# In what situations would you, personally, use a focal length of 50mm?



## splproductions (Aug 10, 2012)

I hope this doesn't sound like a completely stupid question.  I'm asking this because I've been learning lately about how the distance between you and your subject (and thus, the focal length you choose to photograph that subject), will either "stretch" things out (wide-angle) or compress them (telephoto).

A photoblog I was reading said that 50mm gives you the "normal", human-eye perspective, and going either wider or more telephoto "alters reality", and that is where you start getting creative.  

So in what situations do people use a "normal" focal length of 50mm?  ETA:  In case you don't read my later post, I'm talking 50mm full-frame, not 50mm on a crop-sensor. 


(NOTE:  I realize that the focal length isn't what changes the perspective - it's the distance between you and you're subject - so we don't need to go down that road).


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 10, 2012)

Are you wondering about the effects of lens distortion? Does this help This Image Shows How Camera Lenses Beautify or Uglify Your Pretty Face


----------



## splproductions (Aug 10, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Are you wondering about the effects of lens distortion? Does this help This Image Shows How Camera Lenses Beautify or Uglify Your Pretty Face



No - I've been to that exact site just today, and many others like it.  I realize that for portraits, you should be standing a certain distance from the subject, and the focal lengths that allow you to fill your frame properly at that distance fall in the ~85mm range and up... to a certain point obviously.

So I guess my question is, when would you use 50mm?  (For any style of photography, not just people photography).  This site I was reading kind of made it seem like 50mm was a "boring" focal length because it presents the subject as the human-eye would see it, and you want your photography to "come alive" - whether that be stretching things out or compressing them.

I'm probably not making myself very clear.  I'm just thinking about what prime lenses I want to eventually get, and I'm wondering what I would use a 50mm focal length for.  Do people consider 50mm to be boring and not very useful?


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Aug 10, 2012)

Just about everything. 50mm on FF (usually 80mm on 645 actually) is my favorite focal length to shoot.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 10, 2012)

50mm is pretty good for chest up portraits. I've gotten into the habit of shooting in the 100mm range but 50mm does well.
On my D7000, the 50mm does not give normal perspective.


----------



## SCraig (Aug 10, 2012)

50mm is considered to me a "Normal" lens on a 35mm camera, or a full-frame DSLR.  On a crop-sensor camera "Normal" is closer to 35mm.

Personally I seldom use 50mm.  The two lenses I use the vast majority of the time are a 17-70mm zoom and a 70-300mm zoom.  The rest of the time it's normally a 150-500mm zoom.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 10, 2012)

SCraig said:


> 50mm is considered to me a "Normal" lens on a 35mm camera, or a full-frame DSLR.  On a crop-sensor camera "Normal" is closer to 35mm.
> 
> Personally I seldom use 50mm.  The two lenses I use the vast majority of the time are a 17-70mm zoom and a 70-300mm zoom.  The rest of the time it's normally a 150-500mm zoom.



How is that 150-500mm?


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Aug 10, 2012)

splproductions said:


> So I guess my question is, when would you use 50mm?  (For any style of photography, not just people photography).




As with anything photography related, your question is highly answered with personal preferences. I know wedding photographers who will shoot nearly an entire wedding with nothing more than a 50mm lens. Conversely, I know other wedding photographers who have every lens in the Nikon lineup, and use them on every single shoot.




splproductions said:


> Do people consider 50mm to be boring and not very useful?



The 50mm 1.8 is generally regarded as one of THE MOST useful lenses in my opinion.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 10, 2012)

When my 45-P or my 60-D just won't do!

I like a 50 on FF for people outdoors, in social situations,or in sucky lighting conditions. A 50mm lens is good on FF for creating a natural "look" that is not wide-angle and not telephoto, and which preserves a pretty "realistic" size/spatial/distance relationship between near objects and background objects. On crop-body digital, a 50mm is a short telephoto, with good sharpness, LIGHT weight, and small size; a 50mm 1.8 or most 1.4 models qualify as  totally nonobtrusive, so you don't look like some kind of perv or peeper to jealous boyfriends or raging, over-protective fathers,etc.. Self-conscious non-photography-involved people feel comfortable when a 50 is pointed at them--whereas say,a big, coffee-can-sized, white Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens spooks many people.


