50mm on DX - Do you like it?

Mark Scott Abeln said:

JoelTheGeek said:

Years ago, in the days of film, I got a Nikon 50mm AF 1.8 lens. When I got my D70 many moons ago, I continued using the 50mm a bit. But the 'magic' of 50mm was gone. It was still an optically great lens though. Since then, I've seen great deals on other 50's and have also had 50mm 1.8D, 50mm 1.4D, 50mm 1.8G, and 50mm 1.4G (which is the only one that I still have).

I don't get much shooting in with the 50mm any more. I just find it an awkward focal length in DX. I have had the 35mm 1.8G for years now, and it sort of phased out my 50mm. Don't get me wrong, when I use the lens I am quite pleased with the results.

Click to expand...

For sure, the 50 mm is less flexible when used on a DX camera, and nowadays I mainly use a 35 mm f/1.8.

Click to expand...

Roughly the same FOV as the 85 on a FX camera, yeah, I like that!

Mark S Abeln said:

But I used to frequently use a 50 mm on DX: I liked it because of the narrower apparent depth of focus, and a perhaps a more ‘cinematic’ look? I thought that the photos from that focal length looked a bit more “artistic”, while the 35 mm looks a bit more ordinary.

Click to expand...

Like portrait lens, yes I can see the lure of that!

Mark S Abeln said:

My 50 mm started misfocusing badly, and so I stopped using it frequently, and I haven’t replaced it so far.

Click to expand...

I don't shoot DX much any more; on a CX that would be 30, or so, and there are two excellent alternatives for us CX geeks: the amazing 32/1.2, or the slower, but just as sharp, 30-110 in its wide end.

There are five amazing lenses for the CX users:

The 6.7-13 (approx. a 18-35, in FX terms), a nice, slightly slow, lens with VR, sharp, and affordable.

The 'normal' 18.5/1.8 (approx. a 50), sharp and cheap, which is also an excellent close-up lens. No VR.

The 32/1.2 (85), a bit expensive, but a PRO lens in every sense, Loved by many, including Steve Huff! No VR.

The 30-110 (approx. 80-190), with VR. Sharp, surprisingly small, and with excellent image quality, not least in its wide end!

The master of them all: 70-300CX.

That lens costs like a D7200, has a reach like a 200-800mm, and is the sharpest lens I know of. Just as good in its long end, an amazing fact, as I know of no other zoom that is!

The disadvantage with the CX, a.k.a. 1", is excessive DOF, at normal focus ranges, say 35-85 in FX terms. I turn this into an advantage, by using my FX in that span.

For macro, long telephoto, interiors, landscape, group shots, great DOF is a boost, making life som much easier. Unless its really dark, where small sensors can't compete! Unless you know exactly what you're doing !

--
Tord_2 (at) photographer (dot) net
Mostly Nikon V1, V2, & D600, user

JoelTheGeek said:

No, funny doesn't mean humourous in this case. Here's an discussion of 'funny you should mention that':

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090306135847AAP4Jxs

I don't know where in the world it's used, but here in Canada I think most people know it.

Click to expand...

Oh, I see. Well, English is not my first language. We live and learn. I am still learning, like learning more English on a photography forum. Funny, isn't it?

chary zp said:

JoelTheGeek said:

No, funny doesn't mean humourous in this case. Here's an discussion of 'funny you should mention that':

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090306135847AAP4Jxs

I don't know where in the world it's used, but here in Canada I think most people know it.

Click to expand...

Oh, I see. Well, English is not my first language. We live and learn. I am still learning, like learning more English on a photography forum. Funny, isn't it?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't have guessed that English isn't your first language. If the forum is where you learn, then it seems to be working .

JoelTheGeek said:

chary zp said:

JoelTheGeek said:

No, funny doesn't mean humourous in this case. Here's an discussion of 'funny you should mention that':

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090306135847AAP4Jxs

I don't know where in the world it's used, but here in Canada I think most people know it.

Click to expand...

Oh, I see. Well, English is not my first language. We live and learn. I am still learning, like learning more English on a photography forum. Funny, isn't it?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't have guessed that English isn't your first language. If the forum is where you learn, then it seems to be working .

Click to expand...

You are too kind

Gruja said:

I love 50mm. Sharp, fast, light, great bokeh. I shoot kids all the time with it. Mostly portraits but if you have a room to go back you can put a lot in frame. I recently shot 20 kids in two rows with it. However sometimes it could be limiting in cramped spaces. 35mm would be more versatile, but as Mark said you don't get "cinematic" results as with 50mm. At least it looked that way for that short period I played with 35mm.

Click to expand...

Cinematographers typically use a focal length double the sensor diagonal as normal, since films are designed to be viewed from a somewhat greater distance (relative to image width) compared to still photos.

I never liked it, and I always found it awkward. On FX, I like my 50F1.4g quite a lot, though not wide open.

80-200 was another lens that never 'fit' on DX for me. Perhaps because I was used to it on film, but it was too long on the short end, but not long enough on the long end for wildlife.

JoelTheGeek said:

Years ago, in the days of film, I got a Nikon 50mm AF 1.8 lens. When I got my D70 many moons ago, I continued using the 50mm a bit. But the 'magic' of 50mm was gone. It was still an optically great lens though. Since then, I've seen great deals on other 50's and have also had 50mm 1.8D, 50mm 1.4D, 50mm 1.8G, and 50mm 1.4G (which is the only one that I still have).

I don't get much shooting in with the 50mm any more. I just find it an awkward focal length in DX. I have had the 35mm 1.8G for years now, and it sort of phased out my 50mm. Don't get me wrong, when I use the lens I am quite pleased with the results.

I've kept it mainly because I've been thinking that I'd migrate to FX in the future - then it would be a magical focal length again.

What are others' thoughts? (Please save any 1.4G debates or pushing of other lenses - I'm just talking about the focal length on DX)

Click to expand...

Although I really liked my "old" fifty 1/1.4 AFD it was replaced by Tokina 35 mm f/2.8 Macro and the (lower quality) older Sigma 30 f/1.4 for my DX camera bodies for years. It returned to my bag when I went to D810 on last September.

Regards,

The biggest problem, IMO, is that people read about what a 50mm lens is supposed to be (i.e. "normal") and then they slap it on a DX camera and don't get a "normal" view. They get a short telephoto view. 50mm is excellent on DX if you treat it like an 85mm on FX. On my D5100 I liked the 50 a lot (used primarily for portraits & candids of the kids & family). On my D750 I use it less, I prefer 35+85 more on FX.

Nexu1 said:

The biggest problem, IMO, is that people read about what a 50mm lens is supposed to be (i.e. "normal") and then they slap it on a DX camera and don't get a "normal" view. They get a short telephoto view. 50mm is excellent on DX if you treat it like an 85mm on FX. On my D5100 I liked the 50 a lot (used primarily for portraits & candids of the kids & family). On my D750 I use it less, I prefer 35+85 more on FX.

Click to expand...

That's my feeling, too! But I then swapped the 35 for a Ricoh GR (which is a 28 in FX terms)! I really don't like changing lenses, and the Sigma Art was not for me!

A good switch, I think!

I use my 50mm 1.8G on my D3200 regularly and it performs beautifully. However, I will admit it's even better on my D610.

The question might have been better put as "do you like the short telephoto effect, in old 35mm film terms?".

FreeLB said:

I use my 50mm 1.8G on my D3200 regularly and it performs beautifully. However, I will admit it's even better on my D610.

Click to expand...

I had both the lens, and the D3200, and sold both to finance the D600!

I took these with 50mm & D3200 at a recent trip to the zoo with my kids' school. I was pleased with the photos, but I'm a beginner. It doesn't take much to please me right now.

FreeLB said:

I took these with 50mm & D3200 at a recent trip to the zoo with my kids' school. I was pleased with the photos, but I'm a beginner. It doesn't take much to please me right now.

Click to expand...

Nice shots!

I went with the Nikon 1 gang instead:





















































Smaller than the D3200, if not much!

--
Tord_2 (at) photographer (dot) net
Mostly Nikon V1, V2, & D600, user

Those are great shots, thanks for sharing!

JoelTheGeek said:

Years ago, in the days of film, I got a Nikon 50mm AF 1.8 lens. When I got my D70 many moons ago, I continued using the 50mm a bit. But the 'magic' of 50mm was gone. It was still an optically great lens though. Since then, I've seen great deals on other 50's and have also had 50mm 1.8D, 50mm 1.4D, 50mm 1.8G, and 50mm 1.4G (which is the only one that I still have).

