afs version over the older no af-s though, its by far the fastest focusing lens (as well as phenominal IQ etc) i have used.

[Franglais]

they just released an af-s 60mm macro 2.8. i doubt they would make a dx version. its already a pretty small cheap ( $400) lens. i would recommend the afs version over the older no af-s though, its by far the fastest focusing lens (as well as phenominal IQ etc) i have used.

Thanks. You're right, the chances of a cheap 60mm macro f2.8 DX are zero. So what other prime DX lens could Nikon release this year?

They just announced the 10-24 DX which is wider than the Tamron 11-18 that I used to make these pictures. I was focussing manually on the D60 - it's easy, the lens has enormous depth of field so it's in focus most of the time anyway, plus it has a focussing ring with some resistance so it stays put once you've focussed it