50 mm prime lens

[jenbeat1]

Can the Canon EF 50 f/1.8 II Lens be used for macro as well, or would you recommend getting a seperate macro lens?

Thanks!!!

 

[boBQuincy]

The "nifty fifty" can be used for macro work (as can many other lenses) with close-up filters or extension tubes *but* these lenses are not optimized for macro.

Some of it may have to do with the lens to subject distance, which should be greater than the lens to sensor distance on most lenses. Macro lenses are made to work well in this range.
To correct this there are lens reversers that keep the ratio correct on a non macro lens.

Short answer, it's an inexpensive way to get macro but not as good as a dedicated macro lens. If you are somewhat serious at least get Canon's doublet close up lens adapters, like the 500D. Once you see the price of these an inexpensive macro lens starts looking better all the time!

 

[oogieboogieman]

I have been looking for a 50 mm 1.7 for my Sony Alpha 100. I found several on keh.com but I don't know what the difference is. I get the difference in the condition of the lenses, but the description of the lens has 3 different things listed.

1. 50 F 1.7 (49) 35 mm SLR AF
2. 50 F 1.7 (xx) 35 mm SLR AF
3. 50 F 1.7 I (49) 35 mm SLR AF

Anybody have any insight? Thanks!

 

[ukcatfan]

They are probably all the same. The (49) is the filter size.

Kevin

 

[Khokhonutt]

I'd just give them a call. I had similar questions when I was getting a lens from them. They were able to answer everything about each lens. Some come with hoods, some without, etc and they can fill you in on the phone.

 

[MICKEY88]

I have been looking for a 50 mm 1.7 for my Sony Alpha 100. I found several on keh.com but I don't know what the difference is. I get the difference in the condition of the lenses, but the description of the lens has 3 different things listed.

1. 50 F 1.7 (49) 35 mm SLR AF
2. 50 F 1.7 (xx) 35 mm SLR AF
3. 50 F 1.7 I (49) 35 mm SLR AF

Anybody have any insight? Thanks!

I'm guessing that #2 is an early version of the lens,

originally Minolta Maxxum had the X's crossed like Exxon gas,

Exxon sued for trademark infringement and Minolta redid the name seperating the X's

 

[manning]

Just wondering. Some DSLR cameras have full size 35mm sensors and some have sensors were you multiply the lens size by 1.6 to get the size the size you are shooting in.

I noticed a few canon owners make reference that the shot was taken with the 50mm 1.8f lens. Is the picture a true 50mm or 80mm?

 

[VVFF]

Just wondering. Some DSLR cameras have full size 35mm sensors and some have sensors were you multiply the lens size by 1.6 to get the size the size you are shooting in.

I noticed a few canon owners make reference that the shot was taken with the 50mm 1.8f lens. Is the picture a true 50mm or 80mm?

The picture was obviously still take with a 50mm lens but the field of view represented in the picture is that of a 80mm lens as you guessed.

 

[Chikabowa]

Canon has a crop factor of 1.6 (someone correct me if I'm wrong).
Nikon has a crop factor of 1.5.

So if you are shooting with a 50mm lens on a cropped body, then essentially you are shooting at 75mm or 80mm respectively.

If you are shooting a 50mm lens on a full-frame body (equivalent of 35mm film), then you are shooting a true 50mm.

Hope that helps!

 

[boBQuincy]

There is no multiplication, 50 is 50. Take a photo of the moon with the 50mm on a full frame camera, then move the lens to a 1.6x camera and take another photo of the moon. The image projected on the sensors will be the same (except the cropped one will have less sky around it) and if the pixel pitch is the same then the size of the moon image (in pixels) will be the same as well. 50 is still 50 and the magnification is still the same. All we get from the full frame is more of the image but the size of the objects in the image is identical on the two cameras.

If the pixel pitch is *not* the same on the two cameras then the image size *in pixels* is no longer the same but the physical size of the image projected on the sensor is still the same. Where the whole 1.6 multiplication started may be that we tend to enlarge the image from either camera to the same size when we print them. Making an 8 x 10 print from the two cameras we will obviously enlarge the cropped image more, making objects look larger. In reality we could do the same just by enlarging a portion of the image from the full frame.

This idea will continue to be debated as long as there are cropped sensor cameras (which now looks like it will be a very long time) but there really is no debate, the mathematics show the facts.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I'm with Bob on this one. A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens. The optics are identical regardless of what camera you put it on. The difference is that the smaller sensor records a smaller portion of the image. That results in a smaller field of view.

Few people view or print their images based on the size of the sensor that captured them. A 4x6 print is a 4x6 print, regardless of whether you used a "full frame" or an APS-C sensor. Because the APS-C sensor is smaller, the image must be magnified more.

So what is affected by the crop and what isn't?

Field of View - Directly affected by sensor size.

DOF - Depends on the focal length and aperture, not the sensor size. If you want the same FoV, you'll need a shorter focal length on an APS-C sized sensor camera. A shorter focal length will result in more DOF.

Flash coverage - Depends on FoV, so it is directly affected by sensor size.

 

[mabas9395]

but there really is no debate, the mathematics show the facts.

But as H. Simpson said "Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true."

 

[AbbysFamily]

This is ALWAYs an interesting discussion, and Bob and Mark make good points from a purely technical point of view. However, to me the moon is a bad example of why there is debate about 50mm being "always 50" or being "80 on a crop sensor".

To me a better example is a closer item (say the Epcot Ball!). To many (dare I say most?) people the 50mm is a number that EQUATES to field of view for them. Put two people the same distance from the Ball (say just enough to fill the from on a 50mm with full frame sensor). The same 50mm on the crop sensor won't give them the whole object. It just like they had a full sensor camera and an 80mm lens. To them if they want the whole object they need to back up (zoom with feet) or assuming its not a prime lens go to 35mm (ish).

So 50mm may be 50mm may be 50mm, but drop it onto a crop body and the effect is different than a non-crop body.

My 2 cents....

 

[boBQuincy]

But as H. Simpson said "Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true."

And while we are quoting the great philosophers, another one (short and green) said "Size matters not!" (with regard to crop sensors).

 

[manning]

Let me see if I got it.

A 50mm is a 50mm However when you take a picture on a full frame camera and print it the picture looks like it was taken with a 50mm lens.

Take the same lens and take a picture on an aps-c sensor camera and print the picture it looks like it was taken with an 80mm lens.

Right?

So if I want a picture taken with an aps-c sensor to look like the one taken with the full frame camera I would have to use a lens that is about 30mm.

 

[AbbysFamily]

Let me see if I got it.

A 50mm is a 50mm However when you take a picture on a full frame camera and print it the picture looks like it was taken with a 50mm lens.

Take the same lens and take a picture on an aps-c sensor camera and print the picture it looks like it was taken with an 80mm lens.

Right?

So if I want a picture taken with an aps-c sensor to look like the one taken with the full frame camera I would have to use a lens that is about 30mm.

Bingo! All things relative its about Field of View when your comparing results without cropping, etc. When they say that a 50mm is a 50mm is if you ignore the FOV (crop) then the perspective of the picture will look the same. For example - cropping a ton (assuming you have enough pizels) off a 50mm picture to 'pretend' to be a 200mm won't look the same. A real 200mm lens will make objects appear closer together.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Let me see if I got it.

A 50mm is a 50mm However when you take a picture on a full frame camera and print it the picture looks like it was taken with a 50mm lens.

Take the same lens and take a picture on an aps-c sensor camera and print the picture it looks like it was taken with an 80mm lens.

Right?

So if I want a picture taken with an aps-c sensor to look like the one taken with the full frame camera I would have to use a lens that is about 30mm.

Almost. It would be more accurate to say that a picture taken with a 50mm lens on an APS-C camera will look like a picture taken with a 50mm lens on a full frame camera with the outer part of the picture cut off and the remaining part enlarged. The DOF is the same in both cases but the FOV is smaller for the APS-C camera. You'll also be magnifying any lens flaws with the APS-C camera.

Bingo! All things relative its about Field of View when your comparing results without cropping, etc. When they say that a 50mm is a 50mm is if you ignore the FOV (crop) then the perspective of the picture will look the same. For example - cropping a ton (assuming you have enough pizels) off a 50mm picture to 'pretend' to be a 200mm won't look the same. A real 200mm lens will make objects appear closer together.

Don't confuse perspective with focal length. If you stand in one spot and take two pictures, one with a 50mm lens and one with a 200mm lens, the perspective will be the same but the field of view will be different. If you magnify the 50mm shot so that the common subject area in both shots is the same size, they'll have the same exact perspective.

The "telephoto effect" of visually compressing the distant between objects and, conversely, the "wide angle effect" of making nearby objects look much larger than distant objects is not caused directly by the focal length. The effects are caused by your distance from the subject. Focal length gets blamed/credited for the effect because people tend to take pictures of things far away with long focal lengths and of things nearby with short focal lengths.

 

[10dedfish]

Well everyone,

I plan on picking up a nifty 50 for my canon today, and was wondering what I can expect from it? For those who dont know, a nifty fifty is a 50mm F1.8 lens.

Is it the best all round lens, or should I carry my 18-55 as well? Thoughts, suggestions?

Matt

 

[saturndb]

I picked up a used one about a year ago and it is a good lens for the price. A new one is about $100.00 and you can get a used one for about $50 -$75 dollars. I would not consider that the best all around lens, if you are referring to a everyday walk around lens. Since it is a fixed focal lens you will find that it has it's limitations. Though it does depend on what you like to photograph. I would carry the 18-55 as well, since it is a light lens, why not have it incase you want to use it.

 

[KarenAylwood]

I don't think I'd use the nifty fifty as an all around lens- I like shots more on the wide end of the spectrum for the most part. I have the Sigma 30mm (on my Canon XSi- also crop camera) and love it. I even wish I had a little more room sometimes- and I think it's about the equivalent of a 50mm on a full frame body.

I'd definitely bring your 17-55 as an "all around" lens (my walkaround lens is the 18-200, hopefully the 24-105 soon!). The 50mm is going to be great for shallow DOF shots, portraits, and low light situations.