I use to hate the 50mm focal length but once I started shooting in the studio I came to love it. Easily became my favorite focal length for portrait photography.
50mm is my favorite focal length. Might be because it was my first focal length when I was learning photography but even 20 years later it's still the focal length I enjoy shooting at the most.
Gerald: the focus is extremely shallow. It just looks a little bit unnatural to me and I wouldn't shoot a scene like this. Every portrait photographers: Let us introduce ourselves.
I’m new to camera stuff and I have the canon eos m50 and currently use a pancake lens, I was wondering what do you think is a good lens for medium distance with a crazy blue and crispy quality ?
This is a top notch review as always. I don’t really understand why supposedly pure photography channels don’t do what you do. Awesome technical tests. Awesome still images. Perfect. Thanks a lot. As for the question: I’m a photographer so yeah 50mm is like my main focal length.
I use 16-35 F4 and 55mm F1.8 combo most of the time. I love my 55mm lens because it is very lightweight and versatile, so I can use it in portraits and also in some isolated architecture or landscape shots, where 16-35 is too wide, and also f1.8 makes me feel a lot comfortable at the night.
The 50mm its a standardt for me, always carry one in my bag. Products look amazing, portraits, and traveling. Only thing i desire its an 1.4, but compact lens.
@@GarrettGreenwald well I guess you are one of the few that has issues. :( Everyone else I know that has it always praises it. What is wrong with yours?
@@GarrettGreenwald I also have no issues with mine, also no issues with LoCa in real world use. But I'm also more a 35/85mm guy, use the 55mm mainly indoors.
I own a 24 1.4 GM, 55 1.8 Zeiss and a 135 1.8 GM. My least used lens is my 55. I've been tending towards the extremes that my 24 and 135 naturally offer, although I still like my 55. As I've read elsewhere however, 50mm is neither here nor there. I'm beginning to wonder if I replace the 55 with this 50 1.2 GM if it will rekindle my love for it but I'm just not sure.
I use 50mm for subject photography typically. I tend to prefer wider focal lengths, 24mm is my favourite, so I kinda view a 50mm as a wider 85mm which lets me get more context/environment in the shot but still emphasise the subject. It's the longest focal length I'll use for general shooting
ever since i bought a 40mm lens i haven't been shooting 50mm almost at all. it's way more natural and the compositions make more sense in my eyes on a 40mm
I'd really appreciate it if you added center-vs-corner focused sharpness tests. It's very common that you might be framing your subject towards the edges, and you'd want to know if it'll be as sharp.
I never used to shoot with 50mm... but rented this lens for my cousins wedding. I shot it as a gift to them. All I can say is... I really like it. The focal length was perfect for the use case and the lens looked fantastic. I've been thinking of buying one but am torn between the 50mm 1.4 and this one. It's not just the price (though that helps). The 1.4 is supposed to be significantly lighter and for gimbal usage, I like that.
When I started still photography, the 50mm was the standard for full frame 35mm film. It was based upon the magnification being the same as you see in the real world. Since I added a 16-35 to my FX6 I am liking the 35. Sure, I go longer for portraits, but I don't think I'll be using a 50mm.
I used to be a heavy 50mm shooter until I actually got my hands onto a 35mm, since then I almost solely shoot on 35mm & 85mm. I do have the Mitakon 50mm f/0.95 though, so that opens up some very dreamy options which I happily take from time to time.
I think most of us got used to shoot with a 50mm because it was the fastest cheapest lens, it was more of a default thing, now my 50mm is a 24, but they use to be so expensive. We're living great years ( technically speaking ) as video/stills shooters, I can't wait for the generation of cinematographer who can afford to shot a movie by having a summer job !!! PS: keep up the great job you lovely nerd ;)
@@saiashwin26 Indeed! The Blair Witch Project had a production budget of $60,000 (before post-production and marketing) in 1999 and was filmed on crappy HI8 camcorders, but they still made $250 million in box office! That being said, having access to professional video equipment still makes the process much easier!
