50mm lens?

[TedBundy]

Okay so I have watched a lot of youtube videos and heard that a 50mm lens is extremely good for a beginner because it teaches you how to use your feet instead of relying on the zoom feature. Can you guys confirm or deny and kind of give me some ideas of the pros and cons of this lens? I am looking into getting one as I am a beginner and think this could teach me a few things. I was also looking at this one on amazon and it seems be compatible with my 60D.

Amazon.com: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens: CANON: Camera & Photo

Also if someone was a TOTAL beginner would you recommend the 50mm lens over the standard 18-55 ?

 

[D-B-J]

I'm a big fan of my nifty-fifty from Nikon. Not professional, but it's simplicity leads to rather satisfying results.

Best,
Jake

 

[vimwiz]

Pros - very cheap, good low light performance, makes good pictures - DOF effect
Cons - very cheap - plasticky. An EF 50mm on a camera designed for EF-S is more like putting a 70mm on a full frame body, i.e. its more telephoto than normal.

I like it. But start with the 18-55. When you are new to photography, you want to try a number of different approaches. All (Canon) EF and EF-S lenses will work on your 60D (I use a modern 50mm lens on an old Film EOS and it works fine)

 

[apaflo]

Okay so I have watched a lot of youtube videos and heard that a 50mm lens is extremely good for a beginner because it teaches you how to use your feet instead of relying on the zoom feature. Can you guys confirm or deny and kind of give me some ideas of the pros and cons of this lens? I am looking into getting one as I am a beginner and think this could teach me a few things. I was also looking at this one on amazon and it seems be compatible with my 60D.

Amazon.com: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens: CANON: Camera & Photo

Also if someone was a TOTAL beginner would you recommend the 50mm lens over the standard 18-55 ?

If you have a very concrete reason, along the lines of "I want specifically this, and that lens does this", then buying a 50mm fixed focal length lens is of course a good idea.

But the idea that it "teaches you how to use your feet instead of relying on the zoom feature" is totally bogus. Changing your physical location is a way to adjust the perspective of how objects in your image relate to each other. That is perhaps the most significant characteristic of composition. And focal length does not affect it at all! Zooming changes how the composition is framed, but has no effect on perspective. Two very different characteristics.

Choose a location to give the perspective you want, then chose the focal length that gives the framing you want.

If you stand in the right place and decide a 50mm lens is right, use a 50mm lens. If you need a 24mm lens, that fixed focal length 50mm is worthless.

 

[JerryLove]

If you have a very concrete reason, along the lines of "I want specifically this, and that lens does this", then buying a 50mm fixed focal length lens is of course a good idea.

Personally: I purchased my 50mm f/1.4 to get practice with large-aperture shooting. I wanted to be able to shoot quickly, without flash, in relatively low light, to play more with lighting, and also to play with the DoF effect of larger apertures. It has been a great learning lens for me, and I still use it for much of my low-light shooting as it is by far my fastest.

But the idea that it "teaches you how to use your feet instead of relying on the zoom feature" is totally bogus. Changing your physical location is a way to adjust the perspective of how objects in your image relate to each other. That is perhaps the most significant characteristic of composition. And focal length does not affect it at all! Zooming changes how the composition is framed, but has no effect on perspective. Two very different characteristics.

Yes it does. Photography Tip - Don't zoom - MOVE! Focal Length Explained - YouTube

As your focal length gets longer, your subject "flattens out". It is, for example, very unflattering to shoot someone with a 20mm focal length. The ideal portrait length is debatable, but most people agree 100mm is a good length.

Focal length also has significant effect on DoF.

There is a huge difference between 50mm and 100mm regardless of composition.

Choose a location to give the perspective you want, then chose the focal length that gives the framing you want.

If you stand in the right place and decide a 50mm lens is right, use a 50mm lens. If you need a 24mm lens, that fixed focal length 50mm is worthless.

Watch the above video. I can give you a dozen more like it and then a score more debating the optimal focal length for portraits.

Best & Worst Focal Lengths For Portraits - YouTube
Best focal length for PORTRAITS (FX & DX) - YouTube
Telephoto Lens Compression EXPLAINED - YouTube

 

[apaflo]

If you have a very concrete reason, along the lines of "I want specifically this, and that lens does this", then buying a 50mm fixed focal length lens is of course a good idea.

Personally: I purchased my 50mm f/1.4 to get practice with large-aperture shooting. I wanted to be able to shoot quickly, without flash, in relatively low light, to play more with lighting, and also to play with the DoF effect of larger apertures. It has been a great learning lens for me, and I still use it for much of my low-light shooting as it is by far my fastest.