----------



## CCericola (Aug 10, 2012)

Use the 50 for groups. Anything less is unflattering. Unless you are using a super wide like a 14 and trying to get a specific look. If you are restricted by space and can't use at least a 50mm focal length then do what you gotta do but just know your people won't look their best.

Sent from my iPad using PhotoForum


----------



## splproductions (Aug 10, 2012)

Thanks for the comments everyone.  Keep them coming!  I realize that this question is very opinion-oriented and will vary from person to person, but I'm interested in what those opinions and tastes are.

_Also, just to be clear_, I'm curious about 50mm focal length "as is", i.e., not modified by a crop-sensor.  I _am_ shooting crop-sensor, so when I'm asking you all when you would use 50mm, I'm really asking, "For the crop-sensor shooters out there, when do you use ~35mm", and "For the full-frame shooters out there, when do you use 50mm". 

I'm asking this question because I'm trying to decide how/when I would use a 28 or 35mm prime (on my 1.6x crop) if I ever got one.  I already have a 50mm prime that I use a lot for portraits.


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 10, 2012)

splproductions said:


> I hope this doesn't sound like a completely stupid question.  I'm asking this because I've been learning lately about how the distance between you and your subject (and thus, the focal length you choose to photograph that subject), will either "stretch" things out (wide-angle) or compress them (telephoto).
> 
> A photoblog I was reading said that 50mm gives you the "normal", human-eye perspective, and going either wider or more telephoto "alters reality", and that is where you start getting creative.
> 
> ...



*Whoa! Gotta love the Internet! Anybody can blog anything.* On my blog I present solid proof that Obama is in fact the Anti-Christ and that Romney is his disciple and that the Mayan prediction for the end of the world is actually the 2012 election and that they will both lose to Sarah Palin (write in) who will proceed to destroy all life on earth.

Now on to that photography blog you were reading....

To begin with you're talking about a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera -- that's important because lots of folks now use crop sensor cameras. The 50mm is "normal" on a 35mm camera not because it duplicates human-eye perspective, but because it's focal length is approx. equal to the diagonal of the format. In the discipline of photography a "normal" lens for any camera is a focal length equal to the diagonal of the recording format. So the 80mm is normal for a Hasselblad since the format diagonal is 76mm. The 35mm film diagonal is about 44mm and we rounded it up. A 150mm lens is normal on a 4x5 inch film camera and the diagonal with allowable clipped edges is around 145mm. On a 6x7 camera the normal lens is 90mm -- 60mm by 70mm -- a^2 * b^2 = c^2 -- do the math.

*Altering reality*: If you want to carry through this idea that perspective in a photo from various distances is different or similar to what the human-eye sees you've got a complex task ahead of you. One thing you'll have to do is factor in to the equation the size of the final print (image) and the distance from which that print is viewed. It's a simplistic start but we can do that math. Is there a standard correct viewing distance from which a photograph is or should be viewed? Let's let the public help. Put a bunch of photos on the wall of different sizes and have say 10,000 people look at them and measure how far back they stand by their own choice. If you do that you'll discover that people tend to view a photograph from a distance that is pretty close to double the long side of the print. So for example, on average people will stand back about 40 inches to view a 16x20 inch print. Again this is simplistic but if you plug that value in and do the math then the lens focal length on a 35mm camera that will present accurate perspective to the print viewer is approx. 75mm. A 75mm lens on a 35mm camera is considered portrait length and very much the equivalent of a 50mm lens on a modern digital camera with an APS variant crop sensor.

Joe

P.S. I see some additions while I was typing (hot topic); so a 50mm on a 35mm camera is leaning a little on the wide side if you're trying to present perspective in the final image as it would have appeared to human eyes at the scene.


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 10, 2012)

I find the 50mm focal length to be useless.


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 10, 2012)

I find zoom lenses to be very useful. Proper sequence for taking a photo: Determine perspective. Get camera out of bag. Use zoom lens to crop.

Joe


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 10, 2012)

True, but as a prime lens I would never buy a 50mm


----------



## Solarflare (Aug 11, 2012)

DigitalRev already said it so nicely:

5 Reasons Why You Need a 50mm lens - YouTube

And I consider the "50mm is close to human vision, thus its _boring_" logic completely hillarious.

