Why is the 50mm Lens So Popular on APS-C?

dakight · 02-12-2016, 06:05 AM

It's your go-to focal length for situations where you need a little closer look than you could get with a "normal" lens which on APS-C is generally 35-40mm. It's great where you must for one reason or another keep a little more distance and the slimmer DOF helps with subject isolation. Plus everything that was said above, outstanding quality, very easy on the bank account/credit card and an enormous range of choices. I personally have three 50mm lenses including a couple of Ms and a DA plus a 55 from the film era. They are all stellar performers and the most expensive one as about $150 if I remember right. One of the Ms was around $35 and the other ended up being free. (long story).

Igelkotten · 02-12-2016, 06:40 AM - **2 Likes**

I do not use the my 50mm's a lot but I do have several, a bit of LBA I guess, but when I use them I really love the result.
I use my DA 50 for sports/action shots, maybe not so common but for me it works great. The DA 50 is a good compromise between fast focus and shutter speed and not being able to reach the action far away. The 1.8 makes the autofocus work faster/more accurate than using a 2.8 since it lets more light in between the shots in burst mode. Sample shot below is taken in quite poor light condition during the annual reindeer race in Jokkmokk, Sweden, (look it up, it's just above the Arctic Circle)

Good luck with your new lens...

BrianR · 02-12-2016, 06:44 AM

Originally posted by pathdoc

This says it all. Although it depends very much on which restaurant you eat at. McDonald's is technically a restaurant, but unless you're lucky on Craigslist or at a garage sale, I'm not sure you can pick up a good 50mm for less than a Big Mac.

(Sits back and waits for others to detail dirt-cheap acquisitions. Free gifts don't count.)

First, I'd rather eat a 50mm lens than a Big Mac.

Second, my dirt-cheap acquisition list::

a spotmatic+55/1.8 for $20
Mz-50+a50/1.7+k1000+m50/2 for $45

Those are in Canadian dollars. Compare with edible meals only please

.

Igelkotten · 02-12-2016, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by pathdoc

This says it all. Although it depends very much on which restaurant you eat at. McDonald's is technically a restaurant, but unless you're lucky on Craigslist or at a garage sale, I'm not sure you can pick up a good 50mm for less than a Big Mac.

(Sits back and waits for others to detail dirt-cheap acquisitions. Free gifts don't count.)

For less than what a BigMac in Sweden....
I paid less than 3USD for my first M-50mm F1.7 at a flea market, lens was in good but used condition and I have taken some great shots with the lens. I seldom pay more than 10USD for any old M or A prime. I got the M-85mm F2.0 (together with a Tokina RMC 24mm F2.8 and a ME Super Body) for around 35USD, that's a bargin and less than what a decent meal in a half good restaurant would cost over here!!

les3547 · 02-12-2016, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by fredralphfred

I think I read somewhere this is true because the focal length is close to the flangeback distance. Is this accurate (that this makes them easy to make; not that the focal length is close to the flangeback distance)?

I read something along those lines too, but I can't find the article now.

Originally posted by Igelkotten

I use my DA 50 for sports/action shots, maybe not so common but for me it works great. The DA 50 is a good compromise between fast focus and shutter speed and not being able to reach the action far away. The 1.8 makes the autofocus work faster/more accurate than using a 2.8 since it lets more light in between the shots in burst mode.

Yes, I'm trying to get my mind into practical uses in various situations. I Googled "creative uses for 50mm lens" and found a bunch of articles. I think they are mostly for FF, but I'll just move back a little. A few of the many listed:

50 More Fantastic Photos from 50mm Lenses

A Fifty for Creativity

CREATIVE 50MM LENS – BENEFITS AND FANTASTIC PHOTOS

The 50mm f/1.8 – Small Wonder!

The Forgotten Fifty (using my least used lens, the 50mm f1.4)

normhead · 02-12-2016, 08:51 AM

For the same reason I actually preferred 70-85mm on FF.

rjm007 · 02-12-2016, 09:33 AM

All of the above - I think I have five currently (lost count). Once you disappear down the legacy glass rabbit hole the first thing you will find is a nifty fifty - possibly even in your old camera bag. Once you realise that, discover the quality you'd forgotten you're off to the races. First stop - conventional glass - hand over the SMC-M 1.4 , then it's the more esoteric glass - I really must get a Jupiter, Mir or Pancolar. Then you're comparing the relative merits of the the various Helios 44M series. LBA has taken hold by this point of course.

stevebrot · 02-12-2016, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by fg-one

I don't quite understand why one says that 50 mm is ideal for portrait because it is equivalent to 75 mm on FF.

Forget the notion of equivalence and simply go out shooting with one. The obvious in terms of working distance will be readily apparent and the rest will show itself as you review the results. At least, I would hope that would be the case.

Steve

(...you can lead a horse to water...)

stevebrot · 02-12-2016, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by dms

Actually to quote from Morgan and Lester, 1953, "Leica Manual " ... perspective is not determined by the focal length of the lens. Perspective is a function of the viewpont from which the picture is made; the focal length determines only the size of the image, and therefore the amount included in the picture area."

That is a jewel of a quote.

Steve

stevebrot · 02-12-2016, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by fredralphfred

I think I read somewhere this is true because the focal length is close to the flangeback distance. Is this accurate (that this makes them easy to make; not that the focal length is close to the flangeback distance)?

Urban legend...as is the easy to make rumor.

Steve

les3547 · 02-12-2016, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by stevebrot

Urban legend...as is the easy to make rumor.

Probably more likely that it is due to the many years people have shot with the 35mm format and all the practice making the 50mm lens. Interesting history:

Quote:

The Cooke Triplet became the standard "economy" lens of the twentieth century. For example, the Argus Cintar 50mm f/3.5 for the Argus C3 (1937, USA), probably the best-selling rangefinder camera of all time, used a Cooke triplet.

Quote:

It is often incorrectly stated that the Leitz Elmar 50mm f/3.5 fixed to the Leica A (1925, Germany), Leitz's first camera, was a Tessar. However, at the time the Leica was introduced the 50mm f/3.5 Kino Tessar had only been designed to cover the cine format of 18x24mm, which was insufficient for the new 24x36mm format of the Leica, and Leitz had to develop a new lens to provide adequate full frame coverage. It was only when Zeiss Ikon were designing the Contax in response to the success of the Leica that a 50mm Tessar which could cover the 24x36mm format was designed. The Elmar was based on a modified Cooke Triplet with a different computation to the Tessar and with the stop in the first air space.

**Madaboutpix** · 02-12-2016, 12:08 PM

The attraction of the nifty fifty on APS-C? Because there should be a place in photography for fast, inexpensive, lightweight, bokehlicious, great-IQ short-telephoto lenses, I guess.

Since I picked up a DA50 last autumn, it has been so much fun that it has rarely left my K-3, and I'm still finding it hard to believe that the ticket for this performance should have been a mere 109 euros. It may not be as nicely built, but IQ-wise this little gem is easily on par with my DA15 and DA35 Limiteds, no kidding! (All shots with DA50, taken at F3.2, F2.5, F3.5 and F2.8, respectively.)

Michael Barker · 02-12-2016, 12:50 PM - **1 Like**

Short answer: certain types of portrait taking, ones where a shorter focal length has its advantages, happen to be very popular.

A shorter focal length means that you're less cramped for space, and that's important for indoor shots. Shorter focal lengths tend to show off the subject's unique personality more, while longer focal lengths flatten features (granted, though, flattening the features is often more attractive).

50mm lenses are fast for cheap, too, and people are moving subjects by definition. Not to mention, there's little downside to opening up that aperture, since it just isolates the person which is just what you want.

So, casual indoor portraits of moving people in dim light are the "killer app" that makes 50mm lenses so popular, especially since this is a subject that many people have access to and which many people enjoy.

Cheers!

**othar** · 02-12-2016, 07:22 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by les3547

Thanks for the answers, though if the main reason is affordability, surplus, and LBA, that's not the most encouraging news for practical uses. I've used a 90mm for isolating distant landscape spots, so I was hoping the 50 might work that way.

You can isolate certain areas for sure, but if you need a wider field of view you can also stitch images together.
When there are no man made objects in the foreground (quite often at my landscape images) it is easy to stitch images together (e.g. this landscape picture is a combination of 12 handheld images taken with a 50mm lens):

Snowless December by Patrick
But I am sure you will find enough assignments for your new 50mm lens. Be it for landscapes, portraits, cityscapes or night photography there are not many fields of photography a 50mm lens indeed can't be used for.
Bittermann, auf Flickr

les3547 · 02-12-2016, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by othar

You can isolate certain areas for sure, but if you need a wider field of view you can also stitch images together.
When there are no man made objects in the foreground (quite often at my landscape images) it is easy to stitch images together (e.g. this landscape picture is a combination of 12 handheld images taken with a 50mm lens):
Snowless December by Patrick

Nicely done. That's one area of processing I've not explored much. What software did you use?