I don't get much shooting in with the 50mm any more. I just find it an awkward focal length in DX. I have had the 35mm 1.8G for years now, and it sort of phased out my 50mm. Don't get me wrong, when I use the lens I am quite pleased with the results.

I've kept it mainly because I've been thinking that I'd migrate to FX in the future - then it would be a magical focal length again.

What are others' thoughts? (Please save any 1.4G debates or pushing of other lenses - I'm just talking about the focal length on DX)

Click to expand...

Advice - hold on to it. It didn't cost much and it is a wonderful little lens. As others have said not too useful for DX other than portraiture but great for a wide variety of uses if you are entertaining FX sometime.

I have both and use breaks down this way. Inside its about 75% 35mm and outside Its 75% 50mm. That's what seems to work best but I'm more of an outdoor shooter at least I will be when I'm fully recovered from my broken hip. I'm waiting for my Tokina 11-20 to arrive because I've never had the chance to play with a wide angle.

Steve

I have the 50mm 1.8d and really like it.

I use it mainly as an indoor portrait lens, like you would use a 85mm on FF and have been very happy with the results.

My 35mm 1.8 gets a lot more use but I wouldn't consider getting rid of the 50mm. I only paid $100 for it and it's probably the most solid lens I own.

chary zp said:

JoelTheGeek said:

chary zp said:

It's just a tool. When I need that FL, I mount it, currently Sigma A 50/1,4 on D7100. Why not. Sometimes I need longer - 85/1,8, sometimes shorter - 18-35/1,8. According to the meal I am going to cook I choose my pan and knife.

Click to expand...

I agree, I do use it when 50mm is right.

However if we're taking the kids on a trip to a museum, amusement place, etc., I sometimes take just my 35mm lens for its weight and versatility. I also like the one-prime setup because it makes me think more. Sometimes I there just isn't enough room to backup with a 50mm to get the shot I want. That seems far more rare with the 35mm.

For DX, I find the 35mm is the 'spork' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spork) of lenses. I'm sure if I go FX, I'd find 50mm takes that role again.

Click to expand...

Well, there are many approaches, and everyone will have their favourite. For one-lens-trips I prefer mid-range zooms like 18-105, for its versatility. I do not need to "think", I need to take pictures. Sometimes wide, sometimes tele-ish, as far as 105 allows. But again, for me, the camera is just a tool to get the pictures.

Click to expand...

Just like a Harley Davidson or a sports car is a tool to get from point A to point B? When I spend thousands of dollars on camera gear - it's more than "just" a tool. I gotta like the way it looks, the way it feels, the way it's laid out... . I take a certain degree of pride in the equipment. Pictures are the primary goal but the "tools" are important too for more than just getting a picture. But that's just me!

JoelTheGeek said:

Years ago, in the days of film, I got a Nikon 50mm AF 1.8 lens. When I got my D70 many moons ago, I continued using the 50mm a bit. But the 'magic' of 50mm was gone. It was still an optically great lens though. Since then, I've seen great deals on other 50's and have also had 50mm 1.8D, 50mm 1.4D, 50mm 1.8G, and 50mm 1.4G (which is the only one that I still have).

I don't get much shooting in with the 50mm any more. I just find it an awkward focal length in DX. I have had the 35mm 1.8G for years now, and it sort of phased out my 50mm. Don't get me wrong, when I use the lens I am quite pleased with the results.

I've kept it mainly because I've been thinking that I'd migrate to FX in the future - then it would be a magical focal length again.

What are others' thoughts? (Please save any 1.4G debates or pushing of other lenses - I'm just talking about the focal length on DX)

Click to expand...

I guess I'm late to this thread but, yeah I do like 50mm. The first thing I had to learn in this hobby was to isolate my subject. I was the guy who would put my point n shoot as wide as possible to "get it all in." So whoever I was taking a picture of was this tiny section of a photo full of distracting elements.

So a 50mm is a little close for indoor stuff but I would rather be too close than not enough. I learned a lot shooting this way even though it felt wrong at the time. I used a 60mm for a while too, which I kind of liked better for reasons I cannot explain.



Just an example, at 60mm (90mm equiv) there's no way I could get the whole scene in there so I had to pick a subject.