Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

50mm lens still valuable on DSLRs?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 6:33:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Just inquiring for thoughts and opinions on this. Whether its Canon or
Nikon or whatever seems 50mm lense with great f-stops (usually f1.8) are
cheap and sharp. But are they still valuable on DSLRs? Concerns being crop
factors (1.5X or 1.6X) and also the convenience and advancement of zooms.
I've also heard it said (although I don't necessarily agree) that since
DSLRs perform fairly well at ISO 1600 the f-stop of your lens is aomewhat
less important than on a 35mm SLR. It seems to me these lenses are still a
great value and very usable, although I might need to take a few MORE steps
back to get a wide shot. But there's no other lens where you can get f1.8
for that cheap!

I'm thinking of picking up a nikon 50mm f1.8 ($99 new). Thanks for you
opinions.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 1:28:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"hotchkisstrio" <paulyhotchkiss@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:D 0o13l$csi$1@news01.intel.com...
> Just inquiring for thoughts and opinions on this. Whether its Canon or
> Nikon or whatever seems 50mm lense with great f-stops (usually f1.8) are
> cheap and sharp. But are they still valuable on DSLRs? Concerns being
> crop
> factors (1.5X or 1.6X) and also the convenience and advancement of zooms.
> I've also heard it said (although I don't necessarily agree) that since
> DSLRs perform fairly well at ISO 1600 the f-stop of your lens is aomewhat
> less important than on a 35mm SLR. It seems to me these lenses are still
> a
> great value and very usable, although I might need to take a few MORE
> steps
> back to get a wide shot. But there's no other lens where you can get f1.8
> for that cheap!
>
> I'm thinking of picking up a nikon 50mm f1.8 ($99 new). Thanks for you
> opinions.
>
Funny, when I first got my old Nikon F I sold my 50 1.4 to get an 85 1.8.
Now that I'm working with a dslr that crops the image, I'd love to have that
50 back. It's just nice to have a lens with a very wide aperture, and a
"75mm" lens (even though it's just cropped to 75) makes a great normal lens.
I got a lot of use out of my 85 and still do. Very nice portrait lens. I
also have an older 55mm macro which is outstanding. Just doesn't have a
very wide aperture, but in macro photography you usually want more depth of
field.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 3:14:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"hotchkisstrio" <paulyhotchkiss@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:D 0o13l$csi$1@news01.intel.com...
> Just inquiring for thoughts and opinions on this. Whether its Canon or
> Nikon or whatever seems 50mm lense with great f-stops (usually f1.8) are
> cheap and sharp. But are they still valuable on DSLRs? Concerns being
> crop
> factors (1.5X or 1.6X) and also the convenience and advancement of zooms.
> I've also heard it said (although I don't necessarily agree) that since
> DSLRs perform fairly well at ISO 1600 the f-stop of your lens is aomewhat
> less important than on a 35mm SLR. It seems to me these lenses are still
> a
> great value and very usable, although I might need to take a few MORE
> steps
> back to get a wide shot. But there's no other lens where you can get f1.8
> for that cheap!
>
> I'm thinking of picking up a nikon 50mm f1.8 ($99 new). Thanks for you
> opinions.
>
>

Absolutley love mine for the Canon....I would HIGHLY recommend them!
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 8:50:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If you have a Nikon, I can only recommend you to purchase the 50mm f1.8-D.
It's one of Nikon's best lenses with regard to resolution (lpi). For US$99,
it's a steal!

