[jatrax]

I suppose that my not caring about what other photographers have to say about my choice of gear might then speak to my liking of prime lenses, and the standard lens in particular?

Hmm. Not sure we disagree on anything here. You like primes and standard lenses. I don't particularly feel the need. Neither of us has the same use case or opinion. And I don't think I said anything about your choice of gear. I certainly did not intend to. The OP's question was why you like the 50mm prime. I answered. So did you.

Perhaps you took exception to my saying that a 50mm prime was not always better than a good, modern zoom, despite that being "common knowledge". That's just my opinion of course. And if you want to compare the DFA 50mm to the DFA 24-70 I'll assume the 50mm will win and not argue. But blindly saying all 50mm primes are better than all zooms, which is often tossed out as fact, is I think not really true. Just my opinion of course.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Preferring the 50mm? The most boring lens in the world? I mean. . . why the heck would anyone do that?

Give me a 35mm any day (or a 24mm on APS-C). Then it's f/8, zone focus and. . . wait for the moment.

[ZombieArmy]

I rather like 50mm on film. They're fast, they are flattering, they don't get you in too close nor too far. To me they're a jack of all trades and it simplifies the process even more with film not having to worry about the gear but just the joy of the photographic process. They might not be exciting but that's to their strength if I'd say so myself.

---------- Post added 09-29-21 at 12:36 PM ----------

Preferring the 50mm? The most boring lens in the world? I mean. . . why the heck would anyone do that?

Give me a 35mm any day (or a 24mm on APS-C). Then it's f/8, zone focus and. . . wait for the moment.

Most 35mms lack character in my opinion. The only 35mm I've really liked that I've tried so far is the Auto Tak 35mm f2.3. A slightly distant second to the Super Tak 35 f3.5.

Although the Auto Tak is on the "never ever ever sell" list right along with the 50mm 8 element super tak.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Most 35mms lack character in my opinion. The only 35mm I've really liked that I've tried so far is the Auto Tak 35mm f2.3.

I can wholeheartedly agree about the Auto Tak. It's a dream lens that I've never owned but would love to. If you ever get a chance at the original Super Takumar 35mm/2.0 with the 67mm filter ring, go for it. Then you'll wonder: how on earth can two lenses of the same focal length with almost the same maximum aperture produce such totally different renderings?

[ZombieArmy]

I can wholeheartedly agree about the Auto Tak. It's a dream lens that I've never owned but would love to. If you ever get a chance at the original Super Takumar 35mm/2.0 with the 67mm filter ring, go for it. Then you'll wonder: how on earth can two lenses of the same focal length with almost the same maximum aperture produce such totally different renderings?

I think my ultimate photography goal is to collect as many different variants of Taks as I can. The K lenses are great and all but I didn't experience true character in lenses till I started collecting Taks.

Can't wait till I can experience the OG 35/2.

[DonV]

I suppose that my not caring about what other photographers have to say about my choice of gear might then speak to my liking of prime lenses, and the standard lens in particular?

Why would anyone care about what someone else says about their gear?

[gofour3]

Instead of rehashing the many reason(s) that you agree with, as to why you think the nifty fifty is a must have lens for an SLR photographer at any level, please share your thoughts here.

The 50's I mostly use now are the K/A50/1.2's, pretty well always wide open for the bokeh.

Phil.

[BigMackCam]

I have a few fifties in K-mount - the FA50 f/1.4, DA50 f/1.8, and maybe half a dozen manual focus models, both Pentax and third-party. Then there are my Soviet M42 fifties...

On APS-C, they're nice for portraiture, but I don't shoot a lot of portraits, so... I do like 50mm on full-frame and find it quite versatile, but always wish it was just a little wider. I don't own the FA43 but can see why folks would love its field of view. My favourite focal length on APS-C is 28mm, which is equivalent to 42mm on full-frame - essentially the same as the FA43.

I'd happily shoot with a 50mm on either APS-C or full-frame, and occasionally do... but it's not a favourite FoV for me on either format.

I will say, I love a 50mm macro lens on APS-C - more so than either my DA35 Limited or D FA100 WR - in terms of working distance...

[Wheatfield]

Perhaps you took exception to my saying that a 50mm prime was not always better than a good, modern zoom, despite that being "common knowledge". .

Usually when that old nag gets trotted out its to set up a strawman.
When that phrase was first said, it was comparing contemporaneous primes to what were, in the 1970s, the zoom lenses of the day.

Now it seems to get dragged out any time someone wants to defend modern zooms by pretending it's valid to compare a modern computer designed zoom against a 1960s East German craotastuc uncoated 50mm lens.

In other words nowadays, the phrase is usually used dishonestly.

---------- Post added Sep 29th, 2021 at 11:42 AM ----------

Why would anyone care about what someone else says about their gear?

Ask jatrax, he said it, not me.