@@saiashwin26 well I would say the lenses are pretty dang important. But yeah the camera body not as much. Especially in this day in age when there seems to be a new camera body out almost every week! Lol! I'm amazed at how much I used to be able to accomplish with the original canon eos m1. AND it had a fully operational touch screen for all of its....operations lol. Menu, picture navigating etc. That was over ten years ago if I'm not mistaken
@@akyerit well, the point I was trying to make is that if you have all the locations, actors, lighting, sound etc. figured then you can figure out what camera and lenses you want to use. Just because equipment has become cheap doesn’t mean it’s easy to make a film. It’s definitely easier than before but the struggle is the same.
I use a 28mm, 50mm, and 85mm. The 50mm is essential for portraits in small spaces where you can't back up enough for the 85 and you don't want too much of the background/distortion from the 35 or wider
I never was a fan of the 50mm focal length until I started using Sony and the 50 f/1.4 ZA, I don’t know what it was about that lens but it just clicked and now I just love the 50mm look. Looking forward to getting this lens.
Been complaining about no good 50mm on e-mount for years. The 55 1.8 had a bad taste of out-of-focus rendering and I sold it like it's hot. Now, this is something I have been waiting for. Always love the natural perspective on the 50 since the Canon DSLR days.
From 16-240mm from all my lenses, the 55mm 1.8 is the most used lens I have for portraits. It's small, light, very sharp, and does not distort as much as 35mm does.
@@stolencoats63 Exactly. I have the 50 1.4 ZA and quite like it, but it's a monster. If I were to buy another 50 it would probably be the 1.8 because of how small and light it is. This 1.2 will never be on my radar.
Fantastic lens from a technical achievement perspective. Very thorough review Gerald as always, thanks! I just bought the 24mm 1.4 GM and it is phenomenal. I love my 55mm 1.8 Zeiss and see no reason to change it, the form factor of the 55mm and sharpness is great! My preferred focal length for portraits is 85mm and have the new Sigma 85mm 1.4 DG DN and I am super happy with it.
I love shooting with a 50mm prime. I doubt I’ll upgrade to this from my Zeiss f/1.4 but it looks like a great lens. 50mm just happens to work particularly well in my studio. I can totally understand why some people prefer to use a 35mm and an 85mm. But I’m in a smaller space so 24mm and 50mm are perfect.
Since 2014 I shoot using ultra sharp Carl Zeiss 55mm f1.8 and it's my best travel lens + real money-making tool. It never leaves my bag. Also I find this focal length very practical and it's my most used one.
It's a weird thing, the 50mm length. I rarely use it, even on a 24-70mm. My daughter is a studio and wedding photographer who also never uses it - HOWEVER, whenever she goes out with friends or attends family events, the 50mm never leaves her camera body. She loves it as an art form. It puts her in a creative mode.
For me, the 50 mm is an oddly comfortable length. this is partly due to my first prime lens ever being the Panasonic 25 mm (on MFT, same field of view as 50 of course). I used that a lot and it felt comfortable. I personally don't use it as much anymore due to boredom lol.
50mm is my favorite focal length for almost every type of shoots i do cause it gives me(in my opinion) good compression and some of the background before getting too tight. LOVE IT! Thank you for the ALWAYS FLAWLESS reviews!
Never shot with a 50mm before, once we purchased the Sony Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 we never purchased another lens in the 50mm range. Still have the Sony Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 but like what you described; we prefer 35mm more than 50/55mm.
I have the same feeling with a 50mm fov. I had the Sigma Art 50 and sold it and got the Sigma Art 40 . Odd thing was I started missing the 50 after it was gone . Maybe I was starting to get used to it . The 40 and 28 mm Arts are my now go primes for live music. That’s with my Nikon dslrs. I just purchased my first mirrorless, the Sony a7siii and the fe 24 and 35 G master lenses. I’m looking at the fe 135 gm next most likely for interview shots with my live music shows. Thanks for phenomenal reviews brother Peace
I have been using a Sony 1.8 50mm for a few years and love it. Will trade up as I'm going to begin shooting with a second camera and want another 50mm lens.
i use the ziess 1.8 55mm for Emount. I like it for that added zoom when walking around taking photos in most lighting conditions and the bokeh is nice. Also Candid portraits look good and i like it's compact size. i also use the zeiss 35mm 2.8 for my wide shots and for it's compact size as well.
