Beginner Is a nifty fifty really better than a kit lens?

R

roblfc

Messages
1
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
No
Hi, I am a beginner photographer and have recently bought a nifty fifty lens after reading a lot about them on the Internet. I was led to believe I could throw my kit lens away but have found that not to be the case.

The trouble I am having is that whatever I try to take photos of, I can't get a wide enough frame to get all of my subjects in the shot. I never had this problem with my kit lens as I could just zoom out.

It also frustrates me that someone can take a photo of the same thing with their iPhone and get the whole subject in the shot and it looks great. Yet I am stuck not being able to fit the whole subject in.

Can I have some advice please - am I missing something?
 
I'm afraid you've been caught by the propagandists!
.
There was a time when the 50mm lens was the only lens many photographers could afford, so they made do with it. When the standard zooms came along, some people tried to make themselves look clever by sneering at the zooms and saying that real photographers used a "nifty 50".

The reality is that a zoom lens is generally far more useful.
 
At 50mm, the nifty-fifty is likely to be ‘better’ than the standard kit lens. To begin with, it will most probably be sharper, has wider aperture so will be better in low light and give some options for background blur. However, on a crop body (assuming that’s what you have) it can be a bit ‘tight’ for general use. Having a fixed focal length does make you think about what position to take up as part of the creative/compositional process though, rather than just zooming the lens.

I use an EF-S 15-85mm for general photography and think it does a great job.
 
As Andrew says. Plus, you may find that your 50mm lens is actually better quality in optical terms (as Glenn has described), and it does depend a lot on the camera it is mounted on (Glenn refers to a "crop" body, the alternative being "full Frame" - on a crop or APS-C body, the 50mm becomes effectively equivalent to a 75mm on a full frame). Whereas on a phone, the camera lens defaults to a wide angle of view that can be zoomed in or out. So the bottom line is that zooms are really useful for general photography, but prime or fixed focal length lenses are intended for situations where your feet act as the zoom ring.
 
It will be better than a kit lens at 50mm, it just depends on how useful that focal length is to you. Personally, I like the 50mm equivalent view, and often have that lens on my camera, but I am not sure that I would want it as my only lens.
 
50mm is way to tight for general use on a crop sensor camera. I don't know why they get recommended so much!! Well, I do... the cost! But that's about the only plus side to them on crop sensor cameras.

On full frame they are a little more forgiving - I shot 50mm on a 5D2 for years pretty much!

You really should be looking more towards a 24mm or 28mm, 30mm, possibly 35mm at a push..... If you want a general fast aperture prime lens.

My most used is easily 35mm/40mm on full frame.
 
roblfc said:
Hi, I am a beginner photographer and have recently bought a nifty fifty lens after reading a lot about them on the Internet. I was led to believe I could throw my kit lens away but have found that not to be the case.

The trouble I am having is that whatever I try to take photos of, I can't get a wide enough frame to get all of my subjects in the shot. I never had this problem with my kit lens as I could just zoom out.

It also frustrates me that someone can take a photo of the same thing with their iPhone and get the whole subject in the shot and it looks great. Yet I am stuck not being able to fit the whole subject in.

Can I have some advice please - am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Assuming you have a crop sensor, the 50mm becomes too narrow for everyday use. It's good for portraits though. On a full frame you can spend a whole vacation using the 50mm. I find myself using the 35mm and 50mm lenses on my FF body.

There is a certain case to be said about using prime lenses since they are a fixed focal length and that's one less variable that you have to think about while shooting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zx9
@roblfc, if you're a beginner i suggest you stick with the zoom lens for many reasons.
.
.
In answer to your question, generally prime lens are better that zoom lens in terms of distortion (less distortion, which is not an issue in 2023 because it can be corrected digitally), aperture(wider aperture), weight (not necessarily unless you need equivalent quality then you compare inevitably heavy zoom lens) , portability (primes are generally smaller) and last the "looking cool factor;)".
Simply put if you constantly choose 50mm focal length on your zoom then you're better off just sticking with a 50mm prime.
Same goes for all other focal lengths.
.
.
My opinion is not to worry too much about your equipment if you're a beginner.
It's best to spend money on photography books.
 