As my sig suggests, I most often use a 35mm f/1.8 on my 1.5 crop sensor.


----------



## Ernicus (Aug 11, 2012)

I love my 50.  Use it all the time where my feet can give me the zoom I need.  Otherwise, I put on a zoom.  

I don't have a huge arsenal, which is why my 50 might be my fave.  So my opinion may indeed vary.  However, as of now, I love it.


----------



## SCraig (Aug 11, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > 50mm is considered to me a "Normal" lens on a 35mm camera, or a full-frame DSLR.  On a crop-sensor camera "Normal" is closer to 35mm.
> ...


Heavy!  But it sure brings the world a lot closer!

It's relatively slow at f/5 to 6.3 so it's most assuredly not a  low-light lens.  Focus is relatively quick for a lens that long, and  it's pretty sharp at all focal lengths stopped down to about f/8.  I use  it for birds and wildlife and really like it.  My only real complaint  is it is rather heavy for all-day carry at a bit over 4 pounds.  I tried  it a couple of times with a neck strap and that just wasn't going to  work.  I got a Black Rapid R7 and that solved most of the problem.

If I had to buy it again I would do so without question.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 11, 2012)

I find the 50mm useful for portraiture, indoors... especially in tight quarters where my 85mm wont allow me the framing I want.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 11, 2012)

I love 40mm on my M4, 50mm on my 5d is also great


----------



## SoCalTiger (Aug 11, 2012)

50mm is my preferred focal length. I use it for almost everything (I mainly photograph people). I also have a 35mm for indoor use but I dont like the perspective as much. The only thing I find the 50mm doesn't work well for are things like architecture or landscape if I need a wider FOV from where I am.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Aug 11, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> I find the 50mm focal length to be useless.




And I don't like guacamole.


----------



## IByte (Aug 11, 2012)

Solarflare said:
			
		

> DigitalRev already said it so nicely:
> 
> 5 Reasons Why You Need a 50mm lens - YouTube
> 
> ...



.....the bokeh!!


----------



## Patrice (Aug 11, 2012)

I often just go for a walk with my D700 and a 50mm prime, this to me is a relatively small and lightweight setup ready to photograph whatever strikes my fancy. I'm one of those guys who once photographed a social event with only a 50 mm prime. My first slr was a 35 mm film camera and my only lens for it was a 50mm. I used that camera as is for nearly a decade. However my weapon of choice at the time was a 6x6 with an 80mm lens.


----------



## KmH (Aug 11, 2012)

IByte said:


> .....the bokeh!!


Even the 50 mm primes that have ****ty, jarring, nervous, 5 sided, CA tinged bokeh??


----------



## IByte (Aug 11, 2012)

KmH said:
			
		

> Even the 50 mm primes that have ****ty, jarring, nervous, 5 sided, CA tinged bokeh??



But the 5 Reasons Guy says so lol!!


----------



## Solarflare (Aug 12, 2012)

DigitalRev has plenty funny videos 

5 Reasons You Need a 35mm Lens - YouTube
50 Quick Photography Tips - YouTube


----------



## jake337 (Aug 12, 2012)

When I want to.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 12, 2012)

I would personally use a 50mm if I felt like it, or if it was the only lens I had. It's not a stupid question, it's just a bit of a naive one.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 12, 2012)

I think this thread has less to do on when you would like to use one, and more to do with what subject matter would you be shooting with it?

I use my nifty fifty for everything. Most people use the 50mm as a go to lens for portraits. This is what it's most known use is for. However, I use mine for everything. Auto, people, landscape, cityscape, etc. it all comes down to what you want to be in the frame, in the end. The Fifty is always the lens I start with. If I need more framing, I move  to a wider angle lens. If I need less framing, I move to my tele.


----------



## NickEgglington (Sep 5, 2012)

My 50mm is pretty much my go to lens when I am shooting people and groups. I also find it awesome to use when shooting gigs on and off the stage. While it doesn't have the flexibility of a zoom it makes up for it in speed and use in low light.


----------



## snowbear (Sep 5, 2012)

At this time, I only have three lenses.  I use my 50mm anytime the 24mm is too wide and the 105mm is too long, regardless of the scene.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 5, 2012)

I use 50mm when in a tight studio or just in general LoL


----------



## 3bayjunkie (Sep 5, 2012)

Ballistics said:
			
		

> How is that 150-500mm?