50mm used to be my go-to focal length but now it's a 35mm. It's just so convenient for how I compose my shots, but I'd still like that 50mm in my bag. Thanks for breaking it down!
I love a 50mm f/1.4. With magnification being 1x, it has never been clear to me why anything faster makes much sense. This opinion comes from my usage which is primarily portraits. I stop it down to f/2 most of the time to gain DOF.
Distance. The farther away you are from the subject the less separation from the background there is, so you can shoot something like a headshot at f/2.8 and then open it to f/1.2 for a full body shot. Also low light, f/1.2 lets in ~33% more light than f/1.4, on well made lenses at least.
50mm is the lens I use the most, currently the Sony Zeiss 50mm f/1.4. I have no complaints with it but I'll probably add this lens into my kit eventually.
Since I shoot weddings with nikon dlsr and sony, I have a nikkor 50mm f1.4D and for the sony the Mitakon Speedmaster f0.95. 50mm is one of my favorite focal lenghts, along with the 135-200mm range on the 70-200 f2.8
My two most commonly used focal lengths for both photo and video are 55mm and 28mm (those two lenses are 90-95% of my work. 85mm takes a distant 3rd and is primarily only on my camera if I can't physically get closer or I'm shooting specialty portraits). My favorite lens that I shot with in the past was the Canon 50mm f/1.2L - when I moved to Sony I made the size to aperture tradeoff with the 55mm f/1.8 - which I also consider to be a fantastic lens. I really like it's swirly boke character, color, rendition, and it's more than sharp enough for me (though I would say sharpness is the least important factor in a lens for me). I'd probably really love the 50mm f/1.2 GM, but at $2000 it probably won't give me enough increase in utility for both its size and weight. Maybe in 5 years I'll find one second hand at a price I find reasonable. Until then I'm more than happy with my kit.
We use the 50 Planar on pretty much every shoot. It complements the other primes we use, 24GM, 35 1.8, 85GM and 135GM very well, and also the Planar renders fantastically!
This is my understanding of lenses. The advantage of the widest apature is meant for low light but you would not use in good light, then stopped down a bit its super sharp so your lens 'starts off sharp' at f2 where as a f2 lens will start to be sharp at 3.2 for e.g. I mainly do wildlife photography, and everyone that sold their car to get an F4 600mm lens is always at F8 with a teleconverter and stopping down, but they will also be at f11 to reduce depth. I do feel like too much depth of field is a problem 80% of the time, too little is in focus, but the last 20% its nice to have that 'feature' on the lens to blur a distracting background or get an abstract unique look.
I shoot with the 55mm Zeiss Sonnar for street and portraits. I love everything about it except the out of focus areas seem a little messy and distracting. I was hoping Sony updated the 50mm focal length as both the Planar and Sonnar have been out for years at this point. Thanks Gerald!
I have the FE 55mm f1.8 Sony Zeiss. And this is my go-to lens. Because it's sharp all the way through, has character when you use close focus and do portraits wide open, but can be used for "clean" product photos as well. Used for both photo and video.
Use the 35mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4. have always had a 50mm in the bag just never use it. I use my 24 to 70 more than the 50mm but only at it's widest and longest.
I focus on photography and primarily shoot at 50mm. I use a 28mm when I want something wider. I agree that maximum magnification is too often overlooked at the 50mm focal range. My favorite 50mm lens is Zeiss Classic Makro-Planar T* 2/50, ZF.
50mm shooter here. Actually 55mm a lot of the time. Using my old Canon FDs. 35 and 28mm are also favorites though. But if I had a desert island lens: 50mm.