A 50 is perfect but as has been said already you don’t have a ‘50’ you have a ‘75’ or if Cannon an ‘80’ so no wonder you can’t fit everything in!
 
I wonder just how much better image quality would be using a prime lens? Is it enough to give up the convience of shooting a zoom? Of course there are zooms and then again there are zooms. Something like a 28-70 f2.8 zoom should do a good job but my 18-200 does also. Good enough I don't feel a need to up grade it for another five hundred dollars! On the other hand if you have something like a fixed 50mm lens and can't afford a better zoom then learn to zoom with your feet! Zoom in and out by moving your feet, forward and back. Seem's to me years ago I heard or probably read the ideal lens for portrat's was a 135mm. Well might have been but took a lot of zooming with your feet and a big room to zoom in. Then down the road I read that the best portrait lens was the 85mm fixed. Probably better but I'd think you'd still need the use of your feet. I think my 18-200mm is a good portrait lens for me. If the subject doesn't fit right, zoom the lens a little! Another thing about prime lens's if you have one on and actually for whatever reason can't move enough, they your gonna need to change the lens! lens's have come a long way and I think most modern lens's, maybe even kit lens's, will get the job done for you. Of course this assume's your not making a living with a camera shooting things like portraits! If your making money taking photo's, spend money to up grade your equipment! I wonder if Ansel Adams knew his lens's just really weren't up to the job? I think if guy's like him taught me anything at all it's to do the best you can with what you have. Something I never hear is that if something is wrong but works, it works!

Forgot to mention. If you have less than a full frame camera, don't get full frame lens's. The difference between FF and the other's seems to me pretty meaningless if your using the right lens to begin with. You can spend a lot of money chashing stray dog's!
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
I'm afraid you've been caught by the propagandists!
.
There was a time when the 50mm lens was the only lens many photographers could afford, so they made do with it. When the standard zooms came along, some people tried to make themselves look clever by sneering at the zooms and saying that real photographers used a "nifty 50".

The reality is that a zoom lens is generally far more useful.
Click to expand...

This.

I brought a 50mm when I used Nikon and rarely used it.

I now have a 27mm for Fuji X, which although nice is again, rarely used.

Primes are nice, but zooms are just so much more convenient.
 
Don Fischer said:
I wonder just how much better image quality would be using a prime lens? Is it enough to give up the convience of shooting a zoom? Of course there are zooms and then again there are zooms. Something like a 28-70 f2.8 zoom should do a good job but my 18-200 does also. Good enough I don't feel a need to up grade it for another five hundred dollars! On the other hand if you have something like a fixed 50mm lens and can't afford a better zoom then learn to zoom with your feet! Zoom in and out by moving your feet, forward and back. Seem's to me years ago I heard or probably read the ideal lens for portrat's was a 135mm. Well might have been but took a lot of zooming with your feet and a big room to zoom in. Then down the road I read that the best portrait lens was the 85mm fixed. Probably better but I'd think you'd still need the use of your feet. I think my 18-200mm is a good portrait lens for me. If the subject doesn't fit right, zoom the lens a little! Another thing about prime lens's if you have one on and actually for whatever reason can't move enough, they your gonna need to change the lens! lens's have come a long way and I think most modern lens's, maybe even kit lens's, will get the job done for you. Of course this assume's your not making a living with a camera shooting things like portraits! If your making money taking photo's, spend money to up grade your equipment! I wonder if Ansel Adams knew his lens's just really weren't up to the job? I think if guy's like him taught me anything at all it's to do the best you can with what you have. Something I never hear is that if something is wrong but works, it works!

