Anyone else not a big fan of the nifty 50?
 

I've had a few 50mm lenses through the years and my current one is nice, real nice imho, but I always seem to go for something wider or with more reach. The 50mm is frequently referred to as a must have lens, but mine is almost never on my camera. My current lineup...

Zeiss C/Y 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.4
Canon 24-105/4 IS, 70-200/2.8 IS
Samyang 14/2.8
Hartblei Super Rotator 80/2.8

I'm thinking about shuffling my lineup a bit - selling the 28, 35 and 50 - getting the ZF 21/2.8 and possibly a C/Y 35/1.4 to get back the extra stops I'd lose by getting rid of the 50 and get a more usable FL indoors. Am I missing something with the beloved 50?

Re: Anyone else not a big fan of the nifty 50?
 

A 50mm (I have a Zeiss ZE 50mm, the Canon 50mm 1.8 and zooms with that in the range) is one of the most useful focal lengths for video/motion for that size sensor. It works great as the establishing shot for interviews, and I also use a Zeiss 85mm for the tighter shots. And just as an all around a 50mm works quite well.

I am a photographer for 12 years and use wide angle when needed for stills. But I find wide angle, meaning 28mm and wider, honestly requires a purpose when it comes to video for going that wide. Factors that play into that is how large is the video presented and how large is specific content sized in the frame. A small room with a person or people very prominent in frame size is one thing, but shooting a vast wide landscape or cityscape with tons of small detail can be lost if the detail is important. That's where wide seems less effective.

I find the ideal focal lengths for the 5DII sensor to be 28, 35, 50, 85 and occasionally longer telephoto lenses as required. Shooting the 5DII for video with a 21mm can be odd especially when panning the camera.

My walk around go to lens is the 24-105 since it covers nearly everything I need in one lens for a lightweight and mobile kit.

Also I don't see the need for wider lenses to be fast 1.4 aperture. The Zeiss 28mm F2.8 wide open is wonderful, sharp, clean but only carries just enough depth, so more often than not I may shoot it at F4 if light permits. Also the Zeiss C/Y 35/1.4 is questionable on mounting on the 5DII, some people have made it work and some not. There is a protrusion on the rear of the lens. I looked into it years ago and didn't bother. The Zeiss C/Y 35/2.8 can be had for a fraction the cost, mounts fine and no viewer will know the difference.

Re: Anyone else not a big fan of the nifty 50?
 

John, I hear what you're saying, I guess I just prefer the look and the wider FOV of the 28 and the 35, even for interviews and such. I always crop wider than 16:9 - cropamorphic as I like to call it - and that combined with wider lenses gives everything a very dramatic, cinematic feel.

I usually bounce between the 28/35 and the 85 when I have the time to switch lenses. I use the 24-105 for the run-and-gun stuff and lots of b-roll, and then Zeiss if I can plant the camera on a tripod for interviews. The 21 would be more for stills and static video - no pans. I've had 3 50mm lenses (Canon 1.8, 1.4 and the Zeiss) and I just never seem to use them.

The other direction I'm considering is getting another tilt-shift lens, either the Hartblei 35mm or the TS-E 24mm to get a wider FOV with the T/S capabilities. Hmmm...

Re: Anyone else not a big fan of the nifty 50?
 

50mm is one of my favorite focal lengths, but I generally use a zoom to cover it, and not the 50mm prime (unless I'm in a sit-down interview setting). When I was shooting crop-sensor, 50mm was too tight, but with the 5D it's perfect.

The 50mm f/1.8 is so popular because it's a f/1.8 lens in the $100 range. It is hard to justify a $2500 70-200 for many people, but a 50mm f/1.8 for $100 is kind of a must have. (The f/1.4 is a much nicer lens, but even the $400 chases many people away.)

Re: Anyone else not a big fan of the nifty 50?
 

Mine stays in the bag most of the time. Usually, I'm wider or longer. It only comes out to play on the occasional interview set-up.

Re: Anyone else not a big fan of the nifty 50?
 

What camera do you use it with?

Re: Anyone else not a big fan of the nifty 50?
 

I have the 5d2.