50mm is hard for me. I do own two old manual focus 1.4's Canon FD and Nikon 1.4D. I rarely find myself longing for that focal length. It's as if the 50 is unsure of what it wants to be. 35mm is super useful for me. 85mm starts my portraiture aspirations. 135mm is very sure of it self and what it wants out of life.
I don't really shoot 50mm. The I have 2 Tamron Zoom lenses (the 17-28mm and 70-180mm {both f/2.8]) and two Samyang Lenses (35mm and 75mm [both f/1.8]). I find this satisfies all of my needs and felt the same as you do with the 50. The 50mm feels too constrained at times and never gives me the compositions that I want for photo or video. Per my preference I feel the 35mm gives me better breathing space for general purpose while the 75mm gives me the portrait photos. The 17-28 is great for video and landscape photos. The 70-180 was great for a wedding I did recently.
I'm a 35mm and 40mm guy. Love my Voigtlander 40mm f1.2 even with the disciple of manual focus it requires.That said, I keep a 50 in my bag just in case.
I'm a wedding photographer and I shoot mainly with 24mm 1.4GM and with the 55mm f1.8. This would be a nice addition to my setup but I can't stand it's weight. I will wait for a small and lighter 50mm 1.4GM. Great review as always!
my first lens was a 50mm so I am super comfortable with it and it feels very natural to shoot with. I also started collecting vintage lenses and shooting film and now have a ton of 50mm lenses and find that most of my camera collection has 50mm lenses that live on them. Iits my go to, but I have made a conscious effort this year to try and shoot more 35mm as I am much less comfortable with it.
Mine’s on back order! Love 50 for indoor full body or outdoor 2-3 people. Not a sexy focal length but super useable and reasonable. Should be an interesting upgrade from my sigma…which is wonderful but a little beat up 🤦🏻♂️
Everyone has their favorite focal lengths, I tend to shoot a little wide and crop in, but I like the compression of a 50mm and beyond. I think a fast 50 mm would be a great addition to my lens lineup. I use my 50 and 85 on my full frame bodies almost exclusively. I'd love to have a 105 or 135 as they really are gorgeous but a little too extreme for how I shoot. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the most useful focal lengths.
I usually shoot with 50mm for most of my portrait shots but decided to venture off into the 85mm realm. I just like the way 85mm looks for full body portrait shots!
I do a lot of 50mm for food photography as well as flowers. I also use it some for portraits at a bit of distance to include some background to help tell the story. I actually use it quite bit.
I don't shoot too much at 50mm, when I do it's with the Mitakon Speedmaster 0.95/50. Although that might get replaced with one of the recently announced Laowa f/0.95 lenses. Most of the time I'm using 24, 85 or 135mm. One thing that does frustrate is that it's difficult to find out the t-stop of most stills lenses. DxO used to test it but they haven't put any new results up in ages. The Sony GM lenses have a good rep in that regard given that the 1.4/85 was listed as having a t-stop of 1.5.
I mainly do portraiture work in both versions, photo and video. I do not use the 50mm in stills but I love it in video. It is my favorite focal lens for video-portraits.
Stellar review as always! We very recently switched to Sony full-frame without 50mm. We went with the 35mm Sony and 75mm Samyang primes instead for our talking head and social media. It just feels like 50mm doesn't really stand out in any particular way for our use cases.
Back in the film days, 50mm Zeiss was the only lens I had on my Praktica camera. And I used Canon's nifty fifty with DSLR for quite some time. And I will definitely buy one for my Sony mirrorless. So, yeah.. I love 50mm.
I normally prefer using the 24-70 GM but when I need faster than 2.8, I use the ZA 50. I think for my purposes, the ZA 50 will not be replaced with the 50 GM. Glad to see that the 50 1.2 GM is now an option. For when I want to go light, I prefer the Samyang 45 1.8.