Forgot to mention. If you have less than a full frame camera, don't get full frame lens's. The difference between FF and the other's seems to me pretty meaningless if your using the right lens to begin with. You can spend a lot of money chashing stray dog's!
Click to expand...

Primes lenses are usually bought and used for their fast apertures more than f/9 sharpness.
 
As above; people that advocate the nifty fifty often fail to finish the sentence ‘on a full frame’.

I’ve had a 50mm lens or equivalent for 40 plus years, and the lenses not time it got virtually no use… when I used a Canon crop camera. It was a useless focal length, too long for general use, not long enough for a decent portrait lens.

So as you’ve found, practically it’s a rubbish focal length.

But when we talk about lenses being ‘good’, stupidly their usefulness gets put aside. So in answer to ‘is it better than a kit lens?’ Well yes it is, it has a wider max aperture making it useful for low light, or for isolating a subject, and it’s optically superior too.

But if you’re anything like me, it’s a waste of space on your crop camera.
roblfc said:
It also frustrates me that someone can take a photo of the same thing with their iPhone and get the whole subject in the shot and it looks great. Yet I am stuck not being able to fit the whole subject in.
Click to expand...
And I just want to address this point.

The wide angle lens on an iPhone is wider than anyone would have ever used for general photography pre camera phones.

It now being held as a ‘standard’ is somewhere between ridiculous and frustrating. For landscapes it’s not a bad option, wide focal length and everything is in focus.

However as a ‘people photographer’ I would only choose a WA lens for shooting massive groups, or to create some dramatic ‘distortion’. Used as a general portrait lens it’s unattractive and the fake ‘portrait’ mode looks like everyone’s first attempt in photoshop.

In essence 26mm (ish) doesn’t come close to my chosen FL of 135mm for shooting people and having them look good.
 
Photography is full of old wives tales from the distant past. The emphasis put on the "image quality" and shot discipline of primes, forms part of this outdated advice, unless you are doing high level professional work maybe. The advice of "photography bores", who trot out this rubbish is just damaging for the newcomer to photography.

When my camera dealer convinced me to try the Nikon 35-70 back in the nineties, it was a liberation from the constraints of the fixed focal length. For general photography the zoom lens is the way to go in the modern world. I love my Nikon 24-200, covers almost everything and replaces a bag full of lenses when I am travelling and my photographs are better for it.

But I would not be without my fixed FL shift lenses for my specialized photography.
 
Last edited:
@roblfc It's time to educate yourself about focal lengths, field of view and how that changes what you can get in the picture.

When you get advice, it's always good to check that it's valid and applicable for you and your situation. If you don't know, either ask or use Google etc. If you still aren't sure then don't spend money.
 
The idea of the nifty fifty was a film camera hang over. Film cameras 35mm had what digital call a full frame (the size of the sensor) You dont say what camera you have but it sound like you have a crop sensor camera (a smaller sensor) this magnifies the effect of the lens you use. Thus the 50mm on your camera is probably around 75mm view, this is a telephoto on your camera.
To get the nifty fifty view you really need a lens about 32mm (if you do have a crop sensor.
As a few have already said, while the 50mm is a good lens to have many full frame lens uses prefere a wider 35mm, on your camera that would be around 22mm to get the equivalent view.

​

 
nx4737 said:
Primes are nice, but zooms are just so much more convenient.
Click to expand...
I agree.

I also think that much of the prime lens fixation comes from users who are more concerned with chasing the chimera of "the perfect image" than using photography as a method of communication. This is not to say that sharpness, colour fidelity and tonal gradation are things to be ignored but with digital cameras, much of that can be taken for granted.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I agree.

I also think that much of the prime lens fixation comes from users who are more concerned with chasing the chimera of "the perfect image" than using photography as a method of communication. This is not to say that sharpness, colour fidelity and tonal gradation are things to be ignored but with digital cameras, much of that can be taken for granted.
Click to expand...

