Forgotten in its old age

by Aditya

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Take the 2-minute tour ×
Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Comparing the two lenses for an APS-C sensor:

  1. EF50mm f/1.8
  2. EF35mm f/2

here

Leaving out cost as a factor, EF 35mm has the following advantages:

  • 43 degree while 50mm has 31 degree
  • Its equally fast with f/2 comparing f/1.8
  • Can make total kit compact with single lens than with 50mm and another wide angle lens.

Even after these advantages why do some people prefer 50mm as their 2nd lens to kit lens?

share|improve this question
8  
This is speculative. Focal length is a personal choice. I consider myself people :) and I prefer a 35mm. Any generalized preference would probably be based on price. –  Itai Aug 22 '12 at 14:50
1  
possible duplicate of Why is the 50mm prime lens the most standard? –  mattdm Aug 22 '12 at 14:51
    
4  
Those are advantages? It's wider than I like, not quite as fast, and it doesn't take up as much room as two lenses (one of which you only imagine I'd carry)? –  user2719 Aug 22 '12 at 16:22

4 Answers 4

50mm F/1.8 is recommended due to the practical FOV (on full frame), and the aperture gives you a fast lens, you can use indoors with low light, and you also get to play around with narrow depth of field which is nice for focusing on a subject and blurring the background. However, in your aps-c camera you need 28mm or 35mm to get the practical FOV close to 50mm on fullframe. Then there's also the matter of perspective "distortions" related to the FOV, which is important in making faces look natural. The 28mm might be on the lower threshold for that. But the 35mm will make the lens less practical in every day shooting (I once used the 28mm on a holiday and found that even that was slightly too narrow).

Have a look at this 28mm option, which I actually choose as my "fast fixed focal lens":

28mm F/1.8 with USM focus

It has the same FOV as a ~50mm on fullframe (on the low side, while 35mm is on equally close on the high side.), fast USM focus, it also has a better "bokeh" with 7 blades and it is razor sharp.

share|improve this answer

f/2 vs. f/1.8 clearly isn't an advantage for the 35mm. The most you can say is that the advantage of f/1.8 over f/2 is small enough that it rarely matters much. There's no room for question that the 50mm wins in this respect though. The only question is whether it's a big enough win to care much about.

43 vs. 31 degree FoV is (IMO) pretty close to neutral. A wider angle may favor your shooting style, but that's certainly not universal. If there was a preference here, I'd say it leans in favor of a longer lens, especially for beginners -- beginners are often shy about approaching subjects as closely as would be ideal; a longer lens can help compensate for that to at least some degree. Of beginners pictures I've looked at, I'd say too loose of composition was a problem at least five times as often as too tight of cropping.

Making the total kit compact again seems to be mostly treating your own shooting style as how the world works. If I had to use APS-C with only two primes, I can see 50mm as one of the choices a lot more easily than 35mm. 50mm is long enough to use as the "long" lens for quite a few purposes (i.e., most things other that sports and wildlife). You can pair it with, say, a 24mm and cover quite a bit reasonably well. With 35mm, you nearly need both shorter and longer focal lengths, so your minimum becomes a three-lens set, so the 50mm wins again.

In the end, I think it mostly comes down to shooting style -- both what sort of subject matter you like to shoot, and how you like to shoot it.

I should probably add that on APS-C, most primes never really feel "right", at least to me. Maybe it's just because I shot film for so long, but none of them ever seems to really give the right "feel" for most pictures. For example, portraits with a 50mm either end up a bit loose or else overemphasize people's noses too much. With the 85mm, you end up having to back away so far that even though the subject fills the frame, there's much less feeling of immediacy and connection -- to me it's more like a really good wildlife photo than a portrait.

share|improve this answer
4  
And just to add to the preference and vision pile, I find the intimacy of a 50 on a 1.5x crop better than the ever-so-slightly more distant 85-90mm lens on a 35mm/full-frame camera, and the 85 (crop; 135 on full-frame) is a great lens for the "we haven't been properly introduced yet" point of view. I owned a few 50s in my 35mm days (Pentax screw, K, Minolta MD, Nikon), and the only time they ever got used was in "available darkness" since they were usually a stop or two faster than anything else in the bag. It's just not a FOV that works for me. –  user2719 Aug 22 '12 at 19:04
    
@StanRogers: One fact probably reveals how much use I get from 50mm: I have a 35/1.4 and an 85/1.4 -- but have never gotten a 50/1.4, only the cheapest version (f/1.7 or f/1.8) and a few macros. –  Jerry Coffin Aug 22 '12 at 19:21

I suppose the cost factor is a heavy one here. The 35mm lens model costs thrice as much as the 50mm lens.

share|improve this answer
  • The 50mm is a simpler design compared to the retrofocus 35mm, as such it's much cheaper and slightly sharper.

  • 50mm on an APS-C body corresponds to about 80mm on full frame, which is a very popular focal length for portraits. The kit lens covers the wide angle needs so sometimes a longer prime makes a good companion, for tighter compositions with blurred backgrounds.

  • Having a single focal length of 35mm is not that much more useful than having a single focal length of 50mm, compared to having a prime plus a zoom.

share|improve this answer
1  
The fact of 35mm being retrofocus is only true on an SLR. Most mirrorless cameras with APS-C sensor have 35mm or even shorter lenses that need not be retrofocus. –  Itai Aug 22 '12 at 19:16
2  
@Itai It's true that 35mm lenses for systems with shorter registration distances don't have to be retrofocal however interestingly they often employ a mild retrofocal group at the rear as it helps with vignetting when the rear element is so close to the sensor. –  Matt Grum Aug 22 '12 at 21:19

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.