# Why nifty fifty?



## Dmitri (Jul 8, 2009)

yeah I bought one a while back, and honestly can't remember the last time I used it. Why is it supposed to be better than the kit lens? Because of the 2.8?


----------



## AtlPikMan (Jul 8, 2009)

Nope, Because of the 1.8 or 1.4, the price tag and Image IQ makes it a must have vs other more pricey lenses.


----------



## CW Jones (Jul 8, 2009)

well I believe the "Nifty fifty" is the 50mm 1.8. its good for portraits from what I read about it. good IQ, and it doesn't cost much at all


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 8, 2009)

> Because of the 2.8?


Because of the *1.8* 

Also, the 50mm is a fairly simple lens and thus it's fairly cheap/easy to make a lens that is relatively good in terms of optical quality.  
When someone only has the 'kit' lens, the image quality that the 'nifty fifty' is capable of, is quite a nice improvement for them.  
Of course, if you have other 'good quality' lenses, you can see that the nifty fifty is a cheap plastic lens in terms of build quality.

And yes, it gets recommended so often, mainly because of it's price.


----------



## Dmitri (Jul 8, 2009)

Right 1.8  shows the last time I used it.
ok, guess I just need to find the right time to use it. Thanks for the replies.


----------



## icassell (Jul 8, 2009)

I have other good quality lenses including my 17-50mm f2.8

The f1.8 on my Canon 50mm f/1.8 MK I  made it possible for me to get great images in the small mammal house at the zoo without cranking my ISO through the roof.    It's also a lot smaller and less conspicuous than the zoom for those situations where you don't want to scream 'I am a photographer and I am taking your candid picture'.


----------



## Joves (Jul 8, 2009)

Well because the 50 makes you compose the shot with your feet and, getting into strange positions. But really because it make work on compositon and the shot. Something even us old timers need to get back to now and again.


----------



## NateS (Jul 8, 2009)

Because it lets in more light.  My living room is dark at night and I have a hard time getting enough light with f2.8 and ISO 3200.  I want to pick up another 50mm f1.8 so maybe I can stay closer to ISO1600 and f1.8.  Not always fun to have the flash mounted when you want to snap a couple of quick pics of your son playing.


----------



## Moglex (Jul 9, 2009)

If you make no assumptions whatsover about what you want to photograph the 50mm (FF 35mm Camera) is the most flexible lens for several reasons.

1) Generally, it's hard to take a decent portrait with a wide angle

2) Generally, it's hard to take a decent landscape/citiscape with a telephoto

3) It's faster than virtually all other lenses so greater possibilities there.

4) The wider aperture can give you greater dof effects

Plus, it tends to be smaller, lighter, cheaper and better quality than zoom lenses.

So all in all it's got a lot going for it which was why it was the standard lens with which most SLR's were supplied for decades. (And long before people started talking about a 'kit' lens.)


----------



## icassell (Jul 9, 2009)

Moglex said:


> So all in all it's got a lot going for it which was why it was the standard lens with which most SLR's were supplied for decades. (And long before people started talking about a 'kit' lens.)




This was in the days of the 35mm camera.  In these days of crop-sensor cameras, I think it would make more sense to have a 'Nifty Thirty-Five' at the same price-point.


----------



## Moglex (Jul 9, 2009)

icassell said:


> Moglex said:
> 
> 
> > So all in all it's got a lot going for it which was why it was the standard lens with which most SLR's were supplied for decades. (And long before people started talking about a 'kit' lens.)
> ...



Absolutely.

Back in the day it was 50mm for 35mm SLR but 80mm for Hasselblad, Rolliflex, et al.


----------



## tsaraleksi (Jul 9, 2009)

icassell said:


> Moglex said:
> 
> 
> > So all in all it's got a lot going for it which was why it was the standard lens with which most SLR's were supplied for decades. (And long before people started talking about a 'kit' lens.)
> ...



A nifty 35 would be a really cool thing to have, because it would fulfill all of these requirements on a 1.6x crop. The reason they haven't done something like that is because a large part of the reasoning behind the low cost of the 50 is that 50mm is a fairly simple optical design for a number of reasons, so a 50mm lens will always be fairly easy / cheap to build (with some obvious exceptions). This is why even an f/2 35mm lens is $300 whereas an f/1.4 35 is $1000 (as opposed to the f/1.4 50 which is $350ish).


----------



## icassell (Jul 9, 2009)

tsaraleksi said:


> icassell said:
> 
> 
> > Moglex said:
> ...



Would the optics of a 35 be that much different to manufacture than a 50?  Cost to the consumer is also  probably related to the number sold -- if a 35 caught on, I would think the cost could be kept down.


----------



## AlexColeman (Jul 9, 2009)

No, but know, it requires a different design then the Tessar optical formula. New optical designs have to be created, and then an inexpensive manufacturing process has to be developed.


