Reading mode: Light Dark

Can a Portrait Photographer Live without a Fast Normal?

Go to last post
DigitalPhilosopher

DigitalPhilosopher

Leading Member
Messages
999
Solutions
4
Reaction score
487
First of all, to avoid confusion about focal lengths: I'm an FX user

Almost by accident, I'm getting a 24-85 VR (long story; it's a gift, sort of). I generally prefer to work with primes, but I've used the 24-85 before, and it's a decent lens (for walk-around, all-around casual solutions anyway).

I have a 24mm f/2.8 prime, a 50mm f/1.8, and an 85mm f/1.4

The 85mm f/1.4 is my go-to portrait lens, but I've kept the 50mm f/1.8 as a casual, walk-around, low light lens for general photography. After getting the 24-85, I can no longer justify keeping either the 24mm or the 50mm. I'm thinking to sell both and get a 35mm prime.

Still, something bothers me about not having a 50mm in my bag. Although I always thought (heck, I've preached this in this very forum on more than one occasion) that a 35mm + 85mm combo is probably preferable to a 50mm alone.

Any thoughts on this? Has anyone missed not having a 50mm?
 
IMHO a 35 *is* a normal. I would be quite happy with a fast 85 and 35 on FX. YMMV, of course.
 
I have been shooting with 35mm and FX cameras for decades and except for weddings when I needed f1.4 primes to compensate for the poor high ISO performance of Nikon's DSLR cameras from 2002 to 2007, I never had a 50mm lens in the bag.

I prefer a longer focal length of 105mm for people and a wider 35mm for scenic shots or near and far images. The 50mm is a lens that is "normal" and has all the appeal of Wonder bread. In the days of 35mm film cameras when lens choices were few and most cameras where rangefinders, there was a need for a 50mm prime lens. Those days are long past. For 99% of images a wider or longer lens will provide a more appealing image.
 
DigitalPhilosopher said:
First of all, to avoid confusion about focal lengths: I'm an FX user

Almost by accident, I'm getting a 24-85 VR (long story; it's a gift, sort of). I generally prefer to work with primes, but I've used the 24-85 before, and it's a decent lens (for walk-around, all-around casual solutions anyway).

I have a 24mm f/2.8 prime, a 50mm f/1.8, and an 85mm f/1.4

The 85mm f/1.4 is my go-to portrait lens, but I've kept the 50mm f/1.8 as a casual, walk-around, low light lens for general photography. After getting the 24-85, I can no longer justify keeping either the 24mm or the 50mm. I'm thinking to sell both and get a 35mm prime.

Still, something bothers me about not having a 50mm in my bag. Although I always thought (heck, I've preached this in this very forum on more than one occasion) that a 35mm + 85mm combo is probably preferable to a 50mm alone.

Any thoughts on this? Has anyone missed not having a 50mm?
Click to expand...
 
My wife and I share a D3s and while we don't have a huge collection of lenses beyond the following list, our most used primes are the 35/1.4G and Sigma 85/1.4. There are definitely times when neither is the right choice though which has me longing for the Nikon 58/1.4 but likely buying the Sigma non-Art 50/1.4 or possibly the Nikon 50/1.4.

While I love the 35mm focal length, sometimes it is just a bit too in-your-face for the situation and 85mm can be too long (indoors). Once we get a little break from spending this holiday season, I will likely go on a hunt for a nice used copy of one of the above. Unless someone wants to sell their 58/1.4 for under $1k :-)
 
Thanks for the answers so far.

Let me repeat/clarify myself: Nowadays, I do not use the 50mm as a head & shoulders portrait lens, but I might use it for groups. The only real scope left for it would be as a general purpose, low-light & high performance lens. A 35mm prime will take over the above roles, obviously enough.

As I said, I always saw 50mm as a handy compromise - but a compromise still - between 35mm and 85mm. In other words, it's kinda-wide for general shots, kinda-long for some people photography. The 35mm is better for the former, the 85mm better for the latter.