The canon 100-400 is sharper and more worth your money.


----------



## IByte (Sep 5, 2012)

Hey, hey there's always room for your nifty fifty.  It's your little buddy.  You may not hang all the time, but you want to he's there!


----------



## ahcigar1 (Sep 5, 2012)

My 50mm I generally use for pano's and when doing basic stuff like photographing family.  It is my go to lens for when I don't want to lug around my much heavier 70-200.  It is a great all around lens that allows you to shoot just about anything.


----------



## Mike_E (Sep 5, 2012)

When I want wide angle on my RB67.


----------



## skieur (Sep 5, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> True, but as a prime lens I would never buy a 50mm



Look at it this way. A 50mm lens is a cheap way of shooting in low light without a superhigh ISO with the related noise, and without a tripod. For this reason alone, it is worth its value for some shooters.

skieur


----------



## BXPhoto (Sep 7, 2012)

On my FF its used a ton. On my crops its used a ton. It really depends on the situation and space provided. Also the DOF look I want to achieve. Ive shot entire events with just a 50mm on my 5d2 so its definitely usable.


----------



## rexbobcat (Sep 7, 2012)

skieur said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > True, but as a prime lens I would never buy a 50mm
> ...



True, but not to me. lol XD

I don't like normal focal lengths. I have a 24mm, a 70-200, and an 85mm so I usually either move closer or farther away. I own an SMC Takumar 55mm f/1.8 but I don't use it much, mostly because it's MF and I don't trust my eyes, but also because I find the angle of view to be "meh."

I'm completely in love with the 85mm though. It does have more compress the background more, but it just has a really cinematic quality that I can't really explain - I just like it. lol


----------



## amolitor (Sep 7, 2012)

I really like my ancient 50/2.0 on my modern crop sensor, too. Almost normal, but a little tighter, a little closer and more intimate.

Also, a damn nice lens.


----------



## jesse101 (Sep 24, 2012)

I like my 50mm 1.8 outdoors, use my 28-75mm 2.8 indoors, so i have more freedom of movement. 50mm is def worth owning.


----------



## Buckster (Sep 24, 2012)

I like the 50mm for birds.  Terrific clarity for getting all the nice little feather details.


----------



## Garbz (Sep 26, 2012)

When photographing the Small Magellanic Cloud. https://secure.flickr.com/photos/10090242@N03/7830647182/in/photostream Sometimes telescopes are too over the top


----------



## Tbini87 (Sep 26, 2012)

We use our 50mm on FF for portraits and in social settings (back yard bbq, christmas morning, etc). We use it for family and group shots at weddings.


----------



## MonochromeB (Oct 2, 2012)

I find I'm using my nifty-fifty in close quarters settings and for the life of me I cannot figure why. My 'visual focal length' determined by right eye in VF and adjusting zoom until the VF and left eye match is right about 70-73mm. I like the 'feeling' of the 50 when I'm in a setting where conflicting angles and such make for odd compositions.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 2, 2012)

MonochromeB said:


> I find I'm using my nifty-fifty in close quarters settings and for the life of me I cannot figure why. My 'visual focal length' determined by right eye in VF and adjusting zoom until the VF and left eye match is right about 70-73mm. I like the 'feeling' of the 50 when I'm in a setting where conflicting angles and such make for odd compositions.


I'm guessing you use a crop sensor camera, which renders the 50 FOV to the equivalent of 75mm or 80mm, depending on whether you're shooting with Nikon or Canon.


----------



## fmw (Oct 22, 2012)

Without writing a book, perspective in an image is adjusted by camera to subject distance.  The lens focal length then determines the angle of view.   If the camera to subject distance remains constant, then the perspective remains constant, regardless of focal length.  What changes is the angle of view.  The differences occur when you adjust the subject distance to fit the angle of view of the lens.  So if you shoot a portrait with a short telephoto lens, then move closer to the subject with a wide angle lens,  the perspective will be very different even though the subject size in the viewfinder might be the same.  So subject distance for perspective and focal length for angle of view.

Assuming a 35mm camera, the 50m focal length would be considered to be a normal lens that would produce a pleasing perspective at a "normal" camera to subject distance.  I'll leave the definition of "normal" to you.


