50mm is a garbage focal lengthThat is all.
What's your favorite?
>>4331566~75mm
>>4331572Why do you think it's better than 50mm?
>>4331575idk, it's just the focal length I think in. I find a lot of shots just look 'correct' there. If I mess around with a zoom I find right as I get to around 70-80mm a little magic happens and it just hits different for me.The problem I have with 50mm is it isn't sufficiently long enough to isolate my subject, but isn't wide enough to capture a scene, it always feel awkward. I'm either including distracting elements or cutting off part of the important context I wanted to include. The only time I've gotten 50mm to work is taking portaits
>>4331577skill issue
>>4331578You were going to type that no matter what I wrote, weren't you? Be honest.
>>4331582That wasn't me (>>4331566 >>4331575). Just curious. I think 50mm is fine though, just a matter of what kind of perspective distortion you want; FL isn't so much about framing to me.
>>4331584I tend to never crop my images. So I want to have the composition exactly I want it sooc. But yeah that's fair, if you're mostly concerned with the compression/separation then 50mm would provide a nice 'neutral' place to shoot from. But personally unless the shot involves trying to evoke a sense of claustrophobia or alienation I don't really think about perspective distortion too much
>>4331590Highly dependent on the type of photography you're doing, but as long as you never find the need to go wide or do short distance shots, then w/e works friend.
>>43315661200-1700
>>4331577Just take one step forward, retard
>>4331565I need you to stop invalidating my 50mm lens purchase
Bumpin redditfrog.
>>4331633>bumping thread >on /p/Hey looks like things are picking up round here!
>>4331652The state of /p/ saddens me some days, but then other days we get someone posting actual content
>>4331565Agreed. It's too tight for "normal" and not tight enough for telephoto style shots.35mm is my favorite but I have been shooting a Sigma 45 a lot lately (it's actually around 42-43 mm) and it's really nice too.
>>4331565Yknow, im actually gonna agree with this one, I always feel like its not tight enough to be a portrait nor is it wide enough.28 rox, 35 sux, 40 goes hard, 50 blows my grans left nardIMO
>>4331655Just take step backwards, retard
>fat retards can't take a few steps
>>4331565That's awesome, man.
>>4331565I agree OP, although it's the focal length I use most (actually usually 45mm, close enough, same issues)It's too long to actually get context/perspective or create emphasis on a subject.It's too short to isolate a subject or to capture a subject you can't get right up to.But at the same time, it's long enough to take portraits of people without making them look literally retarded, and it's wide enough that you aren't isolated to taking just portraits.Further, I like 50mm (45mm) because it's a challenge. If you can take good pictures with 50mm, you can take good pictures. Any fucking idiot can take a nice portrait with a modern mainstream camera and a tele lens. My photography was held back for so long because I relied on that crutch. And anyone who's taken a photography class in high school or watched Youtube videos and practiced for a week can use a wide angle to take somewhat pleasing photos with a few canned techniques. It takes skill to actually take good pictures with 50mm.>>4331577Sounds like you're in the same trap I was for my first year of photography. It's easy to use a ~80mm focal length to isolate subjects and make crazy bokeh or strong subject separation or whatever, etc, and then rely on simple compositional techniques like rule of thirds to make a pleasing image. As far as I've seen, people who like this sort of focal length most are starting to learn but are lacking skill. Once you internalize more advanced composition and learn to recognize stories/scenes/moments that have interesting appeal, photographers tend to start preferring 28-35mm.Fucks who say they prefer 24mm are just fucking full of it, though, and are jerking themselves off, like "look at me I'm so fucking good at photography that even 28mm isn't wide enough!" when, really, 24mm is entirely a situational lens. It frankly works against composition and story telling, except for the cases it helps.
