A couple of dumb lens questions

[dibbly dobbler]

Evening All.

I didn't want to pollute any of the regular threads with more of my witterings so here's this instead

I have been pondering what to get as a second lens and a couple of things have been troubling me somewhat:

1. What can you do with a prime lens - eg a 50mm or a 60mm ? I know it does close up stuff well but what about general snapping, landscapes etc ?

2. What is the difference between a 50mm and a 60mm ? (And don't say 1cm !) I presume the 60 is 'better' in some way but I don't understand why...

Thanks in advance, DD

[4hero]

I'm crap at the techie stuff, but here goes:

50mm: Much better (less, or is it more ) depth of field being f1.8 or less, depending on budget. The f1.8 is a little soft, and cheap build quality, and crap not so good at focusing in low light. Still, for £70-£80 you cannot go wrong with having one in your bag! Great fun little lens, like mine a lot. I've seen Flat Plank Cranky (you know who I mean) up at knockhill panning with the 50mm and producing excellent results! Take a look at flickr for some example shots.

60mm: You really need to buy the one I have right now (it's my father in laws, he's away on holiday and left me to sell it) . For under £300 (make me an offer, it's not for sale anywhere else yet) it's a great all rounder. Not much good for landscapes being a prime, but for portraits/macro/other stuff, it's a beauty! Take a look at flickr for some example shots.

[Simpo Two]

dibbly dobbler said:

I have been pondering what to get as a second lens and a couple of things have been troubling me somewhat:

1. What can you do with a prime lens - eg a 50mm or a 60mm ? I know it does close up stuff well but what about general snapping, landscapes etc ?

If the only criterion is focal length then the only difference is field of view (FOV). The 60mm will seem slightly 'closer' than the 50mm, ie a smaller FOV.

dibbly dobbler said:

2. What is the difference between a 50mm and a 60mm ? (And don't say 1cm !) I presume the 60 is 'better' in some way but I don't understand why...

It is indeed 10mm.

However a 50mm lens, often called a standard lens, is normally 'fast', ie at least f1.8. That's its main claim to fame. By contrast a 60mm lens, for some reason I'm not sure of, is commonly used for macro lenses. These are optimised for 1:1 magnification not speed, most if not all being f2.8. So whilst there's not much difference in focal length, the concept behind each lens is different. That said, a 60mm macro lens will make a very good prime lens too.

So if you want to photograph fly's eyebrows, you'll need a macro lens (whether 60, 90 or 105mm), and if you don't, you can save money and get a standard 50mm

Edited by Simpo Two on Thursday 24th June 23:00

[RobDickinson]

Re 50mm vs 60mm, theres no 'better' just a narrow field of view.

But as said 50's tend to be fast primes.

60's tend to be slower (croped) macro's

no idea why as such as the crop factor is somewhat irrelevant for macro as working distanec and magnification are the important aspects.

[GetCarter]

What lens do you have at the moment Mike? And what are you 'missing' from that lens?

[Hub]

Neither are good for landscapes as they are not wide enough. It also depends on the camera - Professional cameras have a full size sensor, lower end ones have a smaller sensor and the lenses are closer, meaning that they have a greater 'zoom' effect. This means that the 50mm is good for things like portraits.

For reasons unknown to me these 'prime' lenses are generally considered higher quality that 'zoom' lenses, I guess due to fewer moving parts and less glass in the lens itself.

[GetCarter]

Hub said:

For reasons unknown to me these 'prime' lenses are generally considered higher quality that 'zoom' lenses, I guess due to fewer moving parts and less glass in the lens itself.

They are generally faster too.

[clonmult]

Hub said:

Neither are good for landscapes as they are not wide enough. It also depends on the camera - Professional cameras have a full size sensor, lower end ones have a smaller sensor and the lenses are closer, meaning that they have a greater 'zoom' effect. This means that the 50mm is good for things like portraits.

For reasons unknown to me these 'prime' lenses are generally considered higher quality that 'zoom' lenses, I guess due to fewer moving parts and less glass in the lens itself.

Prime lenses have their optics optimised for that specific focal length - zooms tend to have at least some compromises in their optics, so may be soft at the longer end, etc.