----------



## panblue (Oct 22, 2012)

50mm lens on a FF is about 40 degrees. Human FOV is about 180 degrees from side to side, 70-80 down and 60-70 up.

Just sayin..



splproductions said:


> I hope this doesn't sound like a completely stupid question.  I'm asking this because I've been learning lately about how the distance between you and your subject (and thus, the focal length you choose to photograph that subject), will either "stretch" things out (wide-angle) or compress them (telephoto).
> 
> A photoblog I was reading said that 50mm gives you the "normal", human-eye perspective, and going either wider or more telephoto "alters reality", and that is where you start getting creative.
> 
> ...


----------



## panblue (Oct 22, 2012)

What bird, an ostrich ? 


Buckster said:


> I like the 50mm for birds.  Terrific clarity for getting all the nice little feather details.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Oct 22, 2012)

fmw said:


> Without writing a book, perspective in an image is adjusted by camera to subject distance.  The lens focal length then determines the angle of view.   If the camera to subject distance remains constant, then the perspective remains constant, regardless of focal length.  What changes is the angle of view.  The differences occur when you adjust the subject distance to fit the angle of view of the lens.  So if you shoot a portrait with a short telephoto lens, then move closer to the subject with a wide angle lens,  the perspective will be very different even though the subject size in the viewfinder might be the same.  So subject distance for perspective and focal length for angle of view.
> 
> Assuming a 35mm camera, the 50m focal length would be considered to be a normal lens that would produce a pleasing perspective at a "normal" camera to subject distance.  I'll leave the definition of "normal" to you.


Been a while since you've posted anything 0_0


----------



## Buckster (Oct 22, 2012)

Buckster said:


> I like the 50mm for birds.  Terrific clarity for getting all the nice little feather details.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I shot all these and quite a few more with a 50mm lens:

1.






2.





3.





4.





Any other snark you'd like to throw up while you're on a roll?


----------



## fmw (Oct 23, 2012)

Sw1tchFX said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > Without writing a book, perspective in an image is adjusted by camera to subject distance.  The lens focal length then determines the angle of view.   If the camera to subject distance remains constant, then the perspective remains constant, regardless of focal length.  What changes is the angle of view.  The differences occur when you adjust the subject distance to fit the angle of view of the lens.  So if you shoot a portrait with a short telephoto lens, then move closer to the subject with a wide angle lens,  the perspective will be very different even though the subject size in the viewfinder might be the same.  So subject distance for perspective and focal length for angle of view.
> ...



I'm flattered you remember.  I left because there were too many know it alls that wanted to fight rather than discuss.  I may leave again.  it appears there is a whole new crop of know it alls, rude and aggressive as ever.


----------



## batmura (Oct 23, 2012)

Buckster said:


> 2.


What a killer shot! Can you tell me all the settings while shooting this one?


----------



## Buckster (Oct 23, 2012)

batmura said:


> What a killer shot!


Thank you kindly!



batmura said:


> Can you tell me all the settings while shooting this one?


EXIF is included in the shots, but sure.

Both were shot with the Canon EF 50mm 1.8 II lens on a Canon 40D at a shutter speed of 1/250 (flash sync speed), ISO 100.  Top shot was at f/16 and bottom shot at f/11.  I used two 580 EXII speedlights, both off camera, top left and bottom right (and in ETTL mode, as I recall).

As for the technique to get close enough to use a 50mm and get the details, I set up an area that was baited with seed (I have quite a few in my yard to attract and feed birds because I like to have them around, but this one was specifically set up for shooting photos of them) and let them get used to it.  Then I set up my lights and camera pre-focused on the branch area I expected the action, and then stepped back with a radio remote trigger and sat on my back porch, waiting for the birds to come and eat, which didn't take long.

The first couple times that the setup flashed, they immediately flew off (still got the photos though).  Soon though, they were used to it, and would sit right through flash after flash, like nothing was going on out of the ordinary at all.


----------



## batmura (Oct 23, 2012)

What was the reason for your decision for the f/16 for the first and f/11 for the second if I may ask? I am absolutely stunned at how sharp they look, especially the first one. I love the wonderfully blurred background, too. Could something similar be achieved with a d3100 18-55mm lens in your opinion? It's not a fast lens like yours after all. Also, I only have one-meter remote.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 23, 2012)

batmura said:


> What was the reason for your decision for the f/16 for the first and f/11 for the second if I may ask?