Gregor

"hotchkisstrio" <paulyhotchkiss@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:D 0o13l$csi$1@news01.intel.com...
> Just inquiring for thoughts and opinions on this. Whether its Canon or
> Nikon or whatever seems 50mm lense with great f-stops (usually f1.8) are
> cheap and sharp. But are they still valuable on DSLRs? Concerns being
> crop
> factors (1.5X or 1.6X) and also the convenience and advancement of zooms.
> I've also heard it said (although I don't necessarily agree) that since
> DSLRs perform fairly well at ISO 1600 the f-stop of your lens is aomewhat
> less important than on a 35mm SLR. It seems to me these lenses are still
> a
> great value and very usable, although I might need to take a few MORE
> steps
> back to get a wide shot. But there's no other lens where you can get f1.8
> for that cheap!
>
> I'm thinking of picking up a nikon 50mm f1.8 ($99 new). Thanks for you
> opinions.
>
>
March 10, 2005 9:08:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"hotchkisstrio" <paulyhotchkiss@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:D 0o13l$csi$1@news01.intel.com...
> Just inquiring for thoughts and opinions on this. Whether its Canon or
> Nikon or whatever seems 50mm lense with great f-stops (usually f1.8) are
> cheap and sharp. But are they still valuable on DSLRs? Concerns being
crop
> factors (1.5X or 1.6X) and also the convenience and advancement of zooms.
> I've also heard it said (although I don't necessarily agree) that since
> DSLRs perform fairly well at ISO 1600 the f-stop of your lens is aomewhat
> less important than on a 35mm SLR. It seems to me these lenses are still
a
> great value and very usable, although I might need to take a few MORE
steps
> back to get a wide shot. But there's no other lens where you can get f1.8
> for that cheap!
>
> I'm thinking of picking up a nikon 50mm f1.8 ($99 new). Thanks for you
> opinions.
>
>

Just wait a little while. Sigma announced a 30mm f1.4 prime. This will have
the same view as the 50mm versions on a 35mm SLR. This will be the one to
get:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp...
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 12:33:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"hotchkisstrio" <paulyhotchkiss@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Just inquiring for thoughts and opinions on this. Whether its Canon or
> Nikon or whatever seems 50mm lense with great f-stops (usually f1.8) are
> cheap and sharp. But are they still valuable on DSLRs?

IMHO, yes.

> Concerns being crop factors (1.5X or 1.6X)

The 50mm becomes a short telephoto, a length I am quite fond of for both
landscape work and portraits.

> and also the convenience and advancement of zooms.

Yes. The Tamron 28-75/2.8 is fast enough for a lot of available light work,
and at f/5.6 and below indistinguishable from the 50mm lenses in sharpness.

Unfortunately, it is somewhat of an exception: most consumer zooms are dogs.
The new Stigma 24-70/2.8 may be in the same class as the Tamron: if it is,
it's only the second consumer lens in that class.

> I've also heard it said (although I don't necessarily agree) that since
> DSLRs perform fairly well at ISO 1600 the f-stop of your lens is aomewhat
> less important than on a 35mm SLR.

I disagree with that. With the fairly clean ISO 1600, a fast lens becomes
more important, since it leverages that advantage, making it possible to do
things that were previously impossible.

> It seems to me these lenses are still a
> great value and very usable, although I might need to take a few MORE
steps
> back to get a wide shot. But there's no other lens where you can get f1.8
> for that cheap!
>
> I'm thinking of picking up a nikon 50mm f1.8 ($99 new). Thanks for you
> opinions.

Canon's an easier call (for those of us who want an excuse to justify the
expense of the faster lens): the more expensive lens is faster and sharper
and has better bokeh. Nikon's harder (for us, and easier for folks who want
to justify saving money) in that the 50/1.8 is said to be the sharper lens.

Since the 50mm lenses at f/8 produces the sharpest images you will ever see
on your sensor, it's useful to have just so that you know what a sharp image
looks like.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 12:33:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Since the 50mm lenses at f/8 produces the sharpest images you will ever
see
> on your sensor, it's useful to have just so that you know what a sharp
image
> looks like.

AHA! Even more reasons to get one, I need it as a reference to judge the
performance of my other lenses ;-)

> I disagree with that. With the fairly clean ISO 1600, a fast lens becomes
> more important, since it leverages that advantage, making it possible to
do
> things that were previously impossible.

I'm in your camp on this one.

Thanks,
Paul H.