----------



## RONDAL (Jul 9, 2009)

nikon makes an inexpensive nifty 35


----------



## djacobox372 (Jul 13, 2009)

If you have used this lens and not seen the difference in quality between it and your kit lens... you need to get your eyes checked.


----------



## Joves (Jul 13, 2009)

djacobox372 said:


> If you have used this lens and not seen the difference in quality between it and your kit lens... you need to get your eyes checked.


I agree.


----------



## JerryPH (Jul 13, 2009)

In general, it takes better quality optics to make a lens go a constant F/2.8 than a variable aperture, and it takes a better quality optics to go 1.8 over 2.8 and finally it takes superior optics to get 1.4 over a 1.8.

The numerically lower the lens can attain, the better the quality of the lens it will have to be to do that aperture.

When you get a lens that does F/1.4 (for example), and you have another lens that does F/1.8... the F/1.4 lens will give you sharper and more contrasty results at F/1.8 than the lens that starts at F/1.8 aperture at the same apertures... and the differences don't start to come closer together until around F/11 or so (depending on the lens).


----------



## spiralcity (Jul 16, 2009)

Why not use one of the old MF 35mm lenses, there are plenty to be found. You dont have to wait for a new AF 35mm.


@ Moglex,
SOME INFO FROM MY BLOG

50mm lenses are not normal lenses for all cameras. The larger the negative, the longer the focal length needed to create an image covering the normal field of view. This applies to digital cameras also. Some digital cameras will have a crop factor such as 1.5. Multiply the crop factor by your lens size to determine the proper focal length. Other digital cameras are full frame so the general film rule applies.

With a 35mm film camera a 50mm lens is considered normal.

Other normal lenses for different film sizes follow,

*FILM CAMERAS*

35mm = 50mm (normal)

21/4 x 21/4 = 75mm (normal)

4 x 5 = 150 (normal)

8 x 10 = 300mm (normal)

*DIGITAL CROP FACTOR*

1.5 crop = 35mm (normal) this equals 52.5mm equivalent to film.

1.4 crop = 35mm (normal) 49mm equivalent to film.

And so forth.

This is all approximation. Any lens between 40mm and 60mm could be considered a normal lens for a 35mm film camera. Same is said for the larger film sizes.

We can look at this from a different perspective. Lets try measuring the diagonal dimensions of a picture frame. The diagonal measurement of a 35mm frame is about 50mm long. There for the normal lens size for this film is about 50mm or there about. Same is to be said for other film sizes.


----------



## Moglex (Jul 16, 2009)

spiralcity said:


> @ Moglex,
> SOME INFO FROM MY BLOG
> 
> ...
> ...




LOL!

I'm not sure why you've targeted me with this information as I specifically said in my initial post on this thread that th 50 applied to 35mm full frame And later reiterated my agreement that the 'standard' lens would be different for different formats.

You might care to note that although 75mm is the 6x6 equivalent of a 35mm FF most 6x6 cameras (specifically the iconic Hasselblad and Rolleflex) used 80mm as their standard.

Over the years I've used many film formats (not 10 x 8, though) so these equivalents are somewhat second nature.


----------



## Sachphotography (Jul 16, 2009)

Because you cannot rhyme nifty with anything else!!!! NIFTY   FIFTY!!!!


----------



## Moglex (Jul 16, 2009)

Sachphotography said:


> Because you cannot rhyme nifty with anything else!!!! NIFTY   FIFTY!!!!



Good point.

So for taking portraits of you friends you need a matey eighty.

For wide angle soft porn a naughty forty.

And for the harder stuff a dirty thirty.



(We apologise for the poor quality of the above humour - normal service, etc.)


----------



## TheOtherBob (Jul 16, 2009)

Sachphotography said:


> Because you cannot rhyme nifty with anything else!!!! NIFTY FIFTY!!!!


 
Sure, but you're neglecting the wonders of the Purdy-Live Thirty-Five.  

Sturdy dive?

Dirty hive?

Flirty jive?

Ok, I got nothin'.


----------



## JerryPH (Jul 16, 2009)

I'll tell you what... a couple days ago I picked up my Sigma 50mm F/1.4, and though its not as "thrifty" as the base F/1.8 models, this thing kicks BUTT in all areas.

I'm still hoping for a nice day so that I can use it outside a little (and fill the test shot requests from Montana), and really put it through the paces... but from all the indoor shots I have taken, I am very impressed, very happy and very satisfied.

The 50's are nifty, but the 1.4's all are not thrifty, just way more spiffy!


----------



## spiralcity (Jul 17, 2009)

Moglex said:


> spiralcity said:
> 
> 
> > @ Moglex,
> ...


 
Sorry Mog,
My mistake. It wasnt meant as a neg toward you or anything.

And yes your point about 75mm was noted in my response and on my blog. Everything is an approximation.


----------

