Which 50mm for my D7000?

philstanbridge

philstanbridge

philstanbridge

Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
8,518
Location
West Coast of Scotland
Slightly confused by the range of 50's available.

I'm looking at the 1.4D but there is also a 1.4G which is considerably more expensive. Are there any benefits of using the G model over the D with my camera?

Edit: I already own the 35mm and that is fantastic but I just want it slightly larger.
 
Last edited:
The g model has inbuilt af motor so you can use it on d5100/d3100 etc which dont have in body af motors, cos you have d7000 which does have an in body af motor you can get the d version.
Have you looked at the sigma 50mm 1.4? Supposed to be very good.
 
Last edited:
danoliver1 said:
The g model has inbuilt af motor so you can use it on d5100/d3100 etc which dont have in body af motors, cos you have d7000 which does have an in body af motor you can get the d version.
Have you looked at the sigma 50mm 1.4? Supposed to be very good.
Click to expand...

I haven't no - worth a look then?

Edit: Is it the 50 1.4 EX DG ESM?
 
Last edited:
philstanbridge said:
That's a good question - probably the wider aperture if I'm honest. The 35 I have is superb but I can struggle to squeeze things in.
Click to expand...

I don't understand, do you want something wider in focal length than the 35mm? In which case you are going he wrong we with the 50mm.

With the 50mm you will fit less subject in a frame from the same distance.
 
philstanbridge said:
That's a good question - probably the wider aperture if I'm honest. The 35 I have is superb but I can struggle to squeeze things in.
Click to expand...

Confused also, sounds like you need a wider focal length not a wider apature. Are you finding yourself having to move farther away from your subject to fit it in the picture? If so you need a smaller focal length.
 
Sorry - my lack of understanding. With the 35 it is a very good lens quality wise - the best portraits i take are crystal clear. But I find I cannot fit a lot into the shot unless (as you say) I stand back a bit. Usually this ends up in unwanted stuff in the background, or less clarity. I end up cropping some of the head, or shoulders. I would like to be able to squeeze a bit more into the frame - and I presumed the 50 would give me that little extra?
 
A 50mm lens would be like taking 2 steps towards your subject which i think is the exact opposite of what you want to do.
You need a wider angle lense something like Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di-II LD ASP IF Lens for £279.
Or the sigma 18-35 1.8 but thats nearly £700.
 
Last edited:
philstanbridge said:
Sorry - my lack of understanding. With the 35 it is a very good lens quality wise - the best portraits i take are crystal clear. But I find I cannot fit a lot into the shot unless (as you say) I stand back a bit. Usually this ends up in unwanted stuff in the background, or less clarity. I end up cropping some of the head, or shoulders. I would like to be able to squeeze a bit more into the frame - and I presumed the 50 would give me that little extra?
Click to expand...

A 50mm is going to make your problem worse, if you cant fit enough of the scene into the frame then you want a wider angle lens.

Do you have a zoom lens- a lens that can change focal lengths like the kit lens? If you do play with that and find what focal length you like.

If you don't have a zoom lens (something like 18-55/18-105mm) etc. then I highly recommend buying one. It will give much more flexibility and teach you about perspective.
 
I've recently invested in a wide-angle (11-24) for landscapes and it's a great lens for that but it's not what I want for portraits. I got my knickers in a twist with the contrast between the 35-50. I don't have a kit lens or anything like that. Question - so if the 50 is approx 2 stops forward, what on earth do people use it for?
 
I think you are confusing yourself, and everyone else. You should be using 50 (on crop) or 85mm for portraiture ideally.

philstanbridge said:
so if the 50 is approx 2 stops forward, what on earth do people use it for?
Click to expand...

danoliver1 was just explaining the difference between your 35mm and a 50mm, it's equivalent to taking two steps forward. You shouldn't take portrait photos with a wide angle, it makes people's faces look weird.

I think you want a longer lens, like an 85mm to isolate your subject from the background seeing as your issue is 'too much rubbish in the background'. You will just have to stand further back from your subject, it's just how it works.

17uHqnJ.jpg
 
Last edited:
philstanbridge said:
I've recently invested in a wide-angle (11-24) for landscapes and it's a great lens for that but it's not what I want for portraits. I got my knickers in a twist with the contrast between the 35-50. I don't have a kit lens or anything like that. Question - so if the 50 is approx 2 stops forward, what on earth do people use it for?
Click to expand...

Its 2 steps forward in relation to its focal length but it also changes the field of view as well so you dont get as much distortion as you do with a 35mm eg a 35mm will make peoples noses and ears look bigger so less flattering than an 50mm. A lot of phographers wont use anything less than an 85mm, with the 135mm considered the best portrait lens.
I use my 35mm for full body portraits and the 50mm for head and shoulder shots.
 
Last edited:
danoliver1 said:
a 35mm will make peoples noses and ears look bigger so less flattering than an 50mm. A lot of phographers wont use anything less than an 85mm, with the 135mm considered the best portrait lens.
I use my 35mm for full body portraits and the 50mm for head and shoulder shots.
Click to expand...

That's interesting about the distortion. I still think a 50 would be a decent upgrade for me. I can't afford the 85s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom