Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is the 50mm lens phasing out?
- Thread starter flosseR
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well that may be a good example, but the only primes in 21mm worth owning are the ZE/ZF primes
Well, that's not a very fair comparison. The zoom is not sharper than it's equivalent prime. The 20mm USM is going to be sharper than a 17-55mm, or something else that that covers the 20mm focal length. Likewise, a 200mm prime is going to be sharper than the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II
I never thought about it in this way. I like the analogy, having once owned a Porsche in my younger/single days and having it spent way too much time with a mechanic!
fair enough, but I'm really not 100% sure that's correct, even so. Depends on the glass and also the age of the construction.
Yeah, it is correct. Once you compare like for like and not a 2011 latest zoom lens against an 1960 M42 50mm built for a Zenit, then the prime will always win out in sharpness.
If zooms were better than primes, they wouldn't bother making primes.
Welcome to the 21st century!
50mm bit the dust in a big way in the mid 80s when the compact zoom became the popular kit lens, and it's never really found a way back since.
And the crop thing really doesn't help as it's pushed the 50mm from an all purpose lens to a portrait lens, and not everyone does portraits.
Simple as that.
They aren't popular because the average camera owner knows nothing of photography. They take their flash portraits with their zoom lenses. Everything from the subject to the background in perfect focus.
Funny though...I've sold my 24-105 f/4L along with other Canon primes and moved over to a Leica M9. Right now, I have one lens, the 50mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH. I wouldn't trade it for ANY Canon lens. The best 50mm in the world. Nothing is like it.
My experience has been they're usually out of focus and poorly exposed even with the flash.
When you spend that much on it, it better be the best 50mm in the world.
I think there are two different questions here
a) Is the 50mm fov losing popularity - all the answers stating 'i use a 35 on my crop' hit the nail on the head - the answer is no.
b) Are 50mm lenses selling less? - probably, there are more crops than ff and the other answers nailed that one.. it's 85 - which is close portrait range... somewhat of a specialty.
As a point - zooms have not caught up to primes for quality, but they have gotten 'good enough' for most people. There are no fast zooms... they would be huge, so primes aren't going anywhere.
Personally I'm a prime guy, I'd rather have the best fast great quality lenses and change them or carry two bodies than have a good zoom. The latter is cheaper substantially.
I would love to move to a m9 and lux 50 - but can't justify the cost for such a specialty camera.
a) Is the 50mm fov losing popularity - all the answers stating 'i use a 35 on my crop' hit the nail on the head - the answer is no.
b) Are 50mm lenses selling less? - probably, there are more crops than ff and the other answers nailed that one.. it's 85 - which is close portrait range... somewhat of a specialty.
As a point - zooms have not caught up to primes for quality, but they have gotten 'good enough' for most people. There are no fast zooms... they would be huge, so primes aren't going anywhere.
Personally I'm a prime guy, I'd rather have the best fast great quality lenses and change them or carry two bodies than have a good zoom. The latter is cheaper substantially.
I would love to move to a m9 and lux 50 - but can't justify the cost for such a specialty camera.
50mm as a focal length is fine on a full-frame sensor, but it's too long on a crop sensor.
And you can't beat a f/1.2 or f/1.4 lens when you need it. I own some of the sharpest Nikon zoom lenses, but they can only go down to f/2.8 which isn't going to help if I am shooting in a night club.
And you can't beat a f/1.2 or f/1.4 lens when you need it. I own some of the sharpest Nikon zoom lenses, but they can only go down to f/2.8 which isn't going to help if I am shooting in a night club.
I like FX for the low light capabilities and I hate using flash.
If you're planning to get f/1.2, then go with the Canon. I went with the Sigma f/1.4 for the Nikon because I like the 77mm end.
If anyone has gone to a bar, they know how bad the lighting is when there is a band playing. A 50mm on FX, you can get close enough to catch facial features even when the lights are changing all different colors.
I like to use this photo as an example of low light capabilities of a f/1.4 lens. This photo was taken close to 6 PM in Boston in October. Anyone who lives in New England will know that it gets dark early in the fall. When I took the photo, there wasn't much light at all even though the sky appears bright.
Last edited:
My 50mm still gets plenty of love. It's great for portraits and low-light settings. I do agree it can be akward for certain situations due to the crop factor, but I think it still has it uses.
there are many reasons to have a prime over a zoom, even if sharpness is equal. They're lighter because there are less elements, and usually faster.
I still find the 50mm quite attractive... in fact, I'm buying the f/1.8 Canon 50mm for my mum's wedding anniversary
The 50 mm is pretty much still the standard prime size on full frame sensors.
I started a few months back with a 550D (1.6 crop) and found my "nifty fifty" to be too long. But during a holiday I ran into a 5Dmk2 at a price I couldn't resist. After playing with it and the nifty fifty I upgraded to the 50mm f1.2. It's still my favorite lens and I pair it with a 17-40 f4.0 wide angle and a 70-200 f2.8 IS II on the 5Dmk2, very good set.