Pretty reasonable! With an APS cropped sensor a 50mm f/1.4 is probably about the best there is for that purpose. On a Full Frame sensor perhaps one of the 85mm f/1.4 lenses would be better. (And that really is fun, too!)

But the idea that it "teaches you how to use your feet instead of relying on the zoom feature" is totally bogus. Changing your physical location is a way to adjust the perspective of how objects in your image relate to each other. That is perhaps the most significant characteristic of composition. And focal length does not affect it at all! Zooming changes how the composition is framed, but has no effect on perspective. Two very different characteristics.

Yes it does. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG-vPzrEONM

As your focal length gets longer, your subject "flattens out". It is, for example, very unflattering to shoot someone with a 20mm focal length. The ideal portrait length is debatable, but most people agree 100mm is a good length.

Your cited reference video is inaccurate. (I only looked at one of the other three videos cited, and that was even worse!) Keep in mind that just because it is on the Internet doesn't mean it's right. The problem with the above video is that he changes two variables each time, and then says the effects seen are caused by one and not the other. He picked the wrong one! If he had changed only one variable it would have been very easy to see that perspective distortion is not changed with a different focal length at all, but changes with the relative distances involved.

Simple physics is the cause. You can't see around an object by changing focal length, you have to move.

There may well be common misunderstandings about it, but the cause and effects are extremely well known. You just have to find an authoritative source of information. Below are three quotes from different articles at www.cambridegeincolor.com, one of the better sites on the Internet for good tutorials.

A misconception is that a wide angle lens affects perspective, but
strictly speaking, this isn't true. Perspective is only
influenced by where you are located when you take a
photograph. However, in practical use, wide-angle lenses often
cause you to move much closer to your subject \u2014 which does
affect perspective.
Using Wide Angle Lenses

A misconception is that a telephoto lens affects perspective,
but strictly speaking, this isn't true. Perspective is only
influenced by where you are located when you take a
photograph. However, in practical use, the very fact that you're
using a telephoto lens may mean that you're far from your
subject -- which does affect perspective.
Using Telephoto Lenses

Many will say that focal length also determines the perspective
of an image, but strictly speaking, perspective only changes
with one's location relative to their subject.
Understanding Camera Lenses

Focal length also has significant effect on DoF.

That's another tricky one, because it isn't actually focal length that determines DOF. Subject magnification and aperture are specifically what determines DOF. Focal length is just something that allows greater or lesser magnification under specific circumstances.

There is a huge difference between 50mm and 100mm regardless of composition.

Choose a location to give the perspective you want, then chose the focal length that gives the framing you want.

If you stand in the right place and decide a 50mm lens is right, use a 50mm lens. If you need a 24mm lens, that fixed focal length 50mm is worthless.

Watch the above video. I can give you a dozen more like it and then a score more debating the optimal focal length for portraits.

But you need to look at articles that give accurate descriptions of what they are showing. The fact is that if you stand in the same place and shoot the same scene with 5 different focal lengths, there will not be any difference is perspective distortion. If you crop all 5 images to have exactly the same framing they will very distinctly have exactly the same perspective distorion. And by the same token if you use exactly focal length and move to 5 different locations, cropping the resulting images to have the same framing will show very different perspective distortion in each image. Focal length does not change perspecitve distortion and location does.

 

[JerryLove]

Your cited reference video is inaccurate. (I only looked at one of the other three videos cited, and that was even worse!) Keep in mind that just because it is on the Internet doesn't mean it's right. The problem with the above video is that he changes two variables each time, and then says the effects seen are caused by one and not the other. He picked the wrong one! If he had changed only one variable it would have been very easy to see that perspective distortion is not changed with a different focal length at all, but changes with the relative distances involved.

It's not "the internet says it" so much as "every tutorial from every professional I've come across agrees with it". I see you've added other professional tutorials and I will indeed go read them. Also: I will experiment with exactly the cropping you suggest to see that I get; but the distinction may be academic (see below)

That's another tricky one, because it isn't actually focal length that determines DOF. Subject magnification and aperture are specifically what determines DOF. Focal length is just something that allows greater or lesser magnification under specific circumstances.

The differences in focus on the road behind the model in the first video would seem to suggest otherwise. Though the photographer does change position, his distance relative to the horizon changes very little. I will, none-the-less: take a closer look to see if the focus change I recall is real and to what extent.