>>4331577>idk, it's just the focal length I think in. I find a lot of shots just look 'correct' there. If I mess around with a zoom I find right as I get to around 70-80mm a little magic happensassuming you're using a fullframe then ~72mm is where the positive magification of the lens and the negative magification of the viewfinder cancel each other out to produce 1:1
>>4331613I see you've slapped a 50mm on a 1/2.5" sensor>>4331565I recommend getting two primes either side of 50mm and roll with that. Say, 35mm and 80mm.Don't forget focal length affects FoV, but as long as you keep it somewhat close to 50mm you won't really tell much of a difference.
>>4331721>assuming you're using a fullframe then ~72mm is where the positive magification of the lens and the negative magification of the viewfinder cancel each other out to produce 1:1doesnt this depend on the magnification ratio of your viewfinder? Like 0.78x, 0.8x, 0.9x etc.
Ansel Adams preferred slightly longer than normal or slightly shorter than normal as it offers a more interesting perspective compared to how people see things normally. All focal lengths offer a unique perspective you can't make up for by moving the camera due to perspective distortion.
>>4331708>It frankly works against composition and story telling, except for the cases it helps.lmfao so true
>>4331758Because 4chan is full of autism:FWIW If you're getting at the "technically what I said includes all cases regardless," you can better read what I meant as, "It frankly works against composition and story telling, except for the relatively less common cases that it helps."
>>4331775NTA but which compositions do you think are unable to be captured with the 50mm?Some of the retards in this thread are talking about a 10mm difference which is a simple step or two back/forward.It's a very common portrait lens(especially the ef/rf 50mm 1.2f), weddings, decent for most landscapes, architecture seems fine on them, I just don't see what you guys are bitching about. Is a 28/35mm better for landscapes/astro? In some instances absolutely, but it just seems like geartards arguing minute details without actually using the lenses in the first place or knowing how to use their strengths and weaknesses.
>>4331708You're clearly such a seasoned and experienced photographer so surely you will post some photos that highlight the excellence that is produced by using 50mm, so that we all might learn from your years of experience
Ah yes the good old focal length battle. What is betterer? A good fart or a semi-decent shart?
>>4331565Skill issue
>>4331781>which is a simple step or two back/forwardYeah, if your subject is few meters away and you have the space for it.Doesn't apply if you're shooting anything that's further away.If you're shooting from below.If you're shooting from above.If you want something specific in the foreground.If you're in a tight space.If something unwanted would come into view were you to step back.Especially in landscape you often effectively can't step back at all and 20% more fov can make a significant difference. "Zooming with your feet" has very limited usefulness outside of portrait photography.
>>4331572>>4331577>Needs cropped in footage because his brain cannot handle a human field of viewHunter vision is good and all, but you fell off a cliff here Anon.
>>4331886>Human FOVperspective feels like 85mmvertical feels like 50mmhorizontal feels like 16mmbut with no perspective distortion everwhat camera does this besides a dual curved sensor panoramic camera
>>4331886>human field of view 70mm is how I see the world, sorry you don't have hunter vision, sheeple
>>4331891Go to optometrist pronto...
>>4331885Get medium format and crop, retard
>>4331889>>4331891>70 to 85mmCan you not narrow down your field of vision when you need it? Jesus, you people run around with slug-o-vision your whole life, a human should see wide when he protects his people and narrow his field of vision when he is on the hunt.If you raise your hands slightly in front of your ears and cannot see them your processing power has been reduced by the simulation because you've been deemed NPCs.Also what >>4331892 is saying, you people need to see the eye-doc real freaking fast.
Here's your human FOV bro>>4331891>hunter visionMost predators have a wider FOV with a narrower region that's 3d, actually. Humans use projectiles and they chase stuff so it makes sense.
>>4331895You know the way we see the world literally can not be replicated on a 2d rectangle right? It's physically impossible. If I take a photo with a 50mm, the moon looks smaller than how I see it, and half the image is still missing.
>>4331895If you raise your hands slightly in front of your ears and cannot see them your processing power has been reduced by the simulation because you've been deemed NPCs.>I'm mad you have alpha hunter vision, you need go see a jewish doctor so he can bring you down to my levelNo.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
I like it
>>4331894Ah, yes, the classic solution to 50mm being too tight, just zoom out with your sensor size. Need wide angle? Shoot 8x10. Need telephoto? Shoot on 1/2.3". 50mm is the only focal length you'll ever need!
>>4331898I am aware of that, human eyes can adjust their focal length a little bit and most importantly: The brain is the biggest factor in field of vision. Homo Neanderthalensis had a way larger brain and greater field of vision on both axes.But 70 to 80 fucking millimeters is so fucking narrow, one should be considered either legally blind or mentally retarded if they cannot see more than that.I'm now really interested in studies that correlate IQ with field of vision.>>4331900Anon, I was so far sighted I could tell you if you hit bullseye half a mile down on the shooting range as a kid but even then I could see my surroundings without any issues. Yes, I had problems reading books right in front of my eyes, but who the fuck needs to read if they can hunt lmao.
>>4331909I'm not far sighted, I can read books just fine.
>>4331916Then you don't have hunter vision, you're visually impaired, retard.
>>4331918No. God doesn't make mistakes and I like seeing at 70mm, it makes life more cinematic. seeing the world at 50mm is cringe if your vision looks like it does through my camera
>>4331922Ok, retard.
>>4331885>Doesn't apply if you're shooting anything that's further away.you'd be using a longer focal length anyways, that's like being upset that a 24mm is a bad wildlife lens>If you're shooting from below.>If you're shooting from above.I'm not sure what you mean by this, I've even shot at 400mm directly down just fine.>tight spacesure, this is valid>If something unwanted would come into view were you to step back.That'd go for any focal length my guy, granted I'm not a street photographer since that's boring to me so maybe it's different. I do get photobombed by shit on telephotos as well.>Especially in landscape you often effectively can't step back at allWhat landscapes are you shooting that you can't step back?I've never been in a place in the woods, mountains, or rivers where I couldn't step back. Maybe on a cliff edge facing inwards? I'm not saying the 50mm is THE IDEAL lens, it's not, but it's a solid all rounder and definitely has it's shortcomings. But it really feels like people here need to have every individual focal length in order to be 'effective' or some form of cope for why they can't get a shot. Even more so when people like OP who probably hasn't taken a photo in months calls it a 'garbage' focal length.
>>433192650mm is my favorite environmental/group photo lens!It sucks for everything else. And fast 50s feel pointless for night shitting. Fast 35s on the other hand are the bomb and are too expensive for me for a reason
its very good, only 35 is better
>>433192920 to 35 is all GOATed
>>4331927I love mine for innawoods stuff and landscapes, granted the rf50mm 1.8f is soft as shit till around 2.8f it's still a solid lil lens for how fucking cheap it is.I'm hoping Sigma gets to start making the FF RF mount lenses next year(just dropped the APSC ones) or might get a EF one +converter for the 1.4f 24mm for astro stuff since I won't care about the AF and such.I need to try the 50mm for astro for shiggles stopped down some time, but need to find a place without much light pollution near me.
85 is my normal.
>>4331926>What landscapes are you shooting that you can't step back?Nature shots? Sure. Landscapes? Getting the right framing can require "stepping back" by miles. And the land you might need might be inaccessible or bad stewardship to access (e.g. staying on the trails).I don't use 50mm pretty much ever for landscape shots. I do usually bring it along with me, though, basically as an all-rounder because I'm not interested in bringing a normal length zoom for landscapes. For my landscapes I bring a wide zoom, long zoom, and a normal prime.>I'm not saying the 50mm is THE IDEAL lens, it's not, but it's a solid all rounder and definitely has it's shortcomings.I mean, this is really what I was getting at. You lose a lot of the "easy tricks" you get with a wide or long lens, and IMO it takes more skill to get good shots with. You rely much more on pure composition as you can't blow away the background in bokeh and isolate the subject, nor can you emphasize the subject my getting close and dominating the frame with it. It's not easy to do a good job of that. Most photographers who "get good" usually spent a lot of time with a 35mm or 50mm exclusively.