The 50 is still used widely used, but on crop bodies, get a 35 or a 24 mm.
I started a few months back with a 550D (1.6 crop) and found my "nifty fifty" to be too long. But during a holiday I ran into a 5Dmk2 at a price I couldn't resist. After playing with it and the nifty fifty I upgraded to the 50mm f1.2. It's still my favorite lens and I pair it with a 17-40 f4.0 wide angle and a 70-200 f2.8 IS II on the 5Dmk2, very good set.
The 50 is still used widely used, but on crop bodies, get a 35 or a 24 mm.
I have a 35mm/f1.8 on my Nikon crop sensor body, in addition to the 18-55mm kit lens, and an inexpensive 55-200mm zoom. As an amateur, I purchased the 35mm to get a feel for the low light capabilities of the lens, and to get some experience with using a prime lens.
I find that I have been using the 35mm for pictures I take inside - mostly family shots, and then using my zoom when I am shooting outside at longer distances.
I love the images from the 35mm, but I do miss the zoom whenever I use it.
I think the 35mm/50mm makes a great inexpensive way for amateur photographers to experience prime lenses and to step about outside of their comfort zone from using a zoom all the time.
I find that I have been using the 35mm for pictures I take inside - mostly family shots, and then using my zoom when I am shooting outside at longer distances.
I love the images from the 35mm, but I do miss the zoom whenever I use it.
I think the 35mm/50mm makes a great inexpensive way for amateur photographers to experience prime lenses and to step about outside of their comfort zone from using a zoom all the time.
haha, seriously. getting the nifty fifty and then the 50 1.2 right after is like buying a cheap tablet and then getting a Mac Pro instead
I went into a camera store in NYC to get the 50 F1.4 actually. So I'm playing around there with the Canon 1.4 and the Sigma 1.4 (the Sigma is much better) and I felt bad for not buying a red ring when all my others were L's. Hence, the F1.2.
Truth be told, I dig the envious looks on the street. Even here in Tokyo now people look at you with eyes that say "do want".
(ps: don't buy lenses in Japan, you'll pay through the ass for them)
Interesting.
I wonder if the camera store is enough to see which is better. I currently have very mixed feelings about my new sigma. It focuses fast and doesn't miss by a landslide, but it is inconsistent in terms of micro focus...like if you had a flux of -10 to +10 ma. So I just ordered the canon to compare. Whichever one is better stays. I know the sigmalux has better bokeh, but it cAn also be made obsolete with a canon af algorithm change as has happened in the past.
I've recently seen copies of the canon 50/1.4 for sale with wide open examples...I can say my sigma is not s sharp S those samples...on a tripod, with mlu and timer.
I'm certainly not one of these guys who scoffs and says things like...oh hey you just started, don't buy L you don't need it... Hell if you can afford it, want it, and enjoy it...have at it. if you take care of the Llenses you basically don't lose much money on them anyway..just get insurance that covers them if you dint have it!
I very nearly bought a m9 recently but decided for the price of that body I could basically get a three prime L kit, though I am playing with cheaper fifties right now because before I was a 35/85/135 now I may be a 24/50/85 guy. The 24-105L will be kept but only because it's a great walk around on vacations etc.
@aross , the canon 35/2 is nowhere near as good as the nikon 35/1.8 unfortunately. The copy I had was a complete pile of **** that sounded like satan's mosquito when focusing...it was super soft off center, though on a cropper I guess it would be fine.
I wonder if the camera store is enough to see which is better. I currently have very mixed feelings about my new sigma. It focuses fast and doesn't miss by a landslide, but it is inconsistent in terms of micro focus...like if you had a flux of -10 to +10 ma. So I just ordered the canon to compare. Whichever one is better stays. I know the sigmalux has better bokeh, but it cAn also be made obsolete with a canon af algorithm change as has happened in the past.
I've recently seen copies of the canon 50/1.4 for sale with wide open examples...I can say my sigma is not s sharp S those samples...on a tripod, with mlu and timer.
I'm certainly not one of these guys who scoffs and says things like...oh hey you just started, don't buy L you don't need it... Hell if you can afford it, want it, and enjoy it...have at it. if you take care of the Llenses you basically don't lose much money on them anyway..just get insurance that covers them if you dint have it!
I very nearly bought a m9 recently but decided for the price of that body I could basically get a three prime L kit, though I am playing with cheaper fifties right now because before I was a 35/85/135 now I may be a 24/50/85 guy. The 24-105L will be kept but only because it's a great walk around on vacations etc.
@aross , the canon 35/2 is nowhere near as good as the nikon 35/1.8 unfortunately. The copy I had was a complete pile of **** that sounded like satan's mosquito when focusing...it was super soft off center, though on a cropper I guess it would be fine.
Last edited: