I've read up (a little bit) on "nifty fifties" and it takes some getting your head around.I've searched on here and it seems the 50mm f1.4 (canon) is the best of the 50mm, only far more expensive than the flimsier, cheaper also much loved f1.8
That "f" argument aside (as it seems everyone's happy with whichever they own), I've also read that what used to be considered the prime lens in the film era (i.e.50mm) translates to about a 35mm in the digital era...
Can someone please explain to me the functional differences, advantages and downfalls of a 35mm vs 50mm lens on a cropped sensor (I use a canon 500D)?
I have a 50 1.4. I would think the difference between it and the 35 would be simply a couple of steps forward or backward. That simple. You just gotta move a little... no barrel twisting. The next thing to consider is price!
@hown Thanks for the reply. According to Amazon, there's very little between the 50mm f1.4 and the 35mm f2 (both just under £300)...whilst the 50mm f1.8 is less than £80!
The decision may well be obvious but I'd like to pick up a little more info before talking to the man in the shop about it!
I have the 50mm f/1.8 & find the focal length a little restrictive.
I'd prefer the 35mm given the choice as the field of view always seems to be a little more tight than I expect at 50mm. I use Canon cropped sensors too (50D & 400D).
Primarily low light situations. I really do not like to use the built in flash, especially on things with eyes! And, don't want to spend $400+ on a speedlite. I have never had a problem and don't miss the flash. I am sure the difference is minimal in the image, it is really about money. However, if the money is not an issue, go for it. That way no regrets, f1.4 you will use it forever.
I have 50mm 1.8 and love it. Haven't used 1.4 so can't vouch for it. In some occasions, 50mm sometimes can't focus very closely. You have to step back a little. Whereas 35mm on a cropped sensor might come close to that ideal 50mm distance for portraits. This is all if you are really trying to pick the differences, but the 50mm didn't bother me in most circumstances. It's unto what you shoot and how important focusing distance is for you.
I just had this conversation with another photog. I sold my 50 1.4 and purchased a 35 1.8. I like the 35 better because I am closer to my subjects. Nothing against the 50, just a personal preference.
A "normal lens" in the days of 35mm film photography was indeed the 50mm lens. As you already pointed out, today with most DSLR cameras you have a cropped sensor. These are called DX sensors. They can have a crop anywhere from about 1.3x to 1.8x, depending on the brand and model. Full-frame cameras are called FX models with a large sensor that does not crop the photos.
So...on my Nikon D300 with a 1.5x crop, the 50mm is actually 75mm in terms of 35mm photography. However, that same lens on a Nikon D3 with the FX sensor would still be 50mm.
The 35mm lens on a DX sensor would be about 52mm in terms of 35mm photography.
In the end, though. all of these are somewhat irrelevant. The focal length really just means taking a steps forward or backward The difference in focal length between 35mm and 50mm on any camera just isn't enough to worry about.
I have the 50mm f/1.8 lens. I primarily use it for landscapes, panoramas, and group portraits. It is super sharp, fast, and reliable. It is not flimsy by any means and is in fact one of the most popular lenses because of it's low price. If you have no problem spending three times more for a lens that is equal in quality but only 2/3 stops faster, then go for the f/1.4.
35 mm on an APS-C size sensor, which your camera has, is close to a "normal" lens. Much as a 50mm is close to normal for a full frame/35mm.
Thus a 50mm for you would be the equivalent of an 80mm for a full frame.
Assuming you are speaking of the Canon lenses, the 35 will allow you to get closer and has a wider field of view. The 50 will let in a bit more light.
I've owned both fifties. They are both great. The f/1.4 is the way to go if you can justify the extra expense, but that's not to say it is streets ahead.
In regards to 50 vs 35.... what @jasonbarnette said. One thing to consider, however, is that the effect on DOF and compression does not change with sensor size - it is particular to the lens focal length. So, while a 35mm on your APS-C DSLR may give you close to the field of view of a 50mm on a full-frame (35mm) camera, the depth of field effects and compression effects won't match. DOF effects are somewhat countered simply by the distance at which you stand (you will stand at a similar distance, for the same framing, with a 35mm on your DSLR as you would with a 50mm on your FF camera), but compression will always be an obvious difference. Compression is what makes portraits seem more flattering with longer focal lengths. The opposite is also true - the wider your lens, the more distortion, and the less flattering your portraits will often be (wider lenses increase feature proportions - they make noses look bigger, etc).
Personally, I love 50mm for a crop-frame-sensor DSLR. On my full-frame 5D II, I prefer 85mm, for the nicer compression effects, and because it is less awkward to use on that than it is on a crop-frame camera.
The 50mm 1.4 is the only lens I've ever used in my project.
It's wonderful for low light situations, like indoors. I live in a small house, and sometimes I really wish I could get a wider view. For this reason I've really been wanting the 35mm lens!
Hey, thanks everyone for taking the time to explain all of this to me - it's been most helpful. I'm only just beginning to (really) understand why one would want more than the kit lens (which is all I own). I might have to ask around locally to see if anyone's got some different lenses I could borrow just to see exactly what's what!