The bottom one was actually shot before the top one.  By the time I shot the top one, I'd determined that I needed more DOF to get the whole bird in focus, or the tail would blur.



batmura said:


> I am absolutely stunned at how sharp they look, especially the first one. I love the wonderfully blurred background, too.


Again, I thank you for the kind and encouraging words!



batmura said:


> Could something similar be achieved with a d3100 18-55mm lens in your opinion? It's not a fast lens like yours after all.


I think it could, and it's certainly worth trying!  The 18-55mm is FAR more capable than many give it credit for.



batmura said:


> Also, I only have one-meter remote.


I would suggest getting a radio-controlled remote.  It will really open up the possibilities of what you can do when you can get far away from your gear, especially for something like this, where you don't want to spook the birds.  They can be had for very little money these days for the most basic units, which is all I used for these shots.  I think I paid about $14 for my first one from China on ebay, and that was quite a few years ago.  I don't know what it's max range was, as I didn't test it for that, but was able to fire it reliably from more than 100 feet away, and with walls and windows between the transmitter and receiver, no problem.  It probably still works today, though I've moved on to a more capable unit that provides more ability in terms of programming it for timed multiple exposures and so on.


----------



## austriker (Oct 23, 2012)

DX: in close portraits (ie not much)

FX: always. its my midrange walk around lens.


----------



## Mully (Oct 23, 2012)

It is good for record keeping or low light as far as the creatine side of the lens it tends to replicate "normal" normal tends to be boring.... IMHO


----------



## TCampbell (Oct 23, 2012)

panblue said:


> 50mm lens on a FF is about 40 degrees. Human FOV is about 180 degrees from side to side, 70-80 down and 60-70 up.
> 
> Just sayin..



Pan... keep in mind that there are two different ways to think about the human FOV.  

One is based on holding your head still but allowing your eyes to move around. 

The other is by pretending you are an owl and your eyes can't actually move in their sockets.

Turns out when you think of your field of view based on what you can see looking forward and without moving your eyes... it's about the same as a 50mm lens on a 35mm film or full-frame sensor camera.  It's about 40 degrees (and I've read of lots of arguments that haggle over it... e.g. 42mm, 45mm, etc.)  But we're in the ballpark.

The 50mm lens on a full-frame camera is considered a "normal" angle of view because of the distortion (or rather lack thereof) when compared to human vision.  The lens can take in roughly the same area that you can take in without having to "look around".  So if you can see it... your lens can pretty much take in the same view.


----------



## TCampbell (Oct 23, 2012)

GREAT shots Buckster!


----------



## Buckster (Oct 23, 2012)

TCampbell said:


> GREAT shots Buckster!


Thank you kindly!


----------



## batmura (Oct 24, 2012)

Buckster said:


> The bottom one was actually shot before the top one.  By the time I shot the top one, I'd determined that I needed more DOF to get the whole bird in focus, or the tail would blur.


I didn't know it was possible to blur the background at even 11 and 16. I thought one had to open the aperture as wide as it goes for that effect. On my 18-55 kit lens I've never achieved that kind of blur at even 4. Is your 50mm a prime lens that opens as wide as 1.8, by the way?


----------



## Buckster (Oct 24, 2012)

batmura said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > The bottom one was actually shot before the top one.  By the time I shot the top one, I'd determined that I needed more DOF to get the whole bird in focus, or the tail would blur.
> ...


It depends on how far away the subject is vs. how far away the background is.  When the subject's very close and the background is relatively very far away, it will blur like that, unless hyperfocal distancing is achieved, either on purpose or inadvertently.

Go to the following link and you can play with the values and get a better understanding of the relationships involved:

Online Depth of Field Calculator



batmura said:


> Is your 50mm a prime lens that opens as wide as 1.8, by the way?


Yes, though I seldom use it wide open.


----------



## andrewochs615 (Oct 24, 2012)

Buckster said:


> batmura said:
> 
> 
> > What a killer shot!
> ...



I would be so scared they would poop on my camera lol.


----------