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:D 0o4h0$ui4$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> "hotchkisstrio" <paulyhotchkiss@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Just inquiring for thoughts and opinions on this. Whether its Canon or
> > Nikon or whatever seems 50mm lense with great f-stops (usually f1.8) are
> > cheap and sharp. But are they still valuable on DSLRs?
>
> IMHO, yes.
>
> > Concerns being crop factors (1.5X or 1.6X)
>
> The 50mm becomes a short telephoto, a length I am quite fond of for both
> landscape work and portraits.
>
> > and also the convenience and advancement of zooms.
>
> Yes. The Tamron 28-75/2.8 is fast enough for a lot of available light
work,
> and at f/5.6 and below indistinguishable from the 50mm lenses in
sharpness.
>
> Unfortunately, it is somewhat of an exception: most consumer zooms are
dogs.
> The new Stigma 24-70/2.8 may be in the same class as the Tamron: if it is,
> it's only the second consumer lens in that class.
>
> > I've also heard it said (although I don't necessarily agree) that since
> > DSLRs perform fairly well at ISO 1600 the f-stop of your lens is
aomewhat
> > less important than on a 35mm SLR.
>
> I disagree with that. With the fairly clean ISO 1600, a fast lens becomes
> more important, since it leverages that advantage, making it possible to
do
> things that were previously impossible.
>
> > It seems to me these lenses are still a
> > great value and very usable, although I might need to take a few MORE
> steps
> > back to get a wide shot. But there's no other lens where you can get
f1.8
> > for that cheap!
> >
> > I'm thinking of picking up a nikon 50mm f1.8 ($99 new). Thanks for you
> > opinions.
>
> Canon's an easier call (for those of us who want an excuse to justify the
> expense of the faster lens): the more expensive lens is faster and sharper
> and has better bokeh. Nikon's harder (for us, and easier for folks who
want
> to justify saving money) in that the 50/1.8 is said to be the sharper
lens.
>
> Since the 50mm lenses at f/8 produces the sharpest images you will ever
see
> on your sensor, it's useful to have just so that you know what a sharp
image
> looks like.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 12:33:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <d0o4h0$ui4$1@nnrp.gol.com>,
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>Since the 50mm lenses at f/8 produces the sharpest images you will ever see
>on your sensor, it's useful to have just so that you know what a sharp image
>looks like.

Where does this myth come from? The 50mm f/1.8 and f/1.4 lenses are
noever as sharp as ~100mm macros, or the better telephotos. Better than
average, yes, but not the top of the heap.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 12:33:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:33:15 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>Canon's an easier call (for those of us who want an excuse to justify the
>expense of the faster lens): the more expensive lens is faster and sharper
>and has better bokeh.

Where might I fond the definiton of "bokeh"?
I am not familiar with the term.

cal
March 10, 2005 12:33:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:lb7v215c3ukusi6dortjqjpakitq8uj4jh@4ax.com...
>
> Where does this myth come from? The 50mm f/1.8 and f/1.4 lenses are
> noever as sharp as ~100mm macros, or the better telephotos. Better than
> average, yes, but not the top of the heap.
> --
In my case, this statement came from the tests that Modern Photography ran
years ago. It was not at all unusual for 50mm lenses to show resolutions in
the 60 to 70 lines per mm range. It was very unusual for telephoto lenses
to get that high (although they are still quite good.) And, while macro
lenses excell in their intended purpose, they are not necessarily better at
normal distances. I can tell you that my 105 f2.8 macro is no sharper than
my 105 f2.5 for normal photographs.
Jim
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 12:33:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 07:53:36 -0500, cal <cal@ck.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:33:15 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
><davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
>>Canon's an easier call (for those of us who want an excuse to justify the
>>expense of the faster lens): the more expensive lens is faster and sharper
>>and has better bokeh.
>
>Where might I fond the definiton of "bokeh"?
>I am not familiar with the term.

Good explanation here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml


*****************************************************

"Vietnam is what we had instead of happy childhoods."

Tim Page in
"Dispatches"
by Michael Herr
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 1:16:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Musty wrote:
> "hotchkisstrio" <paulyhotchkiss@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:D 0o13l$csi$1@news01.intel.com...
> > Just inquiring for thoughts and opinions on this. Whether its
Canon or
> > Nikon or whatever seems 50mm lense with great f-stops (usually
f1.8) are
> > cheap and sharp. But are they still valuable on DSLRs? Concerns
being
> crop
> > factors (1.5X or 1.6X) and also the convenience and advancement of
zooms.
> > I've also heard it said (although I don't necessarily agree) that
since
> > DSLRs perform fairly well at ISO 1600 the f-stop of your lens is
aomewhat
> > less important than on a 35mm SLR. It seems to me these lenses are
still
> a
> > great value and very usable, although I might need to take a few
MORE
> steps
> > back to get a wide shot. But there's no other lens where you can
get f1.8
> > for that cheap!
> >
> > I'm thinking of picking up a nikon 50mm f1.8 ($99 new). Thanks for
you
> > opinions.
> >
> >
>
> Just wait a little while. Sigma announced a 30mm f1.4 prime. This
will have
> the same view as the 50mm versions on a 35mm SLR. This will be the
one to
> get:
>
>
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp...


Any special reason to believe this will be a great lens? Any idea on
price or when it will be available? Have you seen any reviews? I just
bought nikon 50mm 1.8 which arrived yesterday, but maybe I'll get this
too? Will focal length be too short for portraits?
March 10, 2005 1:39:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 06:08:54 GMT, "Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote:

>Just wait a little while. Sigma announced a 30mm f1.4 prime. This will have
>the same view as the 50mm versions on a 35mm SLR. This will be the one to
>get:
>
>http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp...

Sigma's website doesn't explicitly mention if these lenses in Nikon
mounts are compatible with the 3D matrix and color-matrix metering
functions in the newer Nikon AF cameras (film and digital). It does
state that they are metering compatible, but not specific if that
covers all metering modes.

Is there a way to determine this compatibility?

Regards,
Roger
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 2:39:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:lb7v215c3ukusi6dortjqjpakitq8uj4jh@4ax.com...
> In message <d0o4h0$ui4$1@nnrp.gol.com>,
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
> >Since the 50mm lenses at f/8 produces the sharpest images you will ever
see
> >on your sensor, it's useful to have just so that you know what a sharp
image
> >looks like.
>
> Where does this myth come from? The 50mm f/1.8 and f/1.4 lenses are
> noever as sharp as ~100mm macros, or the better telephotos. Better than
> average, yes, but not the top of the heap.

If you look at photodo, the 50s are very close to the top of the heap. (You
are right that there are better lenses, especially the better telephotos.)
The Canon 50/1.4 is only edged out by three lenses of all the Canon lenses
tested at photodo, the Nikkon 50/1.8 is the best Nikkor they tested. The
Contax G 45/2.0 is the best Contax lens, the Leica 50/2.0 the best Leica,
the Pentax 50/1.4 is tied for first.

(Yes, I understand that lots of people rant at photodo, that they only
tested one sample, that their MTF averaging may not be the right thing, etc.
etc. But it sure beats averaging user ratings.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 3:23:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> I'm thinking of picking up a nikon 50mm f1.8 ($99 new). Thanks for you
> opinions.


I have got this lens with D70. Beautyfull and very usefull. My other lens is
24/2.8 and that is all. I dont need anything else foe general photography.

Regards,

K.Polak
March 10, 2005 3:23:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Krystian Polak" <krpolak@poczta.onet.pl> wrote in message
news:D 0o7hs$o78$1@news.onet.pl...
> > I'm thinking of picking up a nikon 50mm f1.8 ($99 new). Thanks for you
> > opinions.
>
>
> I have got this lens with D70. Beautyfull and very usefull. My other lens
is
> 24/2.8 and that is all. I dont need anything else foe general photography.
>
That 24mm lens is a real jewel.. My daughter borrowed mine...
Jim
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 3:23:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Krystian Polak" <krpolak@poczta.onet.pl> wrote in message
news:D 0o7hs$o78$1@news.onet.pl...
> > I'm thinking of picking up a nikon 50mm f1.8 ($99 new). Thanks for you
> > opinions.
>
>
> I have got this lens with D70. Beautyfull and very usefull. My other lens
is
> 24/2.8 and that is all. I dont need anything else foe general photography.