I am with @meshinka. I got the 35mm 1.8 and love it!
Also, to be fair, I have a 60mm f2 macro lens which doubles nicely for portraits so it would be silly for me to get the 50 as well since it would be a bit redundant.
It's not just a question of a step back or a step forward with regards focal length, it's a question of perspective, which is to do with the compositional make-up of the lens elements.
As the glass elements are arranged differently in a wide angle prime lens to that of a telephoto, as the former is designed with a greater depth of field, compared to the latter with a narrow one. Ie. wide angle more in focus, telephoto less in focus at smaller/wider F-stops eg. f1.4 or f2.8.
Hope this is of help.
I was in the market for a new prime lens just before Christmas and was caught between the 50mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4 and 35mm f2 similar to yourself. I found here useful when comparing the two 50mm lenses: http://photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/
I opted for the f1.4 eventually deciding that the extra speed would help and I could cope with 'stepping backwards'. I have to admit that I'm a bit underwhelmed with my purchase... I don't dislike it but the build quality is quite poor IMO so I can't imagine how poor the f1.8 must be. It is my sharpest lens when stopped up, but it is frustrating indoors that on a cropped body I want to be closer to my subject. It often 'hunts' too much when using the automatic focus points also.
"while a 35mm on your APS-C DSLR may give you close to the field of view of a 50mm on a full-frame (35mm) camera, the depth of field effects and compression effects won't match."
@jinximages I've had your comment above about DOF and compression effects buzzing around in my head ever since I read it, and last night it finally clicked that it works a bit differently to how you explained it (I think):
1) 'visual compression' or perspective distortion is a function of distance to the subject, not focal length. A crop from a wide angle image exhibits the same perspective distortion as a telephoto image taken from the same distance. So when you stand at the same distance with a 35mm lens / APS-C sensor combination to obtain the same field of view as a 50mm / full frame combination you don't alter the visual compression...
2) on the other hand, DOF at a given distance is a function of aperture and magnification, which means, as you say, that DOF is an inverse function of focal length. So, using the same aperture and standing at the same distance from your subject, you get more depth of field with the wider lens.
Sooo... a 35mm lens really does act as a full frame nifty fifty on an APS-C sensor with regards compression, but you have a greater depth of field at a given aperture (i.e. you lose some ability to visually isolate your subject).
What got me thinking about it was wondering how the heck you don't get outrageous ultra-wide distortion effects using compact cameras with ultra-wide lenses and tiny sensors? It only took a month to make sense. There's an article with pictures here.
Please correct for the record if I got this wrong! :-)
@dieter That's all correct - I think I confused the issue somewhat, reading it back to myself just now. At least, on a basic level. There are other factors, but these can differ between lenses of identical focal length due to the lens element design, and can't be quantified with a simple "this focal length means you get this" (but they are also far less significant to most of us, so don't really matter in this context).
So, yes - if you are framing the subject identically, and the crop-factor of your sensor is taken into account as a multiplier of lens focal length, then the compression will be close to identical. 50mm on a crop-frame will give similar compression results to 85mm on a full-frame, if the image is composed (in camera) the same way, and (practically speaking) identically if shot with the same camera-to-subject distance.
I will be getting a EOS 60D soon but at the moment I am looking at prime lenses. I am interested in the 50mm f1.8 or the 50mm f1.4. After looking at various forums, sites etc here is what Ive gathered, please add or correct if I'm wrong.
The first point is being the price. The f1.8 is plasticy in construction and is like a toy not that this would bother me much if at all) whereas the f1.4 'feels' like a lens with its metal mount and of better build in general. The f1.4 is faster (wider aperture/sees better in the dark) therefore results in a brighter viewfinder to aid composition and to aid the auto focus of the lens in low light situations. Also, with the f1.4 you can use low ISO settings.
Question/s
In terms of picture quality which is better or are they both the same, and that all it boils down to is the fact that one can 'see better in the dark' than the other?...
Is the available light gathering abilitiy between the f1.8 and the f1.4 that much notable?
Thanks in advance
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
The decision may well be obvious but I'd like to pick up a little more info before talking to the man in the shop about it!
What do you mainly use yours for?
I'd prefer the 35mm given the choice as the field of view always seems to be a little more tight than I expect at 50mm. I use Canon cropped sensors too (50D & 400D).
So...on my Nikon D300 with a 1.5x crop, the 50mm is actually 75mm in terms of 35mm photography. However, that same lens on a Nikon D3 with the FX sensor would still be 50mm.
The 35mm lens on a DX sensor would be about 52mm in terms of 35mm photography.
In the end, though. all of these are somewhat irrelevant. The focal length really just means taking a steps forward or backward The difference in focal length between 35mm and 50mm on any camera just isn't enough to worry about.
I have the 50mm f/1.8 lens. I primarily use it for landscapes, panoramas, and group portraits. It is super sharp, fast, and reliable. It is not flimsy by any means and is in fact one of the most popular lenses because of it's low price. If you have no problem spending three times more for a lens that is equal in quality but only 2/3 stops faster, then go for the f/1.4.