]But you need to look at articles that give accurate descriptions of what they are showing. The fact is that if you stand in the same place and shoot the same scene with 5 different focal lengths, there will not be any difference is perspective distortion. If you crop all 5 images to have exactly the same framing they will very distinctly have exactly the same perspective distorion. And by the same token if you use exactly focal length and move to 5 different locations, cropping the resulting images to have the same framing will show very different perspective distortion in each image. Focal length does not change perspective distortion and location does.

While I will experiment with exactly that, I'm not sure the difference is terribly important (well: it is important because I wish to give accurate information; it just may not be pragmatically important). Our best photographs would seem to occur when we attempt to use the entire frame for our photo composition, rather than a small part and then crop in post. As such, and given that the shot we want to take is a fixed quantity, focal length determines shooting distance (or sometimes: shooting distance determines focal length).

 

[JoeW]

Okay so I have watched a lot of youtube videos and heard that a 50mm lens is extremely good for a beginner because it teaches you how to use your feet instead of relying on the zoom feature. Can you guys confirm or deny and kind of give me some ideas of the pros and cons of this lens? I am looking into getting one as I am a beginner and think this could teach me a few things. I was also looking at this one on amazon and it seems be compatible with my 60D.

Amazon.com: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens: CANON: Camera & Photo

Also if someone was a TOTAL beginner would you recommend the 50mm lens over the standard 18-55 ?

I shoot with a 50mm (f1.4) a lot. Here's what I like about my 50mm:
1. It's a prime lens. Prime lens are almost always sharper and AF faster (if you are going to use AF) than a zoom lens. The exception would be if you're talking about professional quality lens (which will cost more than the camera)).
2. I love to play with DoF. And you're not going to see a 200mm zoom that has an aperture of f1.8 or f1.4. But with f1.4 you can focus on the eyelashes of a model and turn everything else in to a blur.
3. Most 50mm primes will be better in low light than a comparable (18-70mm) zoom.

But ultimately, a lens is a tool. A hammer is great...for some things. Ditto with a saw...or a screwdriver...or a level. Trying to use a level to pound nails can be done...but it's an inefficient solution. Pick the tool for the job. 50mm is the perfect tool for some jobs and meh...for others.

 

[Derrel]

Okay so I have watched a lot of youtube videos and heard that a 50mm lens is extremely good for a beginner because it teaches you how to use your feet instead of relying on the zoom feature. Can you guys confirm or deny and kind of give me some ideas of the pros and cons of this lens? I am looking into getting one as I am a beginner and think this could teach me a few things. I was also looking at this one on amazon and it seems be compatible with my 60D.

Amazon.com: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens: CANON: Camera & Photo

Also if someone was a TOTAL beginner would you recommend the 50mm lens over the standard 18-55 ?

Would I suggest owning ONLY a 50mm lens instead of today's standard kit lens? NO. The 18-55mm zoom offers more focal length flexibility. However, as lenses go, Canon's 50mm f/1.8 lens is a VERY low-cost lens that can easily be added to one's kit without a huge amount of financial pinch.

Canon's 50mm f/1.8 is a popular first prime lens choice for many people. It is a prime lens, so it has just the one focal length, which is where that badly-named "zoom with your feet" nonsense comes from. With a prime lens, if you want a wider angle of view, you MUST move the camera farther away from the subject. A narrower picture angle means that you must move closer to the subject, but this is not "zooming"...it is something different. It is positioning the camera, and the act of placing the camera is called "camera positioning". Camera placement is NOT zooming.

I think the nicest thing about single focal length AKA "prime" lenses is that their angle of view is fixed, and because of that, after a period of ownership and use, the "picture angle" that each lens has becomes pretty well ingrained in your mind, and you can start to "see pictures" that a specific prime lens will be able to make, without even looking through the lens.

 

[apaflo]

[...] Camera placement is NOT zooming.

I think the nicest thing about single focal length AKA "prime" lenses is that their angle of view is fixed, and because of that, after a period of ownership and use, the "picture angle" that each lens has becomes pretty well ingrained in your mind, and you can start to "see pictures" that a specific prime lens will be able to make, without even looking through the lens.

The comment about camera placement not being zooming is absolutely correct.

But the worst thing about a fixed focal length lens is the fixed angle of view. It may have other characteristics, such as bokeh or a large aperture, that make it useful in specific situations, but you can't change the angle of view.

It might well be true that always using such a lens will cause a photographer to see pictures that require that angle of view, but means missing even more great opportunities. What it will actually do in the long run, as one learns more (and assuming they do), is cause a photographer to start realizing how many pictures it cannot take and then realize the need to have appropriate equipment that allows better photography. There aren't enough fixed focal length lenses made to compensate for not having an appropriate zoom lens.

Which is to say that no fixed focal length lens should be used specifically to get some set angle of view. To get DOF characteristics yes, to get blur characteristics too, etc etc. But any zoom that covers 60mm will provide the angle of view of a 60mm focal length, and not one fixed focal length 50mm lens can ever do that.

 

[Derrel]

The thing with a prime lens is that it causes the photographer to work/operate/compose/stalk/skulk/station himself in a very specific manner. In other words, the photographer starts to look for, or seek out, pictures which will "work" with a particular lens. That's a strength after a while.

A good case is Henri Cartier-Bresson, but there are others. He worked almost his entire professional life with a Leica rangefinder camera, and a 50mm lens. For literally decades, he shot basically, over 95% of all of his work with a 50mm lens. As he mentioned, he sometimes carried a second lens, but almost never used it.

In the days of the Rolleiflex as a "big time camera", Bert Stern used a Rolleiflex with its one, single,non-intercahngeable lens for hundreds of iconic photos.

The acknowledged master of the Rolleiflex, Fritz Henle, used the Rolleiflex almost exclusively, and made a career of it. It had no lens interchangeability.

Along with HCB, Magnum also had another fantastic, legendary shooter, Werner Bischof, who used the Rolleiflex and its normal lens almost exclusively.

This thread mentions some other people who achieved huge fame using, basically, one lens. Classic photographers who just use one lens [Archive] - APUG

It's a lot like the old west saying, "Beware of the man with only one gun. He knows how to use it." People like HCB, Fritz Henle, Werner Bischof, and Bert Stern didn't worry too much about their equipment. Instead, they focused on what was in front of them, and they became world-famous, acknowledged masters. The focused on what they SAW through the camera, and not on selecting the exact right focal length from a plethora of focal lengths. Sometimes less is more. That's part of the reason the camera companies have made single focal length lenses since the 1840's.

 

[apaflo]

The thing with a prime lens is that it causes the photographer to work/operate/compose/stalk/skulk/station himself in a very specific manner. In other words, the photographer starts to look for, or seek out, pictures which will "work" with a particular lens. That's a strength after a while.

That is a horrible and unnecessary restriction of the photographer's creative talent. It can never be a strength, though it can be a "mental crutch" for some...

A good case is Henri Cartier-Bresson, but there are others. He worked almost his entire professional life with a Leica rangefinder camera, and a 50mm lens. For literally decades, he shot basically, over 95% of all of his work with a 50mm lens. As he mentioned, he sometimes carried a second lens, but almost never used it.

A really good example, eh? How about citing Fredrick Archer too, he never even used film! No need, clearly for Atget, as an example, to have used film either, and Atget is clearly equal proof the Cartier-Bresson didn't need that little Lieca or 35mm film either.

And yes it is true that Cartier-Bresson went through most of his career without ever even laying eyes on a zoom lens, which proves (you claim) that we don't need them??? He didn't use them because they didn't exist!

We have digital cameras today. We have zoom lenses too. And while not universally true for every use, they generally are better tools than what photographers of the past were able to use.

In the days of the Rolleiflex as a "big time camera", Bert Stern used a Rolleiflex with its one, single,non-intercahngeable lens for hundreds of iconic photos.

The acknowledged master of the Rolleiflex, Fritz Henle, used the Rolleiflex almost exclusively, and made a career of it. It had no lens interchangeability.

Along with HCB, Magnum also had another fantastic, legendary shooter, Werner Bischof, who used the Rolleiflex and its normal lens almost exclusively.

This thread mentions some other people who achieved huge fame using, basically, one lens. Classic photographers who just use one lens [Archive] - APUG

It's a lot like the old west saying, "Beware of the man with only one gun. He knows how to use it." People like HCB, Fritz Henle, Werner Bischof, and Bert Stern didn't worry too much about their equipment. Instead, they focused on what was in front of them, and they became world-famous, acknowledged masters. The focused on what they SAW through the camera, and not on selecting the exact right focal length from a plethora of focal lengths. Sometimes less is more. That's part of the reason the camera companies have made single focal length lenses since the 1840's.

Didn't you notice that all of the photographers you have cited used the most modern and the best technical equipment available at the time during the most productive part of their career?

Citing examples of people who, decades ago, couldn't use zooms as proof that today someone equally as talented should not use a zoom is not valid logic.

 

[robbins.photo]

That is a horrible and unnecessary restriction of the photographer's creative talent. It can never be a strength, though it can be a "mental crutch" for some...

