Comment by solardev | Hacker News Reader

Comment by solardev | Hacker News Reader

These aren't dead! You can still find a variety of fast 50mm lenses, from a cheap f/1.8 for like $150 (which is still way better than most kit lenses) to a very nice f/1.4 upgrade at like $400 all the way to absurdly expensive ones.

https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/premium-50mm-le...

Their primary advantages:

* Amazing "bokeh" -- the quality and look of the background blur that modern phones mostly try to emulate using computational photography and maybe lidar depth sensing; but the blur effect is simulated in software vs being an actual artifact of the lens construction and aperture

* Incredibly fast, good for dimly-lit conditions or action photography

* Fine-grained control over depth of field makes the subject stand out beautifully

* Teaches you to move your body and camera around to find the perfect framing, instead of standing still in one place and using the zoom. This can often make for more interesting compositions and angles.

* Usually much lighter, especially if you go with an APS-C sized sensor in a mirrorless

Negatives:

* No zoom means you have to be able to get close to the subject. Hard to do with wildlife, some sports, etc.

* One more lens to carry around

--------------

The 50mm is so much fun to shoot. Get one!

50mm fixed is a mainstay for many, many photographers - even professionals. When I started shooting all of my teachers/mentors pushed me to get a fast 50mm as a first lens due to the versatility and affordability. If you're doing anything with portraiture it's a must-have IMO.

I can't live without mine!

I have a Sigma 30mm 1.4 in Fuji X-Mount (https://www.sigmaphoto.com/30mm-f1-4-dc-dn-c), which is ~45mm full-frame equivalent (FFE), and it's one of the most cost-effective lenses in existence, given its quality relative to its price.

The downside around the "perfect framing" is that focal length will change perspective: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photog... (take a head a shoulders portrait of yourself with a 20mm and then 85mm lens to see). Almost all professional photographers who need to get the shot have moved to zooms for good reason.

Focal length doesn't do anything to perspective. Perspective is dependent on the location (distance) relative to subject.

Different focal lengths will make you want to change your position, to get the entire subject in frame, or, conversely, to get more details. Then you will change your perspective.

>Focal length doesn't do anything to perspective. Perspective is dependent on the location (distance) relative to subject.

That's a pedantic way to put it, in the sense that someone says "it's not the fall that hurts you, it's hitting the ground". Sure, but not very usefull. It's the same if you add the extra parameter of "changing the position" into the matter of focal lens vs perspective.

Another way to see it is that if you stand in the same place and point to the same thing, a larger focal length will do compress the perspective more.

> if you stand in the same place and point to the same thing, a larger focal length

What will happen then?

> will do compress the perspective more.

Beep! Wrong! That's why I'm pedantic about the topic. Try it yourself with a zoom lens. The right answer is:

"will capture a smaller angle of the same scene."

No perspective change. Ignoring details coming from resolution, you might as well crop the picture.

> Almost all professional photographers who need to get the shot have moved to zooms for good reason.

Nitpick: I imagine you mean telephotos, not zooms.

What ? Why ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephoto_lens

A 30mm zoom would give the same perspective as a 30mm prime. I think the parent post was talking about telephoto vs wide-angle perspective distortion, not zoom vs prime.

Lots of pros moved to zooms, 2x-7x f2.8 are pretty common for example

A telephoto lens isn't the opposite of a wide angle lens, it's a type of design for lenses with long focal lengths, not all long lenses are of telephoto design

Absolutely agree, but have to add a small nitpick:

50mm primes used to be lightweight. The trend is towards Sigma Art / Zeiss Milvus/Otus dimensions, and that means much better edge sharpness but ~1kg in weight.

Let me second that.

Besides perhaps the Canon 50mm f/1.8, 50mm lens are big now. Like a grapefruit on the front of your camera, to the extent it kinda obviates the size reduction in mirrorless bodies—slimmer body, and a giant lens.

There are reasons for that. If you’re buying an interchangeable lens camera, you are probably after image quality, and the new generation of lenses are phenomenal. I am not sure if you’d call this Nikon cheap, but it blows away all their previous offerings. (https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount-lenses/nikkor-lenses/nik...)

You can still buy cheap and light ones, no?

The Leica M 50/1.4 is still around 300g and a great lens.

But indeed, as the sensor resolution of 35mm cameras exceeds many classic medium format cameras, the best lenses have grown accordingly to serve that resolution. To me, the Leica M system stayed mostly true to the 35mm cameras of the film age. The other alternative in my eyes is mFT which offers great "digital" lenses in the size of small classic 35mm lenses.

This isn't true. Lens which optimize for performance at the cost of size are becoming more mainstream. But that isn't to say that this is the trend for the market as a whole. We're simply seeing more options.

Take Sony for example. They have their large 50 1.2 and 1.4, but they also have several small lenses: the insane 55 1.8, the 1.8, the 2.5G, and the 2.8 macro.

And you can go smaller still if you go the manual focus only route, e.g. the even more impressive CV 50 f2 APO.

The Canon EF 40mm f2.8 is fun lens for DSLRs but with adapter to mirrorless bodies, the adapter eats the small size benefit as with the other small SLR-era lenses.

Sony has been keeping the mirrorless full-frame lenses quite small. The old Sony 55mm f1.8 (which I count to be in the class of 50 mms) is still sensibly sized (less than 300 grams) although a bit prone to flares but otherwise quite close to Otus class sharpness.

And then there's the Sony's 50mm F1.2 GM halo product which is still less than 800 grams. It seems that they are pushing down the weight at the same time they are improving the image quality.

Sigma's lenses are a lot of cheaper than Sony's GM lenses but they are bigger and heavier in many cases and in some cases they are still are old designs for DSLRs.

Agreed, there are a number of these that are fast and considered high quality.

Canon had/has some great 1.8 50mm (and pancake 40mm) lenses. I kept my 50 when I moved to mirrorless and it's long been my go-to.

Yep. The Nikon 50mm 1.8 is such a steal and provides for amazing photos.

I love my 50mm f/1.8. I've used it so much over the years and it produces beautiful shots. I also have an old 50mm f/1.4 (which can be had for a steal[0]) and while it's nowhere near as sharp, it has a really dreamy quality about it.

[0] https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/product/nikon-af-nikkor-50mm-f-1-4...

Nice! I had a couple of the older Nikon lenses. A few were manual and one was auto focus. I’ll have to keep the vintage 1.4 in mind. Thanks!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com