Thus a 50mm for you would be the equivalent of an 80mm for a full frame.
Assuming you are speaking of the Canon lenses, the 35 will allow you to get closer and has a wider field of view. The 50 will let in a bit more light.
In regards to 50 vs 35.... what @jasonbarnette said. One thing to consider, however, is that the effect on DOF and compression does not change with sensor size - it is particular to the lens focal length. So, while a 35mm on your APS-C DSLR may give you close to the field of view of a 50mm on a full-frame (35mm) camera, the depth of field effects and compression effects won't match. DOF effects are somewhat countered simply by the distance at which you stand (you will stand at a similar distance, for the same framing, with a 35mm on your DSLR as you would with a 50mm on your FF camera), but compression will always be an obvious difference. Compression is what makes portraits seem more flattering with longer focal lengths. The opposite is also true - the wider your lens, the more distortion, and the less flattering your portraits will often be (wider lenses increase feature proportions - they make noses look bigger, etc).
Personally, I love 50mm for a crop-frame-sensor DSLR. On my full-frame 5D II, I prefer 85mm, for the nicer compression effects, and because it is less awkward to use on that than it is on a crop-frame camera.
It's wonderful for low light situations, like indoors. I live in a small house, and sometimes I really wish I could get a wider view. For this reason I've really been wanting the 35mm lens!
Hey, thanks everyone for taking the time to explain all of this to me - it's been most helpful. I'm only just beginning to (really) understand why one would want more than the kit lens (which is all I own). I might have to ask around locally to see if anyone's got some different lenses I could borrow just to see exactly what's what!
Also, to be fair, I have a 60mm f2 macro lens which doubles nicely for portraits so it would be silly for me to get the 50 as well since it would be a bit redundant.
As the glass elements are arranged differently in a wide angle prime lens to that of a telephoto, as the former is designed with a greater depth of field, compared to the latter with a narrow one. Ie. wide angle more in focus, telephoto less in focus at smaller/wider F-stops eg. f1.4 or f2.8.
Hope this is of help.
http://photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/
I opted for the f1.4 eventually deciding that the extra speed would help and I could cope with 'stepping backwards'. I have to admit that I'm a bit underwhelmed with my purchase... I don't dislike it but the build quality is quite poor IMO so I can't imagine how poor the f1.8 must be. It is my sharpest lens when stopped up, but it is frustrating indoors that on a cropped body I want to be closer to my subject. It often 'hunts' too much when using the automatic focus points also.
@big_gareth - great link. Just what I wanted - photo examples! :)
For my use (and at my standard), I really don't think I can justify the extra cost for the differences illustrated.
@jinximages I've had your comment above about DOF and compression effects buzzing around in my head ever since I read it, and last night it finally clicked that it works a bit differently to how you explained it (I think):
1) 'visual compression' or perspective distortion is a function of distance to the subject, not focal length. A crop from a wide angle image exhibits the same perspective distortion as a telephoto image taken from the same distance. So when you stand at the same distance with a 35mm lens / APS-C sensor combination to obtain the same field of view as a 50mm / full frame combination you don't alter the visual compression...
2) on the other hand, DOF at a given distance is a function of aperture and magnification, which means, as you say, that DOF is an inverse function of focal length. So, using the same aperture and standing at the same distance from your subject, you get more depth of field with the wider lens.
Sooo... a 35mm lens really does act as a full frame nifty fifty on an APS-C sensor with regards compression, but you have a greater depth of field at a given aperture (i.e. you lose some ability to visually isolate your subject).
What got me thinking about it was wondering how the heck you don't get outrageous ultra-wide distortion effects using compact cameras with ultra-wide lenses and tiny sensors? It only took a month to make sense. There's an article with pictures here.
Please correct for the record if I got this wrong! :-)
So, yes - if you are framing the subject identically, and the crop-factor of your sensor is taken into account as a multiplier of lens focal length, then the compression will be close to identical. 50mm on a crop-frame will give similar compression results to 85mm on a full-frame, if the image is composed (in camera) the same way, and (practically speaking) identically if shot with the same camera-to-subject distance.
I will be getting a EOS 60D soon but at the moment I am looking at prime lenses. I am interested in the 50mm f1.8 or the 50mm f1.4. After looking at various forums, sites etc here is what Ive gathered, please add or correct if I'm wrong.
The first point is being the price. The f1.8 is plasticy in construction and is like a toy not that this would bother me much if at all) whereas the f1.4 'feels' like a lens with its metal mount and of better build in general. The f1.4 is faster (wider aperture/sees better in the dark) therefore results in a brighter viewfinder to aid composition and to aid the auto focus of the lens in low light situations. Also, with the f1.4 you can use low ISO settings.
Question/s
In terms of picture quality which is better or are they both the same, and that all it boils down to is the fact that one can 'see better in the dark' than the other?...
Is the available light gathering abilitiy between the f1.8 and the f1.4 that much notable?
Thanks in advance