Re: Anyone else not a big fan of the nifty 50?
 

I have owned many 50mm lenses from Nikon, Pentax, Canon, Contax, Leica etc in f/2, f/1.4 and f/1.2 speeds, but always eventually sold them all. For most work I much prefer the wider lenses in the 15mm to 28mm range or the telephoto lenses in the 135mm-600mm range.
My 'normal' lens for the 5D Mk2 is the MF Pentax 67 Large Format SMC 45mm f/4 which I use mainly for shots or footage where I require corner-to-corner sharpness, such as landscapes.
My favourite lens for decades has been the 24mm prime which in my view is far, far more useful than the 50mm lens, but I eventually sold my 20mm & 24mm lenses because the Nikkor AF 20-35mm f/2.8 was getting so much use...and that particular lens with outstanding build quality changed my oldtimer views about the need to carry a bagful of primes to cover the same focal lengths.
On the 5D my EF 17-35mm f/2.8 L lens covers these ranges for both stills and video - which produces outstanding quality stills & video. My EF 35-350mm L covers the 50mm range for video, so I don't feel the need to carry an extra 50mm fixed lens.
The main advantage of a 50mm lens is that a used one can be picked up relatively cheaply and I doubt if anyone could tell the difference in footage filmed with a 50mm lens from Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta, Leica, Contax/Yashica... So if you MUST use a 50mm lens, it doesn't really matter if it is a brand-new-fangdango Zeiss or battered old Yashica or Konica, because they will all produce outstanding sharpness and contrast...so it is far more important to buy a 50mm lens which has the right handling, ease of focus and build quality that fits your own needs.

Re: Anyone else not a big fan of the nifty 50?
 

John,

My experience with video focal lengths is exactly the same as yours. Occasionally, something longer than 85 or wider than 28 is required, but only for specific shots.

An ultra-wide, like the 21/2.8 can be fantastic, but must be used very specifically. For instance, flying camera shots and dolly shots can work well, as can shots that really work the perspective, but stagy, straight-on, head-height tripod shots with and without pans can be horrible. That said, stop the ZE 21/2.8 down to f/11 or tighter and it's a fantastic landscape photo lens.

And don't forget about the importance of a macro. Many lenses in the 28-85 range have poor minimum focus distances. When you want to rack focus to a nearby candle, or just plain show a hand, a note, a photo, or a clue, the minimum focus distance is an important consideration.

BTW, I got to handle the ZE 35/1.4 today and I was disappointed that it didn't have a longer focus ring throw like the 50/1.4 or 85/1.4, The throw is pretty much identical to my ZE 35/2, yet the body has the size and weight of the 85/1.4. I now feel better about the 35/2, which is quite similar in performance to the 35/1.4, but without the extra stop.

BTW, for me, I love the 35mm view for my normal, especially when shooting for 2.35:1 delivery.

Re: Anyone else not a big fan of the nifty 50?
 

John F, I agree - a macro lens is probably the biggest gap in my current lineup - its something I've also been considering. When I want something really tight I usually go with the 70-200 on sticks. I know a macro would be better, but I want to stick with Zeiss for most of my video work and the Marko's are spendy for something that might not be on my camera that much. I think I'd go with another T/S lens before a macro.

I posed the question mainly because I see so many posts that show a lot of love for the various 50mm options and it just doesn't do anything for me. I find myself using the 35 and 28 more than any other, then the 70-200 and the 24-105. I'm back and forth with the 21, obviously I love with wider FOV, but it does have limitations on the video side of things. I had the 17-40 for 5 years and I have the 14mm Samyang, so I'm well versed with shooting wide angle lenses.

Re: Anyone else not a big fan of the nifty 50?
 

When I shoot stills I can shoot all day long with just the 50mm. For video though I prefer to shoot with the 24 and the 85 or the 135 (on a 5DMkII). If i had a 70-200L IS I would only shoot with that and the 24 f1.4.
The 50mm is fine on a crop sensor especialy considering the cost.

Re: Anyone else not a big fan of the nifty 50?
 