[Kozlok]

I only shoot APS-C, and I prefer the 43 most of the time. I have a Tak 50 I quite like, but it's more due to its old-fashioned rendering which just looks different than a modern lens. (it's the 8 Element version). I also like my Pancolar 50, but again mostly due to special rendering rather than focal length.

[UncleVanya]

I used 50mm for many many years as my only owned lens for my Nikon FT3. I got really good making that one angle of view work for me.

Any lens between 40 and 60mm (or an equivalent focal length to yield the angle of view ) is pretty natural but can be boring unless you learn to see that way. I find I tend to like a little longer or narrower more often than right at 50, but honestly I can make it work even bang on 50.

[StiffLegged]

Anyone that's read a fair amount of photographic magazines, journals, or websites have certainly come across dozens of articles and 1,001 reasons why the 50mm prime is, or should be, in every camera bag.

Michael, you should always be aware of photo mag fluff or website piffle; just because they keep saying that doesn't make it true. The 50mm lens has been a staple of 35mm photography for historical reasons and it all started with Leica – when Zeiss and the rest weighed in they produced the same recipe of 35mm film bodies with 50mm lenses as the standard package. I presume 50mm was chosen because it gave a useful angle of view without being too difficult to design and make. Fast forward to the heyday of 35mm film cameras and they all came with, or offered a choice of 50mm or near-50mm lenses. Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Contax, Yashica, Minolta, Leica, you name it, they all had a 50ish standard lens, even the Soviet era Zenit-E with the 58mm Helios.

Some say the fifty most closely approximates the view of the human eye, but that's a simplistic answer to a complex question: we can see much wider than 90 degrees but what our attention is on might occupy only a few degrees. Try this – stand 30 feet from the back of a car, look fixedly at a brake light and try to read the number plate: you can't do it, but a 50mm lens on film or full frame easily resolves both in a single photo. Alternatively, try photographing a clear, moonless night sky with a standard lens and you'll get a disappointingly narrow section of the expanse your eye easily appreciates.

In film days I carried a bag with 24, 35, 50, 105 and 200mm lenses for my Spotmatics but the lens I used most was easily the 35mm, the least used was the 50. Nowadays I shoot APS-C and although I have a film-era 50mm f/1,7 SMC-M in a corner somewhere, it's hardly ever used since it's usually not wide or long enough for what I look at to photograph. I keep it in case I want to focus pretty close, but I generally wouldn't miss it if left in the cupboard. The 35-105 A is easily my most used lens, often at around 70mm.

Some photographers love the fifty, others don't, and buying a lens because a magazine says you must have one is silly. We don't all concentrate our efforts on bokeh-filled portraiture, so we don't all have 85mm f/1.4 lenses, do we? Nor do we all leave a 12mm ultrawide permanently fixed to capture another epic ultrawide puddle-and-mountains-at-sunset image. Get the lens you have a use for.

[jatrax]

Usually when that old nag gets trotted out its to set up a strawman.

Ok, if you want to argue I'll surrender. Whatever you say is correct. I don't want to argue. I just made a comment that I thought was appropriate to the OP. Sorry I bothered to type anything. All I meant was that stating a generality is not always correct. Generally this is a friendly forum with good discussion. Maybe not today so I'll go do something else.

[MossyRocks]

except some occasional landscape / astro shots. So for me, a fast prime is nothing but a status symbol.

For astro shooting fast primes are great, unless you are doing some ultrawide field astro shooting where tracking isn't super critical and can get away with the aperture vs exposure time trade off. If I wanted to show off around other shooters I will go and get my more exotic glass like a 12mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.2, 135mm f/2, or 400mm f/2.8 but those mostly come out to play in the dark.

Now back on topic for every one else. I always like 55mm and 50mm on my spotmatic but for the most part on APS-C it just never really clicked until I tried the A 50/1.2 and there is was the rendering it offered that I fell in love with. Beyond that I find a fast 50/1.4 or better to be a good astro lens if one wants to go can chase some larger areas of the night sky so you can get the North American nebula and Veil Nebula in the same shot, or have the bulk of the interesting stuff in Orion all in one shot but for me it doesn't seem like it is a must have lens. That said a 50mm lens has been a solved problem for a long time and even fast ones are fairly inexpensive so for a lot of people it offers a huge jump in quality and speed over the standard kit lens. Being a normal focal length with fairly low distortion also allows one to focus on seeing when taking a picture which is a skill that really needs to be developed. So instead of saying a 50mm is a key lens I would say a normal lens is a key lens be it a 58, 55, 50, 43, 40, 35, 31. 30, or 28 (FF or APS-C).

[Wheatfield]

... So instead of saying a 50mm is a key lens I would say a normal lens is a key lens be it a 58, 55, 50, 43, 40, 35, 31. 30, or 28 (FF or APS-C).

When I read the OP I read 50mm lens as standard lens. Having said that, the 50 Is a fairly decent short telephoto on APS-C with about the same AOV as the 77LTD on full frame.
A lens like the A50/1.2 is as nice a lens on APS-C as the 77 is on full frame.