It was 50mm for a good while but now 40mm is my go to. I find it to be the perfect normal lens (especially because mine is f1.8), 50mm has a bit of compression and 35mm pushes the background away a little but 40mm does neither. Though I do still love 35 and 50mm
my everyday lens is a 40mm lens (27mm on APSC to be exact)... its a tad wider, but not too wide, its slightly tighter than a 35mm (which i dont use at all) and the f1.2 aperture is just great for all lighting conditions. By far my favorite lens besides the 105/135mm range.
Just replied to the other thread, but I think if I had spent more time on the 40mm I could totally be in the same boat! Think both are great focal lengths to practice on as well.
It seems like Canon are releasing a number of RF f1.4 lenses this year. 35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4 etc. I think f1.4 is often the sweet spot between capability & size/weight. Almost as good as f1.2 but a lot lighter, smaller & cheaper.
Very true. I've always loved this version but its size and weight is no doubt a killer. If they had a decent 1.4 version I would definitely consider swapping it out.
What I noticed lately: it really depends where you are putting your shots - like on Instagram. Because of the 4:5 portrait orientation, I always use the focal length wider then the shot I have in mind. For example, I take mostly shots with 24mm because after cropping to 4:5, they look more like a 35mm image. A 35mm shot looks more like 50mm after the 4:5 crop. So, in general, I love 24mm / 35mm for landscape and portrait orientation because they show a lot in landscape orientation and in portrait orientation, after cropping, I have 35mm result with the 24mm and a 50mm image with the 35mm.
40mm for me, my next choice would be 35mm. I’d probably only get a 50 prime if I was doing portraits (along with 35/85), otherwise i’d just cover that focal length with a 24-70 zoom..
Nice! Pretty important point - I love 50 because of the subject matter I shoot. The type of photography you shoot can definitely change things up immensely!
My first forty years of photography was through a fifty mm lens because that is what my Konica Autoreflex T came with and I never bought anything else. The story of my life through one lens. For sure... it was a boring story.
Everyone are different . 90mm for portrait , 50mm standards old school still alive well into modern photography , 21mm landscape , 35mm or 28mm for street photography.
What if those people are inside your house? Like kids running around or a birthday party where everyone is right infront of you, will you choose 85mm for this scenario?
Rubbish. The 85 is a fantastic focal length for portraits, when you have the space to use it. The 50mm is far more versatile to use, and it incorporates more of the environment in your portrait captures.
I am slowy getting back into photography after many years. I like your approach to get really good with one prime lense. I have a crop sensor (1.5 crop) so should I be being a 35mm f/1.4 instead of a 50mm to get around the same natural effect?
What's the best protection filter you'd recommend for this lens ? As there's no covering front element like the 85MM plus it moves. I am leaning towards Tiffen Digital HT Titanium Protection filter.
My duo contains the following: 24mm 50mm I pick one lens, put it on the camera, throw a polarizer and clean kit in the pocket then use only that lens throughout the day. I do seem to pick the 24mm most often I've noticed.
That's funny - this is why I find it so great and so versatile. Not too wide, not too tight - 40-50mm has always been a real sweet spot for me. But totally understand how different we all are! What type of subject matter or type of photography are you mostly shooting? As this no doubt plays a role too.
50mm (full frame) is a male perspective. It references the conscious angle of view that got presumed, humans have. The scientists figuring that out way back, were all male. Today we know that the anatomy of the brain is on the X chromosome, and the way colour blindness works, suggests vision is on the X chromosome too. People with 1 X chromosome have a different expression of the genes related to this anatomy, than humans with 2 X chromosomes. An extra X chromosome as in cases of Down's ... can wreak havoc. Some normal ones, with 2, see colour in 4 spectral colour bands and generally their children with 1 X chromosome being "colour weak", seeing colour in two or less spectral colour bands. Aside, four spectral colour bands may mean that "RGB" to them looks weird, or incorrect, occasionally. Two X chromosomes, on average in normal cases, gives a larger amygdala part of the brain where risks are assessed giving rise more easily to fears or anxiety than cases of smaller amygdala. And so the conscious angle of view in humans with 2 X chromosomes seems to be much wider than the narrow focus of 1 X chromosome. Call the latter tunnel vision ... Look at Ytoober-fluencers' videos. Notice how the ones presumably with 2 X chromosomes often go to wider angles of view with more background relative to the main subject in the foreground. To the single X chromosome perception, this looks like more clutter. Watch a USAnian religious TV minister's service in which he explains to the 2-X-chromosome folk in the parish, that their 1-X-chromosome mates can occasionally be in their "nothing box" where they don't want any clutter, at all, ever. So, what's the go-to basis? It depends.
What I noticed lately: it really depends where you are putting your shots - like on Instagram. Because of the 4:5 portrait orientation, I always use the focal length wider then the shot I have in mind. For example, I take mostly shots with 24mm because after cropping to 4:5, they look more like a 35mm image. A 35mm shot looks more like 50mm after the 4:5 crop. So, in general, I love 24mm / 35mm for landscape and portrait orientation because they show a lot in landscape orientation and in portrait orientation, after cropping, I have 35mm result with the 24mm and a 50mm image with the 35mm.
