Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > 50mm lens still valuable on DSLRs?

Reply
Thread Tools

50mm lens still valuable on DSLRs?

 
 
hotchkisstrio
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-09-2005
Just inquiring for thoughts and opinions on this. Whether its Canon or
Nikon or whatever seems 50mm lense with great f-stops (usually f1. 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.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Fitpix
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-10-2005

"hotchkisstrio" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:d0o13l$csi$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Just inquiring for thoughts and opinions on this. Whether its Canon or
> Nikon or whatever seems 50mm lense with great f-stops (usually f1. 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!


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-10-2005

"hotchkisstrio" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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. 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




 
Reply With Quote
 
hotchkisstrio
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-10-2005
> 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:d0o4h0$ui4$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "hotchkisstrio" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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. 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
>
>
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-10-2005
In message <d0o4h0$ui4$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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 <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
Krystian Polak
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-10-2005
> 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



 
Reply With Quote
 
Jim
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-10-2005

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> 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


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jim
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-10-2005

"Krystian Polak" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:d0o7hs$o78$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > 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


 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-10-2005

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In message <d0o4h0$ui4$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> "David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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



 
Reply With Quote
 
larrylook
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-10-2005

"Krystian Polak" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:d0o7hs$o78$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > 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...ADME:B:WN:US:1


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Another question - How to convert medium format lens to equivalencyof a 50mm normal lens (35mm camera) in APS-C digital cameras aniramca@gmail.com Digital Photography 13 05-31-2009 10:02 PM
New Lens Comparison: Nikon 50mm 1.4D vs. 50mm 1.4G M-M Digital Photography 14 03-22-2009 02:32 PM
Re: 50mm 1.4 vs 50mm 1.8 Bob Williams Digital Photography 1 01-13-2009 02:41 PM
Re: 50mm lens still valuable on DSLRs? PCR Digital Photography 13 03-11-2005 09:34 AM
Will the exam 70-016 still be valuable after next june? XIntegerX MCSD 0 11-09-2003 08:56 PM



Advertisments