Like so many other things, it all boils down to being aware of the situation, I guess. The 50mm was handy in that it allowed me to be a bit lax about that part; with a 35mm and an 85mm, I'll need to anticipate better and choose which to take along (if not both)

Btw, I shot an assignment some months ago where - risky, but it was worth it - I decided to leave all the primes at home and go just with this very zoom, the 24-85. It was in daylight (although pretty cloudy and gloomy), and I thought I don't wanna swap lenses in the rain. In the end, the photoshoot was a stunning success. I didn't really miss the primes.

Maybe zooms have becomes that good that, at least when you can afford to use f/4-f/5.6, they're "good enough"
 
the 50 is the least useful FL as it's either here nor there.

however, looking at number of photos I've taken, the 50 (at least a few years ago) wins considering the quantity.
 
RodluvanII said:
the 50 is the least useful FL as it's either here nor there.
Click to expand...
The 50mm is a bipolar Goldilocks: sometimes it's indeed either too short or too long. The problem is that, sometimes, it's just right!
RodluvanII said:
however, looking at number of photos I've taken, the 50 (at least a few years ago) wins considering the quantity.
Click to expand...
And maybe that proves the point! :P
 
DigitalPhilosopher said:
And maybe that proves the point! :P

--
Click to expand...
or maybe it's because it was the first Zeiss ZF lens I bought and I loved how it handles. nowdays, having a more deliberate subject matter, I select other FL predominantly
 
DigitalPhilosopher said:
First of all, to avoid confusion about focal lengths: I'm an FX user

Almost by accident, I'm getting a 24-85 VR (long story; it's a gift, sort of). I generally prefer to work with primes, but I've used the 24-85 before, and it's a decent lens (for walk-around, all-around casual solutions anyway).

I have a 24mm f/2.8 prime, a 50mm f/1.8, and an 85mm f/1.4

The 85mm f/1.4 is my go-to portrait lens, but I've kept the 50mm f/1.8 as a casual, walk-around, low light lens for general photography. After getting the 24-85, I can no longer justify keeping either the 24mm or the 50mm. I'm thinking to sell both and get a 35mm prime.

Still, something bothers me about not having a 50mm in my bag. Although I always thought (heck, I've preached this in this very forum on more than one occasion) that a 35mm + 85mm combo is probably preferable to a 50mm alone.

Any thoughts on this? Has anyone missed not having a 50mm?
Click to expand...
 
Every one has different "eyes". To me 28mm (FX) is "normal" and 24~25mm is natural. 35mm is narrow and 50mm is both narrow and uncomfortable (45mm is better). As other posters have expressed similar personal insights, you will have your own. Find yours and go with it. If it turns our to be a fad, adjust the gear.

I increasingly find traditional portraits uninteresting and my "solution" is to widen the view to put in more context.

I used to be driven by relative sharpness of my set of lenses and tried to make a particular focal length "work"for me. When you try hard, you always get something. Was it fun? No! In the end I've learnt that the heart wants what it wants.

Let's not fight it. Good luck!
 
Last edited:
DigitalPhilosopher said:
First of all, to avoid confusion about focal lengths: I'm an FX user

Almost by accident, I'm getting a 24-85 VR (long story; it's a gift, sort of). I generally prefer to work with primes, but I've used the 24-85 before, and it's a decent lens (for walk-around, all-around casual solutions anyway).

I have a 24mm f/2.8 prime, a 50mm f/1.8, and an 85mm f/1.4

The 85mm f/1.4 is my go-to portrait lens, but I've kept the 50mm f/1.8 as a casual, walk-around, low light lens for general photography. After getting the 24-85, I can no longer justify keeping either the 24mm or the 50mm. I'm thinking to sell both and get a 35mm prime.

Still, something bothers me about not having a 50mm in my bag. Although I always thought (heck, I've preached this in this very forum on more than one occasion) that a 35mm + 85mm combo is probably preferable to a 50mm alone.

Any thoughts on this? Has anyone missed not having a 50mm?
Click to expand...
 
To the OP: Keep the 50. You won't get much for it selling it AND you use it. You wouldn't be asking us to encourage you to get rid of it if the 50 still did not retain considerable appeal. If you want a 35, save up for one. You could probably buy a used 35mm f2D Nikkor and it would be fine for you, despite its detractors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top