02-12-2016, 06:44 AM	#33
BrianR Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,332	Originally posted by pathdoc This says it all. Although it depends very much on which restaurant you eat at. McDonald's is technically a restaurant, but unless you're lucky on Craigslist or at a garage sale, I'm not sure you can pick up a good 50mm for less than a Big Mac. (Sits back and waits for others to detail dirt-cheap acquisitions. Free gifts don't count.) First, I'd rather eat a 50mm lens than a Big Mac. Second, my dirt-cheap acquisition list:: a spotmatic+55/1.8 for $20 Mz-50+a50/1.7+k1000+m50/2 for $45 Those are in Canadian dollars. Compare with edible meals only please.

02-12-2016, 11:06 AM	#41
les3547 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Sebastopol, California Photos: Albums Posts: 2,020 Original Poster	Originally posted by stevebrot Urban legend...as is the easy to make rumor. Probably more likely that it is due to the many years people have shot with the 35mm format and all the practice making the 50mm lens. Interesting history: Quote: The Cooke Triplet became the standard "economy" lens of the twentieth century. For example, the Argus Cintar 50mm f/3.5 for the Argus C3 (1937, USA), probably the best-selling rangefinder camera of all time, used a Cooke triplet. Quote: It is often incorrectly stated that the Leitz Elmar 50mm f/3.5 fixed to the Leica A (1925, Germany), Leitz's first camera, was a Tessar. However, at the time the Leica was introduced the 50mm f/3.5 Kino Tessar had only been designed to cover the cine format of 18x24mm, which was insufficient for the new 24x36mm format of the Leica, and Leitz had to develop a new lens to provide adequate full frame coverage. It was only when Zeiss Ikon were designing the Contax in response to the success of the Leica that a 50mm Tessar which could cover the 24x36mm format was designed. The Elmar was based on a modified Cooke Triplet with a different computation to the Tessar and with the stop in the first air space. Last edited by les3547; 02-12-2016 at 12:28 PM.

02-12-2016, 12:50 PM - 1 Like	#43
Michael Barker Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Markham, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 185	Short answer: certain types of portrait taking, ones where a shorter focal length has its advantages, happen to be very popular. A shorter focal length means that you're less cramped for space, and that's important for indoor shots. Shorter focal lengths tend to show off the subject's unique personality more, while longer focal lengths flatten features (granted, though, flattening the features is often more attractive). 50mm lenses are fast for cheap, too, and people are moving subjects by definition. Not to mention, there's little downside to opening up that aperture, since it just isolates the person which is just what you want. So, casual indoor portraits of moving people in dim light are the "killer app" that makes 50mm lenses so popular, especially since this is a subject that many people have access to and which many people enjoy. Cheers! Last edited by Michael Barker; 02-12-2016 at 12:58 PM.

02-12-2016, 07:22 PM - 1 Like	#44
othar Site Supporter Join Date: May 2014 Location: Linz Photos: Albums Posts: 3,098	Originally posted by les3547 Thanks for the answers, though if the main reason is affordability, surplus, and LBA, that's not the most encouraging news for practical uses. I've used a 90mm for isolating distant landscape spots, so I was hoping the 50 might work that way. You can isolate certain areas for sure, but if you need a wider field of view you can also stitch images together. When there are no man made objects in the foreground (quite often at my landscape images) it is easy to stitch images together (e.g. this landscape picture is a combination of 12 handheld images taken with a 50mm lens): Snowless December by Patrick But I am sure you will find enough assignments for your new 50mm lens. Be it for landscapes, portraits, cityscapes or night photography there are not many fields of photography a 50mm lens indeed can't be used for. Bittermann, auf Flickr Last edited by othar; 02-12-2016 at 07:39 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Why are FF images so much more pleasing than APS-C?	chaza01	Pentax Full Frame	259	12-12-2019 10:04 PM
Why is the K-3 so popular?	MyInkIsMyArt	Pentax DSLR Discussion	33	08-20-2015 11:33 AM
When is an APS-C lens not really an APS-C?	lightbox	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	03-27-2015 07:45 PM
Why is Instagram so popular?	ASheffield	Photographic Technique	101	05-25-2013 05:53 PM
Why is Amazon so popular?	pcarfan	General Talk	23	01-19-2010 12:06 PM

02-12-2016, 06:05 AM	#31
dakight Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Phoenix, AZ Photos: Albums Posts: 1,216	It's your go-to focal length for situations where you need a little closer look than you could get with a "normal" lens which on APS-C is generally 35-40mm. It's great where you must for one reason or another keep a little more distance and the slimmer DOF helps with subject isolation. Plus everything that was said above, outstanding quality, very easy on the bank account/credit card and an enormous range of choices. I personally have three 50mm lenses including a couple of Ms and a DA plus a 55 from the film era. They are all stellar performers and the most expensive one as about $150 if I remember right. One of the Ms was around $35 and the other ended up being free. (long story).