Are you really sure you want to throw those stones, Andrew? It's not helping the OP, and you know that image quality can't be taken for granted with digital.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Are you really sure you want to throw those stones, Andrew? It's not helping the OP, and you know that image quality can't be taken for granted with digital.
Click to expand...
Not throwing any stones, just adding to the discussion.

I think that we need to understand that the vast majority of camera users are going to be pleased with any picture that they can show to their friends and family. I'd guess that 1 in 1,000,000 camera users are going to be worried about the "technical quality" of what they produce, which I think is as it should be.

This discussion about the 50mm lens is a good example of a minority giving what may be poor advice to newcomers. In those forums devoted to technical matters, discussing such esoterica is quite correct. In this forum, devoted to assisting beginners, we should be trying to see things from their end of the telescope and advising accordingly.
 
This is a forum run primarily for enthusiast photographers, about photography. The op has bought a 'proper' camera and lens because, presumably he wants to take better pictures, therefore isn't part of the 1 million. So yes, we ARE trying to help from their end of the telescope, particularly with the position he's in now. Taking swipes at prime lens users after impossible perfection doesn't help. We also don't know why he was advised to get a 50 or even what camera he's using, and it isn't helpful to just write off this advice.

Let's encourage them to learn the craft and perhaps develop in the art, rather than serve them badly with prejudices.
 
Think of the lens as a link in the chain that produces the image. That chain might include
1. The skill of the photographer
2. The purpose of the shot
3. Camera shake (or lack of it)
4. ISO setting
5. Whether or not a large print will be made
6. Sensor size
7. Quality of lens

There are probably more, but I'm sure you get the idea.

Many years ago, there were no zoom lenses, and then (I think) the Zoomar came out in about 1960 and was an instant success, although the zoom range was only 36-82mm and the quality was atrocious. Most "serious" photographers had a very snobbish attitude towards this lens, and with good reason, and some still have that attitude, even though good zoom lenses today are very close to the quality of good prime lenses.

But, the zoom "kit" lenses are made down to a price, some are better than expected and some are hopeless, but they are all now much better than the pre-digital ones, which were designed for use with 35mm film cameras, which only had very indifferent image quality capability compared to modern digital cameras.

Even a kit zoom lens is capable of decent results (in good light at least) provided that it isn't an obvious weak link in the chain. Take the Nikon D810 as an example - there are many more examples but that's a camera that I know- Full frame, very high resolution, all of which is wasted if fitted with anything other than a very good lens.

I used to be one of the people who had both zoom and prime lenses but preferred prime lenses, they have distinct advantages in terms of image quality at large apertures, they cost a lot less than equivalent-quality zoom lenses, they're smaller and lighter, lens hoods are more effective with them and they force us to think carefully about the composition of the shot, camera angle, camera height and so on. I used to use a "nifty fifty" a lot, but eventually I wore it out and didn't replace it, and I don't miss it.

About 25 years ago I bought a 14mm Nikon lens, costing over £2,000, for a specific job (which more than paid for the lens). Today though I'd buy a wide-angle zoom, and I would let Photoshop deal with the lens aberrations, including the inevitable optical distortions, and spend a lot less:)

So, if you want to be a purist - and there's nothing wrong with that - then use prime lenses. If you want to be pragmatic - and there's nothing wrong with that either - then use zooms instead.
 
Garry Edwards said:
So, if you want to be a purist - and there's nothing wrong with that - then use prime lenses. If you want to be pragmatic - and there's nothing wrong with that either - then use zooms instead.
Click to expand...
Wise words, which I hope we can all understand and adopt.
 
Garry Edwards said:
So, if you want to be a purist - and there's nothing wrong with that - then use prime lenses. If you want to be pragmatic - and there's nothing wrong with that either - then use zooms instead.
Click to expand...
I’m pragmatic and I prefer prime:)
 
The OP wrote “am I missing something?” Which no doubt he is but so do most of the foregoing comments about the virtues or otherwise of various lenses. References to phone cameras clearly shows he’s used to a 28mm equiv and he doesn’t actually say he uses the longer lengths of his zoom at all so in his case a nifty 28mm equiv would be more appropriate if he wanted a prime.