3000 is my normal
good point op, 50mm is bad
>>4331565not tight enoughneed my shots looking thick, solid, tight
>>4331935Ive done some astrophotography with the RF 50mm and the EFS 24mm and honestly the 50 is pretty decent if just a bit tight. If anything is go the RF 35MM or even the 16mm but iirc that's a pricey fucker
>>4332303>Ive done some astrophotography with the RF 50mm and the EFS 24mm and honestly the 50 is pretty decent if just a bit tight. If anything is go the RF 35MM or even the 16mm but iirc that's a pricey fuckerThanks for the heads up, I'll have to give it a shot sometime. Sucks being in the NE, but buying a house in the south in a year or two which will help light pollution wise. Especially being innamountains.>>4332079Those are valid points mang.
for me it's 135mm
>>4331565This is a brainlet take. The gigabrain take is realizing that all focal lengths have a place and they are all good and if you can’t make a certain set of numbers work for you it’s literally a skill issue.
For me it's 128bpm
>>4332892only based take in the thread
40mm
>>4331565>>4331577I get it. To me, it's also feel like this is why i use a camera.I use 28mm anyway. and i feel 28mm is too tight often.
>>4331819For me, it's the silent but deadly.
>>4332895based take. t. own a spread of focal lengths from 20mm to 500mm
Hot take: 40mm (equivalent ;^}) sucks ass in 3:2 but is fantastic in 4:3
>>433496440mm in 4:3 is equivalent to 45mm (40x1.125).
>>4331565I agree. Never wide enough, but never tight enough either.
>>4335175No one asked about your mom.
>>4335193I know, I was talking about your sister.
>>4335194Don't have one.
>>4335197>Don't have one.Yet
>>4331565For me, it's 105mm.
>>4331565>>4331633>>4331705Cool. Very based.
>>4334995>40mm in 4:3 is equivalent to 45mm (40x1.125).Is this the ultimate lens?
>>4334995I'm talking about half-frame with a 28mm lensě, not a 40mm lensę with a 4:3 crop. 1.4 crop factor, 4:3 ratio, giving about 40mm equivalent. It's beautiful and I love it, but every time I've used a 40mm lensé on a 3:2 sensor I've hated it. Though I just don't like 3:2 aspect ratio. For what it's worth, I'm sure a 20mm lensè on MFT is lovely too.
>>4335223Don't know, but I like this one.
>>4331565HOGWASH!
>>4335319The Sigma i series feels so fucking GOOD. I loved the 90mm f2.8 so much that I bought the 35mm f2. The ravishing metal touch, the sensual aperture ring, the silky metal hood that never fails to dock with the lens, the magnetic lens cap that fits just tight. GOD DAMN, I literally have an orgasm whenever I operate them.
Learn how to move your feet. Unless you're crippled, in that case learn how to roll forward and backwards.
>>4336586
>>4336586>t. don't know fov and how perspective works
>>4335410Agreed. I want to buy more of them. How's the IQ on the 35mm?
>>4331565Agreed
>>4336821Fairly nice, as per the reviews. Back then I wasn't sure if I'd go with the Sony 35 f1.8 or the Sigma. The Sony is a bit faster and more compact and lighter the sigma is a tad bigger and slower, but has aperture ring and better borkah. What made me jump on the Sigma was how I just bought the 90mm from Map Camera the day prior, as I knew I'd buy with the 90mm anyway. And handling it for a day made me 100% sure of it : I immediately went back to the tore to buy the Sigma 35 instead of the Sony 35.Even in a timeline where the Sony had better IQ, I probably would buy the Sigma anyway just because of everything else. It just feels so nice to operate.
>>4331565It's not garbage, it's just kind of hard to use>telephoto DOF>wide FOV[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareCapture One WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Width2000Image Height1600
>>4331708>And anyone ... can use a wide angle to take somewhat pleasing photos with a few canned techniques>when, really, 24mm is entirely a situational lens. It frankly works against composition and story tellingso which is it retard?ive used only a 21mm lens for the past 8 months. keep coping