02-12-2016, 08:04 AM	#34
Igelkotten New Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Stockholm, Tullinge Posts: 13	Originally posted by pathdoc This says it all. Although it depends very much on which restaurant you eat at. McDonald's is technically a restaurant, but unless you're lucky on Craigslist or at a garage sale, I'm not sure you can pick up a good 50mm for less than a Big Mac. (Sits back and waits for others to detail dirt-cheap acquisitions. Free gifts don't count.) For less than what a BigMac in Sweden.... I paid less than 3USD for my first M-50mm F1.7 at a flea market, lens was in good but used condition and I have taken some great shots with the lens. I seldom pay more than 10USD for any old M or A prime. I got the M-85mm F2.0 (together with a Tokina RMC 24mm F2.8 and a ME Super Body) for around 35USD, that's a bargin and less than what a decent meal in a half good restaurant would cost over here!!

02-12-2016, 08:45 AM	#35
les3547 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Sebastopol, California Photos: Albums Posts: 2,020 Original Poster	Originally posted by fredralphfred I think I read somewhere this is true because the focal length is close to the flangeback distance. Is this accurate (that this makes them easy to make; not that the focal length is close to the flangeback distance)? I read something along those lines too, but I can't find the article now. Originally posted by Igelkotten I use my DA 50 for sports/action shots, maybe not so common but for me it works great. The DA 50 is a good compromise between fast focus and shutter speed and not being able to reach the action far away. The 1.8 makes the autofocus work faster/more accurate than using a 2.8 since it lets more light in between the shots in burst mode. Yes, I'm trying to get my mind into practical uses in various situations. I Googled "creative uses for 50mm lens" and found a bunch of articles. I think they are mostly for FF, but I'll just move back a little. A few of the many listed: 50 More Fantastic Photos from 50mm Lenses A Fifty for Creativity CREATIVE 50MM LENS – BENEFITS AND FANTASTIC PHOTOS The 50mm f/1.8 – Small Wonder! The Forgotten Fifty (using my least used lens, the 50mm f1.4)

02-12-2016, 08:51 AM	#36
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	For the same reason I actually preferred 70-85mm on FF.

02-12-2016, 09:33 AM	#37
rjm007 Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2015 Location: Uxbridge UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 218	All of the above - I think I have five currently (lost count). Once you disappear down the legacy glass rabbit hole the first thing you will find is a nifty fifty - possibly even in your old camera bag. Once you realise that, discover the quality you'd forgotten you're off to the races. First stop - conventional glass - hand over the SMC-M 1.4 , then it's the more esoteric glass - I really must get a Jupiter, Mir or Pancolar. Then you're comparing the relative merits of the the various Helios 44M series. LBA has taken hold by this point of course.

02-12-2016, 10:35 AM	#38
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by fg-one I don't quite understand why one says that 50 mm is ideal for portrait because it is equivalent to 75 mm on FF. Forget the notion of equivalence and simply go out shooting with one. The obvious in terms of working distance will be readily apparent and the rest will show itself as you review the results. At least, I would hope that would be the case. Steve (...you can lead a horse to water...)

02-12-2016, 10:36 AM	#39
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by dms Actually to quote from Morgan and Lester, 1953, "Leica Manual " ... perspective is not determined by the focal length of the lens. Perspective is a function of the viewpont from which the picture is made; the focal length determines only the size of the image, and therefore the amount included in the picture area." That is a jewel of a quote. Steve

02-12-2016, 10:38 AM	#40
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by fredralphfred I think I read somewhere this is true because the focal length is close to the flangeback distance. Is this accurate (that this makes them easy to make; not that the focal length is close to the flangeback distance)? Urban legend...as is the easy to make rumor. Steve

02-12-2016, 07:56 PM	#45
les3547 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Sebastopol, California Photos: Albums Posts: 2,020 Original Poster	Originally posted by othar You can isolate certain areas for sure, but if you need a wider field of view you can also stitch images together. When there are no man made objects in the foreground (quite often at my landscape images) it is easy to stitch images together (e.g. this landscape picture is a combination of 12 handheld images taken with a 50mm lens): Snowless December by Patrick Nicely done. That's one area of processing I've not explored much. What software did you use?