Actually, if I remember correctly 28mm was the commonest/cheapest wide angle in film days along with the 136mm tele so nifty 28 may not be inappropriate despite the lack of rhyme ;)
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
In the words of the late Benny Hill: "Well, they can't get you for it, can they?"
Click to expand...
Who’s Benny Hill?
Im sorry but i’m not sure if it’s a joke, sarcasm or whatever because poor me I’m Greek :LOL:.
 
Just to add my penny's worth ;-

- My understanding is that the original 50mm of a 35mm film camera gave the best approximation to the 'Human' eye in terms of field of view
- A prime lenses normally provides a wider aperture and better image quality than a zoom at equivalent costs
- If the OP has indeed got a 'crop' camera then a 35mm prime would have been a better option giving a rough equivalent to the 50mm on a 'full' frame

I have a pancake 'nifty' 50 on my FF Nikon and absolutely love it, in the right situation. Manual only on my D600 but the images are IMHO superb
 
I thought I'd take a look at my Lightroom stats.

In 2022 and 2023 I used my 50 f1.4 more than any other lens, possibly because I didn't play tourist very much and was taking photographs mostly to make pictures. Prior to that I used my 24-105 zoom the most because it's a good travel lens, and I use it for capturing pictures to remember places by, rather than making personal pictures. My most used lens of all time so far is the Nikon 28-105, and I travelled quite a lot - Israel, Crete, Denmark, Italy, Canada and Fuerteventura - while I had a Nikon outfit, and more than I'm doing now.

Why do I bother to write this?

If @roblfc is still around and hasn't been scared off by the deterioration of the thread - Rob, the nifty fifty you bought is a GOOD LENS but may not suit the variety of things that you want to do. Keep it if you can afford to, and just add a kit zoom to your outfit. Use that and enjoy it while you're learning more of the craft. You may find having a nifty fifty is useful at times: https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...ers-circus-isle-of-wight.752634/#post-9377304
 
Last edited:
tikkathreebarrel said:
And don't forget, dear Op, that you can use your legs to zoom in and out!
Click to expand...
No you can’t.
That phrase shows a great misunderstanding of focal length.

If you move closer to your subject, the background becomes relatively further away
If you move further away from your subject the background becomes relatively closer to it.

What different focal lengths allow us to do is frame the subject how we choose, but that includes altering the subjects relationship to the surroundings. (In a smaller way, also the detail of the subject too)

Put simply… Focal length doesn’t alter perspective, subject distance does.
 
Phil V said:
No you can’t.
That phrase shows a great misunderstanding of focal length.

If you move closer to your subject, the background becomes relatively further away
If you move further away from your subject the background becomes relatively closer to it.

What different focal lengths allow us to do is frame the subject how we choose, but that includes altering the subjects relationship to the surroundings. (In a smaller way, also the detail of the subject too)

Put simply… Focal length doesn’t alter perspective, subject distance does.
Click to expand...
Agree.
The saying really should be "And don't forget to also move your feet when zooming in and out".
 
not commenting on above posts, but for me I find a 24-70mm f2.8 lens is usually found on my FF camera. at present the Tamron SP Di VC USD G2 version with the 82mm front lens is super steady to work with
 
roblfc said:
It also frustrates me that someone can take a photo of the same thing with their iPhone and get the whole subject in the shot and it looks great. Yet I am stuck not being able to fit the whole subject in.
Click to expand...
I often go out with the EOS M6 mk2 (APSC ) and kit zoom 15 to 45mm , if I think I will need something a bit wider I will pocket a 11 to 22mm lens as well but often still resort to the wide angle of my phone, there is nothing wrong with using a phone to get shots that you can't get with the camera.
Practice with the tools you have available to you, whatever they are and try to remember it is supposed to be fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top