My kit is 24mm (GM), 50mm, 135mm (GM), I feel like that range gives me most of the focal lengths I need. I have the Zeiss Planar T 50mm 1.4 lens, it's already extremely sharp, so I don't feel this new GM being worth the extra $ for an upgrade. That's not to say it wouldn't be a great first 50mm though, but the focus breathing is a bit much, so the extra money would just be for better autofocus, and the extra stop which is perhaps too shallow for most photos. To each their own though :)
Have never loved the 50mm length but enjoy and use the batis 40mm almost every day.
3 года назад
HOLY MOLY i wayted years for this lens .... thank you soooooo much Sony !!!!! Back in my Canon time used the 50 1.2 canon so much and i really miss it ... and now finally there is a sony one
On my people shot sessions outdoors I like to have 16-35/2.8, 55/1.8 and 70-180/2.8 depending on scene. Indoors I like 16-35/2.8, 35/1.4 and 55/1.8. The 55 mm I use for headshots and shallow depth of field. I would like an f1.4, though the 1.2 would work as well off course. But I prefer fast primes to be max around 600 grams and the f1.2, though fantastic in many ways, is over that.
It would be a great time-saver if other reviewers would just link to yours....and call it good :) I am NOT a fan of 50mm lenses...in fact, I've railed against them for years. I see a lot of photographers that get that 50f1.8 as their first, fast prime, and they're so impressed with the newfound shallow DOF, they get tricked into thinking the lens is amazing.....it just isn't. It's a very useful event lens, but in my opinion, wide lenses and long lenses DO MORE WORK. They enable us to change reality in more interesting ways. I have a 50mm lens, and Sigma 30mm f1.4 for my apsc bodies.....there are times when they make perfect sense. I just think too many photographers mistakenly believe they're a holy grail, when they're really just a workhorse, or a great-for-cost solution. (not great for cost at f1.2 of course) For ME, and just speaking for me......the f1.2 is more useful at 35mm on a FF. THANK YOU AGAIN for a great, QUICK review. You answer my important questions 4x faster than everyone else, and that's LITERALLY worth money to me....which is why I finally broke down and started paying you today :)
Long story but i good idea for people.........I have been a pro shooter for over 30 years and usually travel with primes. Main lens was always a 35. Then i sold my 50 noct when i saw how much they were selling for and bought my first 5d mk2 with the 24-105 kit lens. I traveled to India for 5 weeks and shot a bit of everything. On return i jotted down the focal lengths of my fave shots of the trip. Number one was 24mm followed by 105 and then 60mm. Not one image out of my best of the trip was shot at 35mm yet that would have been my choice in the past and its the reason i dont own the sony 24-70 but instead travel with the 24-105. So i think its a good study to do for those unsure if they want this focal length.
Great review - love the pace. In answer to your question, I've got the Sony 55mm. It's a nice, sharp lens, but the focal length is just too long for me. I'd prefer a 45mm, but the only choice is the Samyang. I'm thinking of renting the Batis 40mm, but have always found 35mm too wide, so I'm skeptical. It sounds to me like you see in 35mm.
50mm is my go to, again this is completely subjective - but I find it to be the perfect sweet spot where things are nice and tight in terms of framing, without too much expensive footwork required like you get from say a 85mm. If I've only got a limited window to capture the shot, I find I can achieve a significantly higher hit rate. In a worst case where I need the shot to be a little tighter, the high resolution of camera's these days always offers the capacity to crop a little if needed.
When out and about, I find 45mm to be very nice for me, so I sold my Sigma 50 Art and got myself the Samyang 45/1.8 instead. I was missing shots, because I too find that 50mm isn't intuitive for me to use. Like you, Gerald, I always have to move back a little when bringing it up to my eye. Love the 3D like rendering of my 45 too, and I actually think it satisfies me in many of the ways the 50/1.4 did, because of it's very nice rendering.
On film cameras I'd shoot 50mm when I needed something tighter than a 24mm f/1.4 but more hand-holdable in low light than an 85mm. Works decently for astrophotography too. If I could justify the expense of an f/1.2 I'd definitely have a use for it, but it wouldn't be glued to my camera like the 24mm was when I got it.