I'm thinking that a great, two lens, matched solution is the ZE 35/2 and the ZE 100/2 Makro (as compared to the 85/1.4.) That gives you f/2 with both lenses, 1:2 macro capability, and Zeiss quality. The Makro has a fair amount of falloff wide open, but it's amazingly sharp to the corners.

I shot video at NAB over two days, and the 35/2 was on the camera 80% of the time. The 21/2.8 was interesting for some shots, but I got bored of it. I wasn't going for an "extreme perspective from crazy angles" look, so it was just wide. (It was great on the Strip at night though.) The 85/1.4 was great for logos, small signs, and really isolating things with shallow DOF. Anyway, the ZE 35/2 continues to be my bread and butter lens.

Re: Anyone else not a big fan of the nifty 50?
 

Preach on. Part of the allure of the 50mm is that you can get a very nice piece of glass for much less then wider angles. I try to keep the 50 on, but always end up putting on the zoom, even though it's a stop and a half slower.

Re: Anyone else not a big fan of the nifty 50?
 

OT, but what was up with every Tom, Dick and Harry with a DSLR and a shoulder rig at NAB this year? There were as many "reporters" as there were attendees. My feet are killing me by the end of the day and my arm is about to fall off after every booth says "want some literature?", I can't imagine dragging a whole gear kit around.

Re: Anyone else not a big fan of the nifty 50?
 

I sometimes shoot a "being there" style. That is, with a 50mm lens and the video shown on a large TV at normal viewing distance, the angle of view is the same as if you were there and looking directly at the scene. If you shoot carefully with this style you can create the feeling of being at a site. It can be useful for travel logs or any scene where you want to convey the actual scale of things.

Re: Anyone else not a big fan of the nifty 50?
 

I think there were more DSLR shooters last year. This year they said, "what the heck was I thinking?" ;) I had a specific project in mind, so this is a one-off thing for me too. It was definitely a lot of work. On the other hand, I was able to refuse all literature, taking only business cards. I wore a lav so I could add commentary, rather than taking notes. (I had planned on doing some quickie interviews with it, but soon decided it was too much.)

The rig was definitely a conversation starter. Each day I set up and tore down at some sofas and tables near the Tiffen booth. I could feel everyone's eyes on me as I'd put each component quickly and specifically in it's place. I only got called a geek a few times (mostly by people I knew) though one woman on the Strip told me to get a life...

Back on topic, I agree that the 50mm on a full frame body is a "being there" lens. The 35mm is a "being there with a touch of attitude" lens. :)

Re: Anyone else not a big fan of the nifty 50?
 

I use the 35 as a being there lens as well, to me the 50 FOV is too narrow for the natural perspective, the 35 just has a more lifelike feel. I've decided I'm going to part with my 50 and 85 to fund a 100mm Makro.

Re: Anyone else not a big fan of the nifty 50?
 

I find that the 180mm or 200mm macro lenses are far more useful than the 50mm or 100mm macro for a wide range of subjects.

Re: Anyone else not a big fan of the nifty 50?
 

The nice thing about the ZE 100/2 Makro is that it's fast enough to replace an 85, it's sharp as can be, and has negligible distortion. It doesn't do 1:1 or greater magnification (it's a 1:2), so it won't deliver extreme macro shots.

The advantage that I see is the range between 15% and 50% magnification. Most 85mm lenses won't focus closer than a meter or so. You might set up a shot and then find that you can't quite rack all the way to the closest object in your view. With the 100/2, you'll never run into that limitation in real-world shooting.

For true macro shooting, a longer lens would be nice so you don't have to get so dang close. But the EF 180/3.5L loses nearly two stops to the 100/2. That's no problem for macro photos, where we often stop way down to get a reasonably deep focus. It's right on the edge for video though.

Both the ZE 100/2 and EF 180/3.5L are beautifully sharp to the corners. The 100/2 has less vignetting than the 180/3.5L at the same aperture, though the 180L isn't bad.

To me, the 100 is the more practical lens. I brought my 200/2.8L to NAB & the Strip, and never put it on the camera. The 85/1.4 was as long as I needed, and I never really needed to go beyond f/2. (Though I did for the shallowest focus effects.) That said, