The "nifty 50" is not so nifty on APS-C cameras

You'll often see photography beginners being told that the first lens they should get beyond the kit lens is the so-called "nifty 50." Cheap, good image quality, and fast aperture, and supposedly provides a "normal field of view" that is close to what us humans can see with our eyes. What's not to like? Well, it turns out it isn't nearly as nifty as advertised on APS-C cameras.

50mm on APS-C is equivalent to about 75mm on a full frame camera. Great for taking portraits, but it is much too narrow for many other types of photography, including walk-around photography and other types of picture taking that beginners would like to do. This is especially true for people coming from phone cameras that have field of views equivalent to 35mm or below on FF.

I know I fell for this oft-repeated advice without thinking critically. I bought a 50mm F1.8 and it sat in my camera bag forever. The only time it ever came out was when it fell out by accident while hiking. I use it a bit more now that I have a full-frame K-1, but it isn't designed for a FF sensor and struggles a bit in the corners.

Before mindlessly following the hive mind, use your kit lens for a while and take a look at the EXIF files to see which focal lengths you find yourself gravitating the most towards. Then get a prime that best matches your preferences instead of wasting your money.

My recommendation? Get the DA 35mm F/2.4 instead. Not as fast, but much closer to the "normal field of view," providing a 52.5mm full frame equivalent. Or better yet get a 24mm prime, which provides a 36mm FF equivalent. But please don't just take my advice without considering your own preferences!

It's a matter of taste, but I quite like the field of view of a 50mm lens on crop. Not a typical field of view, and a tad too short for those who like the more usual 85-90mm, but it has its own charms and is hardly unknown in the wider world. Pentax itself makes a 77 mm prime for FF.

No, it's not the same as a 50mm on a FF sensor, and if that's what someone expects or wants you're perfectly correct to recommend a 35mm lens.

But I don't get your comment about the phone camera. Surely someone who is familiar with the 28-30mm equivalent field of view of a phone camera might want something a distinct step longer as a companion? I often carry my old FA fast fifty on my K-5iis when I am in the mood for its light weight and distinctive "old school" rendering and find going "30/75" with my phone camera makes for a fun day.

Granted, I am the person who spent years at a time shooting everything from landscapes on up with an 85mm on film, so mild tele and walkaround are a natural combination for me. With a portrait lens on board all the time, you can take portraits of *anything*.

I have walked around the city at night with a 50mm on my crop camera just because it is the fastest lens that I owned and I was looking for low light capabilities. It is true that it isn't the 'normal' field of view on my crop camera, but it is still good. How did this lens perform for you?

Killer small item lens though

I prefer the FOV of the 35mm f/2.4 over the 50mm f/1.8 as well, but the 50mm is pretty good lens for other stuff like portraits, trying to shoot in really low light while keeping the ISO down, & trying to get "bokeh" in certain shots. Those are the only times I use the 50mm on my camera.

The reason that the 50mm is constantly recommended is for its very good IQ & lens speed at a really low cost.

But yeah. It's like looking through a 75mm on full frame. The 35mm on an APS-C camera is like looking through a 50mm lens on full frame.

The normal FOV that most people are probably referring to is when using the 50mm on a full frame camera. A 35mm lens would be more like a normal FOV on APS-C.

But in either case, the Pentax DA 50mm f/1.8 is a mighty fine little gem of a lens for its intended purposes.

Couple of my friends getting into photography asked me what lens they should get for a APS-C camera. Both told me they liked pictures with nice bokeh and wanted something they could use inside. I suggested a 50mm 1.8. They both bought one and neither has complained about the focal length. My point is that obviously it won't serve as wide angle lens but if applied correctly it has benefits. I would like to add that 75mm can be used for walk around photography. It is great for plants, landmarks and tons of other stuff. You won't get a sweeping landscape shot but then again you wouldn't get that with a 50mm on full frame either.

I don't know what you "thought" you were getting with a 50mm on crop sensor. The fact this review ignores any technical aspects of the lens is annoying.

twomonger wrote:

You'll often see photography beginners being told that the first lens they should get beyond the kit lens is the so-called "nifty 50." Cheap, good image quality, and fast aperture, and supposedly provides a "normal field of view"

I've never seen anyone told that a 50 looks normal on an APS-C.  I've seen recommended it as a portrait lens, with extension tubes it makes a decent macro lens. etc.