[Simpo Two]

RobDickinson said:

60's tend to be slower (croped) macro's

A quick scan of the Calumet brochure confirms my thought that all Micro Nikkors are FX 'full frame'. At a guess the 60mm is 'only' f2.8 due to the extra elements/gubbins inside required to get 1:1 magnification.

But whether it's FX or DX, it doesn't make a difference to the particular question.

[dibbly dobbler]

Thanks all for your replies gentlemen - extremely helpful and very much appreciated as usual

I'll need to have a proper read though and a think at the weekend but I am leaning towards the 60mm as I am getting interested in macro work, that would leave my 18-55 kit lens for landscapes and general walkabout snapping (Steve - this is all I have right now).

If any other newbies want to pitch in with their lens questions feel free

[Simpo Two]

dibbly dobbler said:

I am leaning towards the 60mm as I am getting interested in macro work, that would leave my 18-55 kit lens for landscapes and general walkabout snapping

That sounds like a good idea.

And then of course you'll need a telephoto...

[4hero]

^ and then a second body

Give me a shout if you want the 60mm DD

[adamfogerty]

Tamron has a good tool on their web site to help you visualise the field of view/'zoom effect' of various focal lengths (e.g. 50mm vs. 60mm):

http://www.tamron.com/lenses/learning_center/tools...

Adam

[dibbly dobbler]

Adam - thanks for the link. Yes that is very useful in help me visualise what is going on there with the different focal lengths. (Some lovely stuff on your website by the way! )

[dibbly dobbler]

Dear Mods.

Please tell Mr 4hero to stop tempting me with his overpriced merchandise. He is like a photography crack addict and is trying to drag me into his world of financial ruin !

Sincerely, Dibbly.

[NewNameNeeded]

dibbly dobbler said:

... am leaning towards the 60mm as I am getting interested in macro work,

You may find a 60mm macro isn't long enough for your liking (the shorter the lens the closer to the subject you need to be to get a true 1:1 ratio (i.e. for the subject to really fill the shot) and if that subject is something like a butterfly or insect or whatever then you might frighten it.

100mm is perhaps a more useful length for a macro (consider 90mm tamron, 105mm sigma, for instance) and would be worth you considering before jumping on a 60mm.

Biggest advantage of the 50mm is the price - they are dirt cheap for an f1.8. That allows a few advantages over you 18-55mm

1) faster lens (lower f number) allows shots to be taken in darker light at same ISO at a faster shutter speed than your 18-55mm whilst still achieving same exposure. So for instance it might be more suitable if you like taking shots inside churches where flash is not available.

2) the lower f number allows for much better isolation of a subject, so you get the subject really sharp, and the background blurred - much more than the 18-55mm could offer. This is more pronounced on such a short lens with subjects very close to the lens. If someone was a few feet away it isn't so obvious versus what you have now.

3) there are very small and light so ideal for walkaround or when you want to be somewhat discrete

4) without a zoom I tend to find I am thinking more about the shot, composition, etc. Much more so than when I can just twist the barrel and zoom in/out.

I personally loved my jump from 18-55mm to a 50mm f1.8 ... but ultimately moved to a 17-55mm f2.8 which I feel gives me the best of all worlds.

[mmertens]

If you're interested in macro stuff and have a 18-55 already, I'd suggest going for a longer macro lens like a 90mm or a 105mm (or even a 180 or 200 but that gets pricey). This will allow you to make macros from lightly greater distance which especially with insects is a boon. In addition, 90 or 105 mm is also a good length for portrait lenses so you'd get a good macro & a good portrait lens in one.

Maarten

Edited to say - well I just could have agreed with the previous poster!

Edited by mmertens on Friday 25th June 13:21

[4hero]

dibbly dobbler said:

Dear Mods.

Please tell Mr 4hero to stop tempting me with his overpriced merchandise. He is like a photography crack addict and is trying to drag me into his world of financial ruin !

Sincerely, Dibbly.

it's not overpriced, it's a bargain

[LongQ]

4hero said:

it's not overpriced, it's a bargain

In fact, probably an investment ....

[dibbly dobbler]

Matt and Maarten - thankyou both for some excellent and well thought out advice

I'm desperately keen not to buy the wrong thing but at some point I'll have to take the plunge. My old man is a decent snapper so I'm going to have a good boff with him this weekend before I make up my mind...

Great little forum this btw - you guys rock