Well I guess my thinking is that Primes do have some advantages - in general they are lower in cost, lighter in weight and are available in wider apertures than zoom lenses. I can get a new 50 mm 1.8 prime for my D5200 a lot cheaper than a 2.8 zoom that would include the same focal length. I don't consider it a "useless" skill to learn how to use one nor do I consider it a "crutch" to consider what equipment best suits my needs within my budget.

We have digital cameras today. We have zoom lenses too. And while not universally true for every use, they generally are better tools than what photographers of the past were able to use.

And much like carpentry even though their are nail guns and air compressors and laser levels, the basic concept of putting a house together really hasn't changed much since the days of yore when they were using nothing but hammers and plum lines. Sure, it speeds up the process but the basic idea is still the same. Zooms are great - I own a couple myself. But that doesn't mean that primes don't have some advantages as well. Much like a nail gun is great, but not really the best choice if you want to use a screw instead of a nail. Nothing wrong with having the best tool for the job.

Didn't you notice that all of the photographers you have cited used the most modern and the best technical equipment available at the time during the most productive part of their career?

Citing examples of people who, decades ago, couldn't use zooms as proof that today someone equally as talented should not use a zoom is not valid logic.

Honestly I think you missed Derrel's point here completely.

 

[apaflo]

Well I guess my thinking is that Primes do have some advantages - in general they are lower in cost, lighter in weight and are available in wider apertures than zoom lenses. I can get a new 50 mm 1.8 prime for my D5200 a lot cheaper than a 2.8 zoom that would include the same focal length. I don't consider it a "useless" skill to learn how to use one nor do I consider it a "crutch" to consider what equipment best suits my needs within my budget.

There was no debate about those and other characteristics being useful. I previously listed special characteristics related to image quality, and these are just additional benefits that aren't directly affecting image quality.

The controvesy is whether forcing yourself to see and take only images available with the single angle of view provided by a fixed focal length lens is somehow a beneficial learning tool or just an unnecessary restriction on creativity. There has been no argument that fixed focal length lenses provide useful benefits or whether they are worth having and using for the genuine benefits they can provide..

Read the thread for what it says and avoid even accidental strawman arguments.

[...]But that doesn't mean that primes don't have some advantages as well. Much like a nail gun is great, but not really the best choice if you want to use a screw instead of a nail. Nothing wrong with having the best tool for the job.

But nobody has argued otherwise, so that is a straw man. The argument is whether a carpenter uses a regular hammer all day and never touchs a nail gun just to have the same experience his great grandfather did before nail guns existed, and then thinking it makes him as skilfull as his grandfather was. The neighbor who doesn't do that will finish his house before the snow flies...

Citing examples of people who, decades ago, couldn't use zooms as proof that today someone equally as talented should not use a zoom is not valid logic.

Honestly I think you missed Derrel's point here completely.

It helps if you read the thread...

 

[robbins.photo]

The controvesy is whether forcing yourself to see and take only images available with the single angle of view provided by a fixed focal length lens is somehow a beneficial learning tool or just an unnecessary restriction on creativity. There has been no argument that fixed focal length lenses provide useful benefits or whether they are worth having and using for the genuine benefits they can provide..

Read the thread for what it says and avoid even accidental strawman arguments.

Wow.. sort of going for that whole over the top thing on being rude and condescending, are we? Lol

But nobody has argued otherwise, so that is a straw man. The argument is whether a carpenter uses a regular hammer all day and never touchs a nail gun just to have the same experience his great grandfather did before nail guns existed, and then thinking it makes him as skilfull as his grandfather was. The neighbor who doesn't do that will finish his house before the snow flies...

Actually that's rather funny, because honestly I'm starting to wonder if you read much of the thread yourself. It seems to me that you missed Derrel's point by well over a country mile. A carpenter who learns how to properly use a hammer and work with a more limited tool set is going to be a better, more well rounded carpenter who will still be able to get the job done even when his nail gun breaks down or is otherwise unavailable. A nail gun is a lot more expensive than a hammer, and as a result even though you might own a nail gun you might want to be smart and have a hammer on hand and the know how to use it just in case. There are also situations in which a hammer is actually preferable, because there are places a nail gun just won't fit.

So sure, a good carpenter in the modern age probably own's a nail gun - but that doesn't mean he doesn't take a few minutes to become proficient with a hammer as well. The argument progresses further in that a carpenter who understands how to use a more limited tool set to get the job done will become even more efficient when he has the opportunity to use more modern, advanced tools because he understands the basics better than someone who lacks that experience. Sorry tinman, no scarecrow here.

It helps if you read the thread...

It also helps if you treat others with a modicum of respect. Something that I would suggest you work on.