Everything else you've written is basically "I bought the wrong lens because I didn't read properly first".  You say you haven't used the lens but still feel able to review it.

twomonger wrote:

You'll often see photography beginners being told that the first lens they should get beyond the kit lens is the so-called "nifty 50." Cheap, good image quality, and fast aperture, and supposedly provides a "normal field of view" that is close to what us humans can see with our eyes. What's not to like? Well, it turns out it isn't nearly as nifty as advertised on APS-C cameras.

50mm on APS-C is equivalent to about 75mm on a full frame camera. Great for taking portraits, but it is much too narrow for many other types of photography, including walk-around photography and other types of picture taking that beginners would like to do. This is especially true for people coming from phone cameras that have field of views equivalent to 35mm or below on FF.

Now you figured out that 50 mm on APSC is 75 mm onFF (35 mm).

So the solution is to get the 35mm that is very close to the normal field of view.
I have both these lenses and can't praise them enough, they are true gems!

twomonger wrote:

Before mindlessly following the hive mind, use your kit lens for a while and take a look at the EXIF files to see which focal lengths you find yourself gravitating the most towards. Then get a prime that best matches your preferences instead of wasting your money.

This is actually good advice.  I mentioned ages ago about a friend who had a K5+DA*16-50 and found a big spike in usage at 28mm.  Buying a FA31 was the closest, although a new DA28 PLM WR Ltd would be nice

Doug

It is very odd to give a low score because you don't like the focal length. The focal length and aperture are given and if you claim to review a lens you have to assess the quality based on that: optical, mechanical, you may say you would have liked like a closer focussing, a smaller weight, better bokeh, sharper corners, lower price or whatever, but not that you would have liked a larger aperture or a different focal length, those are matters of fact and the starting point of a review or evaluation.

twomonger wrote:

50mm on APS-C is equivalent to about 75mm on a full frame camera.

Yes, I think we knew that. Why give the lens only two stars because you made a mistake?

timo wrote:

twomonger wrote:

50mm on APS-C is equivalent to about 75mm on a full frame camera.

Yes, I think we knew that. Why give the lens only two stars because you made a mistake?

Guess the DA* 55 would only get 1 star as that 80 mm equiv would make if even less useful as a 'normal' FoV lens

Even though its one of the best Head/Shoulder Portrait lens bar non and can even double as a full body portrait lens on FF.

One things for certain folks is strange how they define 'worth'

The lens in question here makes a very decent poor mans portrait and a solid short tele offering outstanding value for money.

Though I don't own it that only one step behind don't use it (as the OP doesn't) so feel justified in stating its probably worth 5 stars when you consider IQ per £

The 50 is a portrait tele on aps c. Quite nifty imho.

klimbkat wrote:

twomonger wrote:

I know I fell for this oft-repeated advice without thinking critically.

This pretty much says it all. This "review" has nothing to do with the lens itself and everything to do with the OP not "thinking critically" about his lens choices, and should be dismissed as such (or better yet, deleted as it inappropriately mucks with the aggregated scores). While I don't have this lens, I do have the FA 50 1.4 and find it useful on APS-C for many things, e.g., shooting musicians in nightclubs, portraits, and cats.

+1

I dont have the DA 50 f1.8 because I am quite happy using my FA 50 f1.7 I bought second hand ten years ago. On K3, it is a very nice compact portrait and lowlight prime which sits between my DA35 macro f2.8 and DA70.

Tatouzou wrote:

klimbkat wrote:

twomonger wrote:

I know I fell for this oft-repeated advice without thinking critically.

This pretty much says it all. This "review" has nothing to do with the lens itself and everything to do with the OP not "thinking critically" about his lens choices, and should be dismissed as such (or better yet, deleted as it inappropriately mucks with the aggregated scores). While I don't have this lens, I do have the FA 50 1.4 and find it useful on APS-C for many things, e.g., shooting musicians in nightclubs, portraits, and cats.

+1

I dont have the DA 50 f1.8 because I am quite happy using my FA 50 f1.7 I bought second hand ten years ago. On K3, it is a very nice compact portrait and lowlight prime which sits between my DA35 macro f2.8 and DA70.

Another argument for a 50mm to be the first prime people who only have the kit lens should buy is because kit zooms are usually f4 at 35mm, which is only 1.5 stop darker than the DA35 f2.4, whereas they are f 5.6 at 50mm, which is 3.3 stop darker than the DA50 f1.8. 3.3 stops is really a huge difference.