In what situations would you, personally, use a focal length of 50mm?

[MonochromeB]

I find I'm using my nifty-fifty in close quarters settings and for the life of me I cannot figure why. My 'visual focal length' determined by right eye in VF and adjusting zoom until the VF and left eye match is right about 70-73mm. I like the 'feeling' of the 50 when I'm in a setting where conflicting angles and such make for odd compositions.

 

[Buckster]

I find I'm using my nifty-fifty in close quarters settings and for the life of me I cannot figure why. My 'visual focal length' determined by right eye in VF and adjusting zoom until the VF and left eye match is right about 70-73mm. I like the 'feeling' of the 50 when I'm in a setting where conflicting angles and such make for odd compositions.

I'm guessing you use a crop sensor camera, which renders the 50 FOV to the equivalent of 75mm or 80mm, depending on whether you're shooting with Nikon or Canon.

 

[fmw]

Without writing a book, perspective in an image is adjusted by camera to subject distance. The lens focal length then determines the angle of view. If the camera to subject distance remains constant, then the perspective remains constant, regardless of focal length. What changes is the angle of view. The differences occur when you adjust the subject distance to fit the angle of view of the lens. So if you shoot a portrait with a short telephoto lens, then move closer to the subject with a wide angle lens, the perspective will be very different even though the subject size in the viewfinder might be the same. So subject distance for perspective and focal length for angle of view.

Assuming a 35mm camera, the 50m focal length would be considered to be a normal lens that would produce a pleasing perspective at a "normal" camera to subject distance. I'll leave the definition of "normal" to you.

 

[panblue]

50mm lens on a FF is about 40 degrees. Human FOV is about 180 degrees from side to side, 70-80 down and 60-70 up.

Just sayin..

I hope this doesn't sound like a completely stupid question. I'm asking this because I've been learning lately about how the distance between you and your subject (and thus, the focal length you choose to photograph that subject), will either "stretch" things out (wide-angle) or compress them (telephoto).

A photoblog I was reading said that 50mm gives you the "normal", human-eye perspective, and going either wider or more telephoto "alters reality", and that is where you start getting creative.

So in what situations do people use a "normal" focal length of 50mm? ETA: In case you don't read my later post, I'm talking 50mm full-frame, not 50mm on a crop-sensor.


(NOTE: I realize that the focal length isn't what changes the perspective - it's the distance between you and you're subject - so we don't need to go down that road).

 

[panblue]

What bird, an ostrich ?

I like the 50mm for birds. Terrific clarity for getting all the nice little feather details.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Without writing a book, perspective in an image is adjusted by camera to subject distance. The lens focal length then determines the angle of view. If the camera to subject distance remains constant, then the perspective remains constant, regardless of focal length. What changes is the angle of view. The differences occur when you adjust the subject distance to fit the angle of view of the lens. So if you shoot a portrait with a short telephoto lens, then move closer to the subject with a wide angle lens, the perspective will be very different even though the subject size in the viewfinder might be the same. So subject distance for perspective and focal length for angle of view.

Assuming a 35mm camera, the 50m focal length would be considered to be a normal lens that would produce a pleasing perspective at a "normal" camera to subject distance. I'll leave the definition of "normal" to you.

Been a while since you've posted anything 0_0

 

[Buckster]

I like the 50mm for birds. Terrific clarity for getting all the nice little feather details.

What bird, an ostrich ?

I shot all these and quite a few more with a 50mm lens:

1.

2.

3.

4.

Any other snark you'd like to throw up while you're on a roll?

 

[fmw]

Without writing a book, perspective in an image is adjusted by camera to subject distance. The lens focal length then determines the angle of view. If the camera to subject distance remains constant, then the perspective remains constant, regardless of focal length. What changes is the angle of view. The differences occur when you adjust the subject distance to fit the angle of view of the lens. So if you shoot a portrait with a short telephoto lens, then move closer to the subject with a wide angle lens, the perspective will be very different even though the subject size in the viewfinder might be the same. So subject distance for perspective and focal length for angle of view.

Assuming a 35mm camera, the 50m focal length would be considered to be a normal lens that would produce a pleasing perspective at a "normal" camera to subject distance. I'll leave the definition of "normal" to you.

