Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   50mm "normal" lens with digital SLR? (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t258420-50mm-normal-lens-with-digital-slr.html)

john 06-19-2004 06:33 PM

50mm "normal" lens with digital SLR?
 
Hi folks,

When I was in junior high photography class, we learned about how 50mm
lenses were considered to be "normal" (ie. not wide-angle or telephoto).
50mm was recommended for high quality shots where you could
zoom-with-your-feet.

With my film SLRs, I always used my 50mm when zooming or wide-angle wasn't
necessary, and I was very happy.

Now that I've moved to digital SLR, the one lens that I have that isn't
compatible with my digital camera is the 50mm lens (too old). I've found a
good 50mm F1.8 for a very good price (less than $100). But the question I
have is...

With the digital magnification factor, a 50mm lens is pseudo-equivilent to a
75mm. Soooo, is it still a "normal" lens anymore? Is there any real benefit
to buying this lens?

Thanks in advance!
J



Douglas 06-19-2004 06:42 PM

Re: 50mm "normal" lens with digital SLR?
 
The 50mm lens is still one of the best lenses to have.It is a very nice
portrait lens,and can be found at a good price!It is fast enough to get by
without a flash,sometimes!The 50mm 1.8,as well as the 85mm 1.8 lens is,in my
book,a must have!
"john" <john@smith.com> wrote in message
news:eG%Ac.810896$oR5.193432@pd7tw3no...
> Hi folks,
>
> When I was in junior high photography class, we learned about how 50mm
> lenses were considered to be "normal" (ie. not wide-angle or telephoto).
> 50mm was recommended for high quality shots where you could
> zoom-with-your-feet.
>
> With my film SLRs, I always used my 50mm when zooming or wide-angle wasn't
> necessary, and I was very happy.
>
> Now that I've moved to digital SLR, the one lens that I have that isn't
> compatible with my digital camera is the 50mm lens (too old). I've found a
> good 50mm F1.8 for a very good price (less than $100). But the question I
> have is...
>
> With the digital magnification factor, a 50mm lens is pseudo-equivilent to

a
> 75mm. Soooo, is it still a "normal" lens anymore? Is there any real

benefit
> to buying this lens?
>
> Thanks in advance!
> J
>
>




Phil Wheeler 06-19-2004 06:43 PM

Re: 50mm "normal" lens with digital SLR?
 


john wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> When I was in junior high photography class, we learned about how 50mm
> lenses were considered to be "normal" (ie. not wide-angle or telephoto).
> 50mm was recommended for high quality shots where you could
> zoom-with-your-feet.
>
> With my film SLRs, I always used my 50mm when zooming or wide-angle wasn't
> necessary, and I was very happy.
>
> Now that I've moved to digital SLR, the one lens that I have that isn't
> compatible with my digital camera is the 50mm lens (too old). I've found a
> good 50mm F1.8 for a very good price (less than $100). But the question I
> have is...
>
> With the digital magnification factor, a 50mm lens is pseudo-equivilent to a
> 75mm. Soooo, is it still a "normal" lens anymore? Is there any real benefit
> to buying this lens?
>


On a 300D or 10D is will be 80 mm equivalent. I think you can buy a 50
mm f/1.8 II for a Canon new for around $70. I have one and do not use
it a lot. But it is a great lens for the price.

I wouldn't call it a "normal" lens, but it is useful and a bargain.

Phil


^ 06-19-2004 06:52 PM

Re: 50mm "normal" lens with digital SLR?
 
19 Jun 2004 11:43 AM Phil Wheeler wrote:
> On a 300D or 10D is will be 80 mm equivalent. I think you can buy a
> 50 mm f/1.8 II for a Canon new for around $70. I have one and do not
> use it a lot. But it is a great lens for the price.


I find an 80 mm (after 1.6 mulitplier) ideal as it corresponds to my
personal "field of interest" - when I see something interesting enough
to shoot, this lens crops it "just right" from where I'm standing (with
some exceptions, of course :-).

Frank 06-19-2004 06:54 PM

Re: 50mm "normal" lens with digital SLR?
 
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 18:33:46 GMT, "john" <john@smith.com> wrote:


>
>With the digital magnification factor, a 50mm lens is pseudo-equivilent to a
>75mm. Soooo, is it still a "normal" lens anymore? Is there any real benefit
>to buying this lens?
>
>Thanks in advance!
>J
>

If you feel you'd like to have a good lens with a focal length
equivalent to 75 mm on a 35 mm film camera it is worth while. Many
people like the perspective of a 75 mm (or equivalent) lens for
portraits. Actually, preferences for portrait lenses range from 75 to
the old Nikon 105 mm jobs. I used to love my 105, but am happy with a
somewhat shorter equivalent now.

The lens that would give the visual effect of a "normal" lens on your
DSLR is a 35 mm.

Kakadu 06-19-2004 07:02 PM

Re: 50mm "normal" lens with digital SLR?
 
The real new about the 1.6 magnification factor with DSLRs is that it is not
actually a magnification factor at all. It is a *clip* factor. The lens
resolves exactly the same as if it were on film except the area of the frame
capture is smaller. Sort of like using 110 roll film in a 35mm camera.

There are many side effects to this reduction of capture area. Probably the
most usable is the fact that lens makers plagued with image fall-off at the
corners can now sell their barely usable 35mm lenses as "made for digital"
and achieve better results.

Another side effect is the reduced capture size effectively clips the image
so that a "normal" 50 mm lens will display the area of a 70mm telephoto lens
but it will not be a telephoto picture, just one clipped down to capture a
smaller area of the film/frame.

Kakadu,
A Photographers paradise.
-----------------------------
"john" <john@smith.com> wrote in message
news:eG%Ac.810896$oR5.193432@pd7tw3no...
> Hi folks,
>
> When I was in junior high photography class, we learned about how 50mm
> lenses were considered to be "normal" (ie. not wide-angle or telephoto).
> 50mm was recommended for high quality shots where you could
> zoom-with-your-feet.
>
> With my film SLRs, I always used my 50mm when zooming or wide-angle wasn't
> necessary, and I was very happy.
>
> Now that I've moved to digital SLR, the one lens that I have that isn't
> compatible with my digital camera is the 50mm lens (too old). I've found a
> good 50mm F1.8 for a very good price (less than $100). But the question I
> have is...
>
> With the digital magnification factor, a 50mm lens is pseudo-equivilent to

a
> 75mm. Soooo, is it still a "normal" lens anymore? Is there any real

benefit
> to buying this lens?
>
> Thanks in advance!
> J
>
>




Phil Wheeler 06-19-2004 07:17 PM

Re: 50mm "normal" lens with digital SLR?
 


Kakadu wrote:

> The real new about the 1.6 magnification factor with DSLRs is that it is not
> actually a magnification factor at all. It is a *clip* factor. The lens
> resolves exactly the same as if it were on film except the area of the frame
> capture is smaller. Sort of like using 110 roll film in a 35mm camera.
>
> There are many side effects to this reduction of capture area. Probably the
> most usable is the fact that lens makers plagued with image fall-off at the
> corners can now sell their barely usable 35mm lenses as "made for digital"
> and achieve better results.


And that is a very important thing, since lenses which might not work so
well with a full 35 mm focal plane can be used effectively with the 1.6
cropping of 300D, 10D or D70.

Phil


Tom 06-19-2004 07:18 PM

Re: 50mm "normal" lens with digital SLR? YES! it is STILL 'normal'
 

"john" <john@smith.com> wrote in message
news:eG%Ac.810896$oR5.193432@pd7tw3no...
> Hi folks,
>
> When I was in junior high photography class, we learned about how 50mm
> lenses were considered to be "normal" (ie. not wide-angle or telephoto).
> 50mm was recommended for high quality shots where you could
> zoom-with-your-feet.
>
> With my film SLRs, I always used my 50mm when zooming or wide-angle wasn't
> necessary, and I was very happy.
>
> Now that I've moved to digital SLR, the one lens that I have that isn't
> compatible with my digital camera is the 50mm lens (too old). I've found a
> good 50mm F1.8 for a very good price (less than $100). But the question I
> have is...
>
> With the digital magnification factor, a 50mm lens is pseudo-equivilent to

a
> 75mm. Soooo, is it still a "normal" lens anymore? Is there any real

benefit
> to buying this lens?
>
> Thanks in advance!
> J
>
>



John,

So far all the advice you have been given is flawed.

The 50mm lens does NOT somehow magically become a 80mm lens when you stick
it on a 1.6 crop factor camera. Neither is it a "pseudo-equivalent" as you
state above.

The reason portrait shooters like the short (80 to 105mm or so) teles is
because the short tele has the effect of slightly flattening the image. It
reduces the "Big Nose" syndrome where body parts (like the nose in a
headshot) nearest the lens are exaggerated in size because of the
perspective of the lens.

A 50mm lens gives EXACTLY the same perspective on a 35mm camera, a
medium-format 6x6, a 4x5 press camera, an 8x10 view camera or a digital SLR.
EXACTLY THE SAME.

The multiplication factor in digital SLRs is merely a crop factor, NOT a
lens focal length transmutation device.

Tom



Helge Olsen 06-19-2004 08:58 PM

Re: 50mm "normal" lens with digital SLR?
 

"Kakadu" <nospam@auspics.com> wrote in message
news:2jjgv1F104042U1@uni-berlin.de...
> The real new about the 1.6 magnification factor with DSLRs is that it is

not
> actually a magnification factor at all. It is a *clip* factor. The lens
> resolves exactly the same as if it were on film except the area of the

frame
> capture is smaller. Sort of like using 110 roll film in a 35mm camera.
>
> There are many side effects to this reduction of capture area. Probably

the
> most usable is the fact that lens makers plagued with image fall-off at

the
> corners can now sell their barely usable 35mm lenses as "made for digital"
> and achieve better results.
>
> Another side effect is the reduced capture size effectively clips the

image
> so that a "normal" 50 mm lens will display the area of a 70mm telephoto

lens
> but it will not be a telephoto picture, just one clipped down to capture a
> smaller area of the film/frame.
>
> Kakadu,
> A Photographers paradise.
> -----------------------------


THANK YOU! Finally a person who got the point! Kudos!

/Helge



Tony Spadaro 06-19-2004 09:05 PM

Re: 50mm "normal" lens with digital SLR?
 
It is still a 50mm lens - too short for most portraits. YOu are only
cropping the picture before it is taken.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"john" <john@smith.com> wrote in message
news:eG%Ac.810896$oR5.193432@pd7tw3no...
> Hi folks,
>
> When I was in junior high photography class, we learned about how 50mm
> lenses were considered to be "normal" (ie. not wide-angle or telephoto).
> 50mm was recommended for high quality shots where you could
> zoom-with-your-feet.
>
> With my film SLRs, I always used my 50mm when zooming or wide-angle wasn't
> necessary, and I was very happy.
>
> Now that I've moved to digital SLR, the one lens that I have that isn't
> compatible with my digital camera is the 50mm lens (too old). I've found a
> good 50mm F1.8 for a very good price (less than $100). But the question I
> have is...
>
> With the digital magnification factor, a 50mm lens is pseudo-equivilent to

a
> 75mm. Soooo, is it still a "normal" lens anymore? Is there any real

benefit
> to buying this lens?
>
> Thanks in advance!
> J
>
>





All times are GMT. The time now is 01:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.