Does anyone know why these lens sell on Ebay for $182, when you can get them
new for under $100 easily? Am I missing something?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3877...
March 10, 2005 3:23:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Wonders never cease.... and in US dollars also.

My timing is really bad or I'm sitting on a gold mine of 50s.

Regards,
Roger

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 21:51:49 -0500, "larrylook" <noemail@email.com>
wrote:

>
>"Krystian Polak" <krpolak@poczta.onet.pl> wrote in message
>news:D 0o7hs$o78$1@news.onet.pl...
>> > I'm thinking of picking up a nikon 50mm f1.8 ($99 new). Thanks for you
>> > opinions.
>>
>>
>> I have got this lens with D70. Beautyfull and very usefull. My other lens
>is
>> 24/2.8 and that is all. I dont need anything else foe general photography.
>
>Does anyone know why these lens sell on Ebay for $182, when you can get them
>new for under $100 easily? Am I missing something?
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3877...
>
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 3:23:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"larrylook" <noemail@email.com> wrote in message
news:rYednWfK6Y2jK7LfRVn-rg@comcast.com...
>
> "Krystian Polak" <krpolak@poczta.onet.pl> wrote in message
> news:D 0o7hs$o78$1@news.onet.pl...
> > > I'm thinking of picking up a nikon 50mm f1.8 ($99 new). Thanks for
you
> > > opinions.
> >
> >
> > I have got this lens with D70. Beautyfull and very usefull. My other
lens
> is
> > 24/2.8 and that is all. I dont need anything else foe general
photography.
>
> Does anyone know why these lens sell on Ebay for $182, when you can get
them
> new for under $100 easily? Am I missing something?
>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3877...
>
No idea. I was recently looking for an 80-200 on EBay, and they were
consistently selling for $700 or more for 5 year old lenses. You can get one
brand new for $799 (with rebate). I gave up and bought a new one.

My opinion on the 50MM 1.8 nikon is same as the others, GREAT lens. I use it
whenever I can.
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 1:10:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"cal" <cal@ck.com> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
> >Canon's an easier call (for those of us who want an excuse to justify the
> >expense of the faster lens): the more expensive lens is faster and
sharper
> >and has better bokeh.
>
> Where might I fond the definiton of "bokeh"?
> I am not familiar with the term.

Well, if you have an internet connection, the first thing to try is
www.google.com

(I hope that doesn't sound too grumpy: there's a lot of good stuff out there
on bokeh.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 10:25:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:10:58 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

Nope. Not grumpy at all. Thanks for the suggestion and, too, for
consideration for the quality and tone of your answer. That is
sometimes a little scarce here.

Off to do a little "googling".



>
>Well, if you have an internet connection, the first thing to try is
>www.google.com
>
>(I hope that doesn't sound too grumpy: there's a lot of good stuff out there
>on bokeh.)
>
>David J. Littleboy
>Tokyo, Japan
>
>
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 11:15:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Good explanation here:
>
>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml
>
>
>*****************************************************
>
>"Vietnam is what we had instead of happy childhoods."
>
> Tim Page in
> "Dispatches"
> by Michael Herr


Thanks for that reference. As the author said, "... a little heavy
going...". But I get it, I think. More of what to look for when
comparing lenses.
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 12:36:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:10:58 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

www.google.com
>
>(I hope that doesn't sound too grumpy: there's a lot of good stuff out there
>on bokeh.)
>

Now that is an understatement!! There's enough to keep one reading
for a month!

Thanks again!

Cal
!