I hate my 50mm 1.8!

[candidrachel]

I get better results using my good old trusty Tamron 28-300. Whenever I get a really nice portrait with a soft out of focus background that looks lovely it is ALWAYS with the Tamron! I hang back and zoom in... My 50mm just gets such horrible snapshot feels. I hate her! We are at odds! If you look at my flickr photos you can telll immediately which ones were taken with the 50mm

Tamron is like a trust pair of warn out shoes, a bit wear and tear here and there but always gives me the results I want although she does like to go to bed early and isn't good after sun down!

Is it because I'm using the 50mm on a crop sensor? I've seen awesome portraits with a 50mm which really fill the frame but if I did that with mine I'd have to be right in someone's face! I feel uncomfortable doing that!

Help what am I doing wrong!

[thatBilly]

Originally Posted by candidrachel

If you look at my flickr photos you can telll immediately which ones were taken with the 50mm

Sorry, I can't really tell which is which at all. Would you mind posting links to a few examples please?

I'm really interested in getting a 50mm f/1.7 and the problems you're having do interest me.

[kirbinster]

I am no fan of the 50mm lens, although many here love it. Part of your issue is that a 50mm is NOT a portait lens - its too short. While your Tamron is a slow lens, you are able to zoom in and probably get more depth compression than can be had with a 50mm. I would venture to guess you are taking portraits at 80-120mm rather than 50mm when you use the Tamron.

As you mentioned you have to be in someone's face at 50mm, that is partly why you use a longer lens for portraits.

As you commented on the post I made about the fence, a longer lens will allow you to get more compression an blur your background better.

[JFSanders]

Rachel do you keep a log book of your shoots? It will help you to sort your issues. And yes a 50 is a bit short for portraits in the traditional sense of the word. But if your subjects are comfortable with you being in close then move your feet and get in tight. I didn't see whether this 50 is a DX or FX. If it is FX and on a DX body the crop factor will change your focal length. Canon is 1.7? and Nikon is 1.4 so on a Nikon the 50 would work out to a 70mm which should be ok for whole person portrait work but not as good as a 85 or a 105mm. But a lot of the pros use long lenses for head shots to get the visual proportions correct so that the viewer sees what the mind is used to seeing. Are you shooting from 10 to 20 feet from your subject? It is all about perspective and what the mind is used to seeing. Remember the camera lens does not work like your eyes do. It can only show one view and your mind moves the eyes around the subject and creates the view in situ. Jim

[RichardTaylor]

It's just another tool.
If you need to shoot in low light it can be very handy.
As mentioned for full or partial body shot's it can be good.
It is also better than a long tele for showing a subject and part of that subjects environment, however you will need to watch your background especially if the subject is not filling the frame.
It all depends on your style of photography, what and where you are shooting, and what you are trying to achieve.

I do not use my 50 F1.8 all that much, preferring the flexibility of a zoom or the reach of a tele or the very shallow DOF of a fast tele. That being said I have shot portraits (mostly candids and grab shots) from everything from 12mm on a crop camera and 24mm on a full frame camera to 300mm.

Quote.
"Help what am I doing wrong!"
End quote.

I looks like you are not always thinking about your backgrounds.
Either shoot from a different POV or try to throw the background out of focus.

[LeeR]

Thank you for posting this, Rachel. I see people on this forum moon on and on about the virtues of their "nifty fifity" and I just don't get it. There was a time when all 35mm cameras came with a 50mm lens and we couldn't wait to get something else. Yes, it's a good serviceable lens and can be just the thing in a lot of situations, but, in my opinion, it idoesn't deserve to be in the top five lenses to be purchased by new photogs.

[BuddhaPi]

Originally Posted by LeeR

Thank you for posting this, Rachel. I see people on this forum moon on and on about the virtues of their "nifty fifity" and I just don't get it. There was a time when all 35mm cameras came with a 50mm lens and we couldn't wait to get something else. Yes, it's a good serviceable lens and can be just the thing in a lot of situations, but, in my opinion, it idoesn't deserve to be in the top five lenses to be purchased by new photogs.

Lee, would you mind sharing your top five list??? I only ask becaue I tend to follow all of your comments and value your opinion.

[candleman]

not a fan of primes in general....

[JFSanders]

A top five list would be different for almost every photographer. Now within specific genres there would be a consistent top five and yet those would be platform specific. Tis the reason for so many fricken choices and what drives general photographers crazy (me included).

Now if you want to talk top five lens traits...

1. SHARP! No TACK SHARP! through out as much of the aperture range as possible.
2. FAST! No STUPID FAST! Like so fast you can hear it suck the light in when you open the shutter.
3. Aberration free. No sense in having a tack sharp photo with halos all over it.
4. As light as possible without being fragile.
5. So inexpensive that you can afford to buy a new one every week... Ok maybe every month? :P

Oh, and while we are dreaming how about a button on the side that you can push to get the perfect shot. Kind of like GOD mode in DOOM or WOW. Jim

[nicled]

All lenses are good if you understand their advantages & limitations. The 50mm 1,8 would be advantageos in low light situations but will be short for portrait shots. The tamron's focal length is just right for portraits. But would not be good for group shots at near distances. If you want to use the 50mm lens, move closer to your subject. The results off course will not be similar to the tamron or 105 mm lens, which to me is my ideal portrait lens.