I feel exactly the same way... but about a 35mm lens, not a 50!I've been using my 50mm lens on the EOS 3 more and more lately for street photography, and I'm just wondering does anyone here feel the same way as me as it's the perfect lens for walk-around shots. I don't know what it is about the 50mm focal lenght but it definitely works for me and photos (especially portraits) done using it have the right mix of the subject and environment.
I too prefer the 50. Since it is fairly close to the angle of view of the eye it makes a great lens.
Dear John,The 50mm was the lense of choice of many photojournalists in the 1960s and 70s before the advent of high quality zooms.
I don't entirely agree. Historically, a 'standard' lens was one that was close to the diagonal of the negative, and with 35mm the 'long standard' became the norm because it's easier to make a reasonably fast (f/3.5) 50mm lens that covers the frame well than to make a 43mm. If you want faster still (f/2, then f/1.5) with full-frame coverage, 50mm is MUCH easier. Anything longer, on the other hand, soon gets bulky if it is at all fast. In other words, it was cheap'n'easy.The 50mm lens are called "standard lenses" because they are for most subjects . . . the most useful ....
Dear John,
In the 40s and 50s maybe, but the 35 was pretty popular by the 60s and 70s -- once there were high-quality, fast lenses such as the 35/1.4 Summilux (c. 1957). The big advantage of the 50 could be summed up in one word: SPEED.
Cheers,
Roger
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?