50mm w cropped sensor

[mrdemin]

A lot of people hype the 50mm f/1.8 canon lense for the quality it delivers for only 100 bucks. This is fine, and I myself think this is a great deal for any amateur new to the scene, yes I am one of them. It seems like every beginner buys this lens because of all the positive feedback about the lens from the more "experienced" people with 35mm sensors. They talk about how this was the "standard" lens back in the day, and its all fun and great.
I wonder how many of the newcomers grab this lens for their cropped sensor cameras, thinking they are boss, running around with a 50, probably not even realizing that what they got in reality was a 80mm.

Anywhooo, this does bring me to a personal question. No I am not one that bought it cause its cool and 100 bucks. I do not really need a prime, but a lot of my shots are in lower light conditions, and the 17-55 is out of my reach for now. I would also like the "quality" that my kit lens "lacks", along with the bokeh produced by the 50.
This would not be strictly for portraits, but perhaps some run-around shots as well, but I see the 80mm limiting my photos indoors.
The 35mm lens costs a lot more, the end.

Anyone have any insight here? Or experience with the 50 on a crapped sensor?

Thanks

[TPF Sponsor]

[Sherman Banks]

The 50mm needs some space but it's a cheap way to get to f1.8. I really didn't like the focal length on my d90 but I do like it on the d700. I did like the 28mm f2.8 with the exception of the often terrible chromatic abberration a lot though. If I was still on the cropped sensor, I'd probably opt for the 35mm 1.8. Even on a cropped sensor, the $100 is well spent as it gets you sharpness, speed and the discipline to compose your shots with more thought (having to move instead of zoom).

[j-digg]

Set your kit lens at 50mm ( assuming it has it ) keep it "locked in" at that length for awhile, walk around / test out the field of view of 50mm on a crop sensor, and see if it will fit your needs.

[iolair]

I have a crop-sensor Canon 20D, and love the 50mm 1.8. The big aperture and the focal length make it great for portraits indoors. It's very sharp, although the focus does get a little lost in (very) low light sometimes. The five-leaf aperture gives the bokeh a very particular character though - I like it, but it bothers some people.

For portraits outside, it's fine but a slightly longer lens (e.g. the 85mm 1.8) could be a better choice.

Here are a couple of shots taken with it I already have uploaded:






(If you want a lens that's more like a "standard" focal length on your crop body, consider Canon's 28mm 2.8 which is the second biggest bargain - after the 50mm 1.8.)

[Divatologist]

I bought the 50mm because of the hype and all the suggestions and don't regret it one bit. It has become my favorite lens. Most of us with cropped sensors know the math already. So we know exactly what we are getting in a 50mm lens on a cropped sensor. The truth is it is an excellent lens for the price. You can take some nice pics with it. I just purchased the 35mm 1.8 Monday. I have come to really like prime lenses. The 50mm is tight on group shots, but the 35mm is giving me just a little bit more room.

[usayit]

The primary reason why it is so well received and recommended is that it is the cheapest way for an amateur to get into a good quality optic with a very fast aperture. There is no other way for someone to know whether a high quality prime fits their needs without simply trying it out. The 50mm f/1.8 is a way to do it with minimal investment.

As for portraits, 50-100mm focal range is common. So the equiv FOV of a 50mm focal length on a cropped sensor is still in that range.

Or experience with the 50 on a crapped sensor?
Thanks

(sorry couldn't help myself)

[NateS]

You worry about dropping $100 on a 50mm prime for DX when I dropped $500 for a 50mm prime to use on DX. Sure...it gets up close but this lens is great for up close shots and produces portraits that can't hardly be beat with it's small DOF. Outdoors this lens really shines as it's 75mm respective focal length comes in very handy when my son is running around playing. Even indoors it's great as I don't have to be "in his face" to get the nice shot of him.

The only thing that makes me want wider is when I'm running around doing random shots of different family members and sometimes the 50mm gets too close for 2 or three people hanging out together in a small room....that's why I have a 17-50 f2.8.

[usayit]

You worry about dropping $100 on a 50mm prime for DX when I dropped $500 for a 50mm prime to use on DX.

and your point?

[icassell]

Frankly, I always wondered why the big manufacturers don't make a 30 or 35mm f/1.8 as their cheap lens rather than a 50mm. It is closer to the "Standard 50mm" of 35mm film days and would make a lot more sense.

