50mm, The best-worst focal length
Picture this, you’re a new photographer and after you’ve got your camera and kit lens, you're looking for the next best lens to level up your photography. You look online and see what everyone recommends. One thing pops up repeatedly: nifty-fifty, nifty-fifty, nifty-fifty. It’s everywhere.
It’s got flexibility, it’s a great starter prime, it’s affordable, it gives you room to grow, etc. It’s all true, and who am I to argue against everyone? 50mm is a great lens for new photographers to pick up and get a nice step up from those kit lenses. So what’s up with this blog post? Well…
I can't stand the 50mm focal length. And that goes for some of the super close adjacents as well (52, 55, 45, etc.).
This would come as a surprise to many photographers as this is the quintessential neutral lens. Even if it isn’t the best lens for each scenario, if you brought a 50mm lens with you, there’s basically no situation where you can’t get a good photo.
It’s pretty true to life, if you want something accurate then there’s no better option, additionally, every manufacturer has their own version of a “nifty-fifty” (usually 50mm f/1.8) that is designed to be affordable. The versatility is real, but I think there has become a mindless expectation with photographers automatically recommending this lens. If we really consider the main reasons we love 50mm, especially 50 f/1.8, there’s much more to the conversation than people let on, particularly with modern lenses where everything is good.
Shot on the Super Takumar 50 f/1.4
Affordability: For someone brand new to photography, it can be a hard pill to swallow that some lenses cost just as much if not more than the camera body. So often people turn to the 50mm focal length because it is typically the cheapest upgrade from a kit lens. However, I think the idea that 50mm is cheap implies there aren’t cheap lenses at different focal lengths as well. For example, let’s take 35mm. It’s just as common as 50, and you can find affordable lenses in this focal length as well. Checking the E-mount, Tamron and Rokinon both make affordable 35mm f/2.8 lenses that are in the same price point as the nifty-fifty. Sure they aren’t able to open up quite to that f/1.8, but you gain so much character at 35mm that is lacking at 50mm. Additionally, both are AF lenses so you could get even cheaper lenses if you went for a manual 35mm. Let’s go the opposite direction. Are there affordable lenses that are more telephoto? I’ll admit this one is a bit harder. At the time of writing the cheapest 85mm from a reputable brand (and still retains AF) I could find is Sony’s 85mm f/1.8. While this is still cheap, it’s still a decent bump above the nifty-fifty in cost. However, I think in terms of giving your images a more compelling emotion, the extra cost is made up for in character. Lastly, I think affordability is something that is only super relevant at the beginner’s end. For my use cases, if I’m using a 50mm, it is not going to be a nifty-fifty. For my paid client work, I need something much more consistent and higher quality. So at the barest of minimum, I would be looking towards Sigma’s 50mm f/1.4 which currently retails at $800+. Now I’m no genius, but just casually shelling out 800 dollars isn’t something I can just do at any time. So affordability is only something that is genuinely true at the beginner’s end of things. Professional’s are not using these lenses unless having super high quality isn’t important.
Versatility: This is something I think is completely overblown when it comes to this lens for a couple of reasons. People say 50mm can be used in most genres of photography to get a great photo. However, if you are a good photographer, you can take a great photo in ANY setting with any lens. Additionally, there aren’t many genres of photography where 50mm is the “preferred” focal length. Shooting portraits? 35mm or 85mm are your best friends. Sports? Get a solid 70-200 zoom and that’s probably a good start. Street photography? 35mm is the king, we want the subject and the city. Landscapes? We want something wide, maybe 16mm or 24mm. I’m not sure there’s any genre of photography where the 50mm is King. So if it’s not the preferred focal length for any genre, how can it be super versatile? Additionally, I’d argue that the 35mm is MUCH more versatile. You can use it in portraits, studio, landscapes, for some alternative wide perspectives in sports, astrophotography, and so much more. Over my entire time photographing, I have not found myself wishing I had a 50mm. There’s been times where I wished I had a wider or more telephoto lens, but never 50mm directly. So I can not feed into the versatility of this focal length. If versatility is the number one goal, then 99% of photographers would be better off getting some version of a 24-70, and that range covers most people’s needs.
Character: This for me is the number one reason I don’t find 50mm interesting. As a photographer, the most important thing in each photo (after exposure settings of course) is your lens choice. There are thousands in the market each with their own characteristics, but we’ve generally got different groups. Wide-Angle, Normal, and telephoto lenses. Wide-Angles have a very big, larger than life, and makes it feel like you can see the entire world in the photos. Telephoto lenses can be very intimate, dreamy with melty bokeh, and really compress your subject and background together in a way that really gives a unique perspective. In both Wide and telephoto lenses, there’s a clear character you get as the lens compression changes. And the impact only becomes more extreme the further you get from 50mm. That 3rd group, the normal lenses, in my opinion are incredibly boring. This is the range of lenses designed to imitate real life the most closely, and I actually think the lenses in this length do a great job at that. 50mm falls right in line with the other lenses here and I find all of these uninteresting to use. When I’m photographing, playing around with the compression is an essential part of the process. Before I decide which lenses I’m using, I am thinking about how I want my subject to look in relation to the background. In the simplest terms, I’m considering if I want a super-compressed background, or a wider background. I’m never saying, how can I make my background look true-to-life. Creating a look within you’re photographs is extremely important, especially for your personal creative pursuits, and this focal length doesn’t provide great opportunities for that. It’s too neutral, too natural, too ambivalent when compared to other lenses around it. Even 40mm, which is still in this normal range, has more character to it than 50mm. Those extra 10mm create enough distortion that creates a neutral look with a little magic to it. Now, I will admit this is mainly a modern issue. I’ve found that the 50mm length used to have some looks to it, but as lenses get more accurate, this focal length becomes too close to reality to be interesting to me. The only 50mm I’ve loved is the Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 and that came out decades ago. And the only reason I love it, is all the distortion within the lens. Comparing that to the modern Sony GM 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.2, it’s a night and day difference. The modern lenses are so damn good that the 50's lost its soul.
So if I can’t recommend 50mm, then what’s a better option? For beginner photographers, I’d recommend upgrading your kit lens (which are usually zooms) to a higher quality zoom lens. Think 24- 70 or 15-45 with constant apertures. f/4 or f/2.8s are great. These are much more versatile and you can get a better idea of focal lengths you like before you dive into primes. If you insist on getting prime lenses, I’d recommend 35mm or 40mm for your first lens as I think they provide all the benefits of the 50 while providing an interesting character for you to play with and learn the importance of focal lengths. Lastly, if you don’t mind the extra steps involved, I look towards vintage 50s as I think those will be much more satisfying in the long run. I’ve already mentioned the Super Takumar earlier, but there are tons of old glass on the market that will be much more interesting than modern lenses.
Now that I’ve hated on the 50mm, I want to remind everyone that I don’t think it’s a bad focal length. However, I think what it excel’s at is recreating real life. For me and my commercial/creative pursuits, that’s not something I’m looking for in a lens. However, if you personally like this focal length you are not wrong for using it. Especially in today's world where lenses are so absurdly expensive, the best gear is the stuff you already have so don’t let this deter you from your enjoyment of your lens. However, I’ve heard people glazing the 50mm for much too long and I wanted to throw in my two cents about the focal length. I will not now, nor ever recommend this lens to photographers. I think the community, as a whole, should reconsider our stance on this lens. It’s not that it’s bad, but times have changed and we can have better discourse when it comes to lenses.