Been a while since you've posted anything 0_0

I'm flattered you remember. I left because there were too many know it alls that wanted to fight rather than discuss. I may leave again. it appears there is a whole new crop of know it alls, rude and aggressive as ever.

 

[batmura]

2.

What a killer shot! Can you tell me all the settings while shooting this one?

 

[Buckster]

What a killer shot!

Thank you kindly!

Can you tell me all the settings while shooting this one?

EXIF is included in the shots, but sure.

Both were shot with the Canon EF 50mm 1.8 II lens on a Canon 40D at a shutter speed of 1/250 (flash sync speed), ISO 100. Top shot was at f/16 and bottom shot at f/11. I used two 580 EXII speedlights, both off camera, top left and bottom right (and in ETTL mode, as I recall).

As for the technique to get close enough to use a 50mm and get the details, I set up an area that was baited with seed (I have quite a few in my yard to attract and feed birds because I like to have them around, but this one was specifically set up for shooting photos of them) and let them get used to it. Then I set up my lights and camera pre-focused on the branch area I expected the action, and then stepped back with a radio remote trigger and sat on my back porch, waiting for the birds to come and eat, which didn't take long.

The first couple times that the setup flashed, they immediately flew off (still got the photos though). Soon though, they were used to it, and would sit right through flash after flash, like nothing was going on out of the ordinary at all.

 

[batmura]

What was the reason for your decision for the f/16 for the first and f/11 for the second if I may ask? I am absolutely stunned at how sharp they look, especially the first one. I love the wonderfully blurred background, too. Could something similar be achieved with a d3100 18-55mm lens in your opinion? It's not a fast lens like yours after all. Also, I only have one-meter remote.

 

[Buckster]

What was the reason for your decision for the f/16 for the first and f/11 for the second if I may ask?

The bottom one was actually shot before the top one. By the time I shot the top one, I'd determined that I needed more DOF to get the whole bird in focus, or the tail would blur.

I am absolutely stunned at how sharp they look, especially the first one. I love the wonderfully blurred background, too.

Again, I thank you for the kind and encouraging words!

Could something similar be achieved with a d3100 18-55mm lens in your opinion? It's not a fast lens like yours after all.

I think it could, and it's certainly worth trying! The 18-55mm is FAR more capable than many give it credit for.

Also, I only have one-meter remote.

I would suggest getting a radio-controlled remote. It will really open up the possibilities of what you can do when you can get far away from your gear, especially for something like this, where you don't want to spook the birds. They can be had for very little money these days for the most basic units, which is all I used for these shots. I think I paid about $14 for my first one from China on ebay, and that was quite a few years ago. I don't know what it's max range was, as I didn't test it for that, but was able to fire it reliably from more than 100 feet away, and with walls and windows between the transmitter and receiver, no problem. It probably still works today, though I've moved on to a more capable unit that provides more ability in terms of programming it for timed multiple exposures and so on.

 

[austriker]

DX: in close portraits (ie not much)

FX: always. its my midrange walk around lens.

 

[Mully]

It is good for record keeping or low light as far as the creatine side of the lens it tends to replicate "normal" normal tends to be boring.... IMHO

 

[TCampbell]

50mm lens on a FF is about 40 degrees. Human FOV is about 180 degrees from side to side, 70-80 down and 60-70 up.

Just sayin..

Pan... keep in mind that there are two different ways to think about the human FOV.

One is based on holding your head still but allowing your eyes to move around.

The other is by pretending you are an owl and your eyes can't actually move in their sockets.

Turns out when you think of your field of view based on what you can see looking forward and without moving your eyes... it's about the same as a 50mm lens on a 35mm film or full-frame sensor camera. It's about 40 degrees (and I've read of lots of arguments that haggle over it... e.g. 42mm, 45mm, etc.) But we're in the ballpark.

The 50mm lens on a full-frame camera is considered a "normal" angle of view because of the distortion (or rather lack thereof) when compared to human vision. The lens can take in roughly the same area that you can take in without having to "look around". So if you can see it... your lens can pretty much take in the same view.