[NateS]

You worry about dropping $100 on a 50mm prime for DX when I dropped $500 for a 50mm prime to use on DX.

and your point?

My point is that 50mm is as good as any other focal length if you use it for it's intended purposes. Dropping $100 on a lens is kind of pointless to be worried about it....dropping $500 on a lens makes you think your purchase over a little more.

Picking a 50mm up and expecting to have a landscape or wildlife lens is pointless. I just think it's funny that people are always so concerned with getting a 50mm f1.8 because of it's focal length when it's only a $100 lens.

[usayit]

I recall a time when 50mm and 35mm lenses were both the standard "kit" focal length. I also noticed that a fast 50mm of f/2 or f/1.8 general requires the same/similar number of elements as a 35mm of a stop or two slower. I'm no optics expert but it seems that a 35mm of f/2 (or faster) requires a more complex design than a 50mm of f/2 (or faster).

Just my guess.

[usayit]

You worry about dropping $100 on a 50mm prime for DX when I dropped $500 for a 50mm prime to use on DX.

and your point?

My point is that 50mm is as good as any other focal length if you use it for it's intended purposes. Dropping $100 on a lens is kind of pointless to be worried about it....dropping $500 on a lens makes you think your purchase over a little more.

Picking a 50mm up and expecting to have a landscape or wildlife lens is pointless. I just think it's funny that people are always so concerned with getting a 50mm f1.8 because of it's focal length when it's only a $100 lens.

ah... I read into your post a bit differently.. For some, $100 is still a bit of cash. I have a rather large collection of screwmount M42 takumar glass. It didn't start out as a collection though.. it started out from being too broke to afford anything else. Those old lenses still amaze me at times.

[mrdemin]

You worry about dropping $100 on a 50mm prime for DX when I dropped $500 for a 50mm prime to use on DX.

and your point?

My point is that 50mm is as good as any other focal length if you use it for it's intended purposes. Dropping $100 on a lens is kind of pointless to be worried about it....dropping $500 on a lens makes you think your purchase over a little more.

Picking a 50mm up and expecting to have a landscape or wildlife lens is pointless. I just think it's funny that people are always so concerned with getting a 50mm f1.8 because of it's focal length when it's only a $100 lens.

Take a hundred bucks, throw it in your toilet, and flush. And don't worry about it cause its pointless and only 100$.

Thanks for your opinions!

[PatrickHMS]

I have a 50mm AF 1.8 and like it for the same reasons everyone else does, but also realize that 50mm is more like 75mm on a cropped sensor camera. In the film world 50mm was considered a normal focal length lens, and the closest one can get for a 1.5 cropped DX body to get 50mm would be a 35mm lens (for 52.5mm).

But I didn't like the $200 - $250 price of the newer AF-S 35mm 1.8 G lens. And I use D70S and D80 more than I do a D40, so I don't really need them to be AF-S lenses.

So, I looked on eBay, waited patiently, watched every day, and finally found a Nikon 35mm film SLR, a N80, with a Nikkor AF 35mm f/2, and won the auction for $35.00 + shipping for both the camera and the lens.

Sold the N80 for $50.00, covering the cost + shipping, so I got a very nice 35mm f/2 (how much difference can there be between f/2 and f/1.8 anyway) for a net cost of absolutely zero.

From what I can tell, the 35mm f/2 is just as good a lens, optically speaking, as is the Nikkor "nifty fifty"

There's more than one way to skin a cat...

I'm happy with it...

[Antithesis]

Frankly, I always wondered why the big manufacturers don't make a 30 or 35mm f/1.8 as their cheap lens rather than a 50mm. It is closer to the "Standard 50mm" of 35mm film days and would make a lot more sense.

Nikon now has the 35mm f1.8G, which is a budget DX "standard" prime. So, they finally listened.

My experience with a 50mm on DX was pretty good when I used to use one a few years back on my D80. I got mine for $75 and I loved it. It was sharp, but pretty lacking in contrast when shot wide open, but I learned to love it. The focal length can be a pain in tight spaces, but if your used to shooting small apertures, you adjust quickly to take advantage of the extra light. I had a friend who was a back up wedding photog for a few years, he was pretty good and shot usually every saturday or more during the summer. He managed to shoot basically everything on his Nikon 50mm f1.4, on a DX sensor. It can be a versatile focal length in a larger room (like a reception hall), and tends to be flattering to peoples features because of compression. It just takes practice. It also helped that the main shooter shot on a wide angle as well.