Do I need a fast 50mm prime if I already use 40mm and 70mm lenses?
Asked 7/24/2011
3 views
2 answers
0
I shoot with a Pentax K10D and mostly photograph people: kids, portraits, and some street work. My favorite lenses are the DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited and the DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited. I like both a lot for their size and image quality, but sometimes I wish they were faster.
I'm considering a Sigma 50mm f/1.4. It would sit between my 40mm and 70mm, and it offers about two stops more light than the 70mm. But I'm not sure whether it would really add something meaningful to my kit, or if it would overlap too much with the lenses I already have.
For this kind of shooting, is a fast 50mm actually worth it, or should I only buy one if I'm clearly running into low-light or shallow-depth-of-field limits with my current lenses?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
15y ago
2 Answers
61
No, you don't.
In some circles of photography, the 50mm has reached almost cult religion status. It seems to solve everything from focus problems to technique stagnation to global warming. Ask a question about photography, and chances are, someone will recommend a 50mm lens as the solution ("I want to take images of the space station crossing the sun" "The 50mm 1.2 is perfect for this! the narrow depth of field will give you a nice soft focus on the sun's surface")
In reality, for some types of photography, the 50mm is awesome; some portraiture, but more still life and item photography and places where the narrow depth of field can get the image a very strong focal composition. And if you do that kind of photography, then a 50mm is a good lens to add to your kit.
but many of us see no need for it, don't do photography that lends itself to a 50mm, and have no intention of ever buying one. And while we get shunned by some photographers who look in our kit and see the missing slot where a 50mm should go, we don't feel particularly deprived.
There's a lot of "religion" tied to the 50mm left over from the days when prime lenses were significantly better than zooms, when film was slow and cameras were manual and lenses were slower and your choices were limited. Today, it's a lot different landscape than it used to be, and so some of these "givens" aren't really as true as they used to be.
So here's the hint: anyone who tells you to get a 50mm without knowing what kind of photography you do or how you plan on using it is wrong. it's not a panacea, it's not a given it'll improve your photography. It might, depending on your interests.
But it's certainly not a given that you need one.
So here's the question back: what would you use it for? How often are you shooting your existing lenses in the 20-80 range wide open and what are you trying to do then that you find you can't? If you aren't fighting to create an image under those circumstances and failing because your lens won't do what you need to do, then a 50mm probably won't solve the problem you're trying to solve. It might, however, be an interesting lens to add if you want to start exploring new techniques or styles of photography -- but either way, don't buy it because someone said to, buy it because you've analyzed what you're doing, thought about how you'll use it, and decided that it will help you do whatever you are wanting to do with your camera (that your existing gear can't).
I always tell people to never buy gear unless they can explain what that gear will do for them that their existing ear can't (or can't do well, or easily enough). too often we get into gear lust, and too often, that's what ends up gathering dust...
(by the way, if you have an aps sized (or crop) sensor, it's not even a 50mm any more. that works for full frame sensors, but if you have a crop sensor camera, it's about a 35mm lens... 50mm on a crop sensor acts more like an 85mm lens).
Originally by user705. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user705
15y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Probably not by default. A fast 50mm isn’t universally necessary, and its value depends on whether your current lenses are actually limiting you.
Since you already have 40mm and 70mm primes, the main reasons to add a 50mm f/1.4 would be:
- you often want a focal length between those two
- you need better low-light performance
- you specifically want shallower depth of field
The extra speed is real, but shooting at f/1.4 can be tricky, especially with kids or any moving subject. Depth of field gets so thin that focus is easy to miss, so many people end up using a fast 50 closer to f/2–f/2.8 much of the time.
So if you’re not frequently wishing for more light or blur than your 40mm and 70mm provide, a 50mm may be redundant. If you do keep running into those limits, then a fast 50 could make sense—but it should solve a specific problem for you, not just fill the classic “everyone needs a 50mm” slot.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI15y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Best budget fast lens for a Pentax K200D: Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 or a prime?
Why does my Pentax K10D autofocus miss focus, and how can I test for back-focus?
Is the Pentax DA 35mm f/2.4 AL a good starter prime for street and night photography on a K-50?
Is a 24-70mm f/2.8 on a Nikon D90 suitable for a first studio portrait shoot?
Is a 50mm f/1.4 redundant if I already have a 17-50mm f/2.8 zoom?