Limited flexibility
I know, 50mm lenses are supposed to be easy to use in a variety of situations and produce quality images, and it’s certainly true that they can. However, they are usually the holders of all trades and not masters of any trade, living somewhere in between or on either side of the better option(s). For portraiture, they’re great for half-body shots, but if you want to take a traditional headshot, it’s likely better to go up to 85mm. For landscapes, they’re a bit too long to capture enough of the scene, and too short to really separate the single elements. Sports? Are not. Wild animals? NUH uh.
Of course, I’m not saying that a 50mm lens is completely unsuitable for such genres and applications. Instead, I’m saying that there are often better options, more fit for purpose. It’s rare that 50mm is the ideal focal length. For landscapes, get that 24mm or 24-105mm zoom. For portraits, go for 85mm or 70-200mm if you want more flexibility. Sports and wildlife? Go to the super telephoto range.
Limited perspective
50mm is often advertised as the focal length closest to the human eye, making images look natural. And while that may be true in general, I would argue that it is a deficit, not a gain. If we all look with a “50mm” lens all day, every day, it makes it difficult for photographers to create images that capture the viewer’s attention thanks to their novelty. People immediately react to a 24mm or 200mm photo because it’s so different from what they’ve seen, even if the untrained eye can’t tell why.
Of course, you could argue that the photographer has to find other ways to be creative, but to that, I say: why don’t you start your own? This also doesn’t mean that you can simply set a more unusual focal length and use it as a crutch; no matter what you use, all the fundamentals of a good photo — composition, pose, lighting, editing, etc. — must be present. A bad photo is a bad photo whether it was taken at 10mm, 50mm or 400mm.
Modern zoom lenses or other primes are usually a better choice
The 50mm lens was once considered a mainstay in almost every photographer’s kit. I’m over-generalizing lens design, but in the simplest terms, the more extreme the focal length, the harder it is to design a lens that produces high-quality images, and the more expensive it is. That is part of the reason why for a long time the “convenience fifty” was highly desired, as one could get a wide aperture lens that produced good images for around 100-200 dollars.
Lens design has come a long way even in the last decade, and there’s a great selection at every focal length and price point. 50mm is no longer the most prominent “cheap but good” option; you can find something to suit your budget almost anywhere in the range.
Going further: in the past, the model assumed that many photographers would carry zoom lenses for versatility and convenience as well as prime lenses for wide apertures and image quality. However, modern zoom lenses continue to push the limits of image quality and wide apertures, and that advantage held by prime lenses has largely disappeared, at least in some cases. case. In particular, I’m thinking about Canon RF 28-70mm f/2 L USM. Is it expensive? Yes and no. In absolute terms, it certainly is. However, when you consider the fact that I no longer own any other lenses between the 14mm and 85mm, its worth becomes clear. Its image quality easily keeps up with all but the best primes, its f/2 aperture is more than enough for 99% of situations, and its convenience makes me far more attractive than carry three or four equivalent primes. Even the world’s more modest 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses have made great strides, and the high ISO capabilities of modern cameras mean those f/1.4 apertures are no longer needed. necessary as before.
I’m not good at it
It would be remiss not to mention another reason I don’t like the 50mm focal length: I’m simply not good at creating compelling images with it. I don’t find it exciting or enjoyable to work with and it’s been a constant struggle to figure out how to get creative with such a lens for me. Such a lens performs at its best: good for low-light situations where I might need a wide aperture, but even then, I would probably go for the 28-70mm f/2 lens already. said above. In fact, I don’t even own a 50mm lens anymore.
Of course, the need to be inspired by the device was certainly a shortcoming in my own technique and creativity; I’ll be the first to admit it. However, we all have weaknesses and blind spots, and it seems that no matter how many times I buy a 50mm lens and force myself to shoot with it, I just hate the experience and end up selling it a few months later. Many other photographers would shudder to read that, as they swear by 50mm lenses. Yet that’s the beauty of creative pursuits; We all filter the world through our own unique perspectives and strengths. Please don’t filter me through a 50mm lens.
Your thoughts
Do you like the 50mm focal length? Is it right for you, or has it lost some of its usefulness with the advancements of modern lenses and cameras? Let me know in the comments section.
