what's with the nifty-fifty

[cleamon]

I know, it's fun to say. When I see this I always think, "ok, a fast 'normal' lens, with great bokeh". Having come from a 35mm film background, this makes sense. But more often as not, when I see a post about the "nifty-fifty", it's some one with a crop sensor camera, which means it's not a normal lens at all -- more like a "nifty-eighty".

[PowerPix]

Ok.

.........

[RLucas]

50mm is 50mm, no matter what format the camera is. There is no magnification factor when a 50 is slapped on a crop body. The only difference is the field of view.

[cleamon]

Originally Posted by RLucas

50mm is 50mm, no matter what format the camera is. There is no magnification factor when a 50 is slapped on a crop body. The only difference is the field of view.

Yeah, I understand that, but that's what the fifty is about - Field of View.

[inkista]

Not necessarily. What a 50 "sees" also matches what the eye sees. You shoot with both eyes open and a 50 on the camera (regardless of sensor size), and what you're seeing through both eyes will match. That's not the case with any other focal length. So if you want to learn to compose by simply framing, without doing any focal length translation in your head, a 50mm lens is where it's at.

[cleamon]

Originally Posted by inkista

Not necessarily. What a 50 "sees" also matches what the eye sees. You shoot with both eyes open and a 50 on the camera (regardless of sensor size), and what you're seeing through both eyes will match. That's not the case with any other focal length. So if you want to learn to compose by simply framing, without doing any focal length translation in your head, a 50mm lens is where it's at.

My point is that if I'm looking at a scene, and that scene contains the relationship between foreground (say a person) and background objects that I desire and I want a certain depth of field as well. I stick the 50 (1.4 or whatever) on my (crop frame) camera and see that the subject is framed too tight. One remedy would be to back up to frame the subject as I see it with my eyes. Oops, there goes the perspective (because perspective is a relationship between camera/subject distance and has nothing to do with focal length) as well as, now I have a deeper depth of field (again, DoF increases with distance). Spent money on that big aperture for nothing.
It just make more sense to me (if I'm using a crop frame camera), and I want a NORMAL field of view/DoF relationship, to put a on 35 f/1.4 to get that result OR of course shell out the dough for a full frame camera.
Just sayin'

[inkista]

I GET the FoV translation of focal length, but it's not the only way to think about it is all. The thing is, even if you slap a 35mm lens on and get the framing you want, while the perspective won't have changed, the "feel" of the scene still will vs. what you're seeing with your naked eye.

What's more important: magnification or FoV is a personal choice. It's not the same for everyone. Insisting that 50mm is a bad choice for any crop camera user because it's not what works for you is not exactly taking into account that other people might have different ways of visualizing a scene is what I'm saying.

Many people who shoot with dSLRs have NEVER shot with film. To them the FoV of a 50 is what it is. That's the 50mm FoV to them. They never learned to think in 135 format terms to begin with. And they've got APS-C framing etched into their brains.

[SwissJon]

If I'm not mistaken, you seem to be getting mixed up between field of view and magnification.

35mm lens on a cropped sensor will give you the same field of view as a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera or a full fram sensor, sure... BUT

When you look at the world through your eyes, you experience it in a certain way. A 50mm lens "sees" the worlds the same way.

A 300mm lens will flatten the image, so distances between objects seem less. Angles on buildings seem flatter.
A 13mm lens will enhance imaged, so distances are exagerated, angles on buildings seem sharper.

Somewhere between 300mm and 13 mm is the magnifigcation that allows your camera to record the world the same way your eyes see it.. 50mm.

It's not about the crop, If you've done ninja training you have a wider field of view than someone with tunnel vision for example, so it's pointless to say the crop is the same as your eyes see, that has no meaning, but both will experience the angles on a building in a similar way, and some clever sod worked out that we experience that at 50mm.

Now this has more to do with the distance of the lens from the sensor, and so the angle of light, than it does the actual focal length.. Move the lens closer to the sensor and you'll need a shorter focal length to achieve the same effect. So P&S cameras, which rarely have actual focal lengths that actually reach 50mm can still replicate the world as we see it, but a full frame DSLR, a Cropped frame DSLR and a 35mm SLR will all see the world the same way because the lense is always the same distance from the sensor at 50mm.

[cleamon]

Originally Posted by inkista

I GET the FoV translation of focal length, but it's not the only way to think about it is all. The thing is, even if you slap a 35mm lens on and get the framing you want, while the perspective won't have changed, the "feel" of the scene still will vs. what you're seeing with your naked eye.

What's more important: magnification or FoV is a personal choice. It's not the same for everyone. Insisting that 50mm is a bad choice for any crop camera user because it's not what works for you is not exactly taking into account that other people might have different ways of visualizing a scene is what I'm saying.

Many people who shoot with dSLRs have NEVER shot with film. To them the FoV of a 50 is what it is. That's the 50mm FoV to them. They never learned to think in 135 format terms to begin with. And they've got APS-C framing etched into their brains.

I never "insisted that 50mm is a bad choice", I'm just saying that, to me, it doesn't feel normal when I see a scene and put the camera to my eye (with a 50) due to the severe cropping (not the lenses fault). Whereas, if I view through the 35 it's closer to what I see (magnification not withstanding). I'm talking about the content (everything in the frame), the relationship between objects in the frame and (to a lesser degree) the (anticipated) depth of field.
(your mileage may vary).

[cleamon]

Originally Posted by SwissJon

If I'm not mistaken, you seem to be getting mixed up between field of view and magnification.
...
A 300mm lens will flatten the image, so distances between objects seem less. Angles on buildings seem flatter.
A 13mm lens will enhance imaged, so distances are exagerated, angles on buildings seem sharper.

No, I believe it's you that mistaken on this one. It's well known and a scientific fact that perspective is a function of subject to viewer distance and has nothing to do with magnification (i.e. focal length). It's been proven time and time again (I had to do it myself in school), so I'm not going to rehash that here. Take the same shot with a 300 and a 35 from the exact same place and the perspective is exactly the same. Only the magnification changes.

(found an example of what I saying here:
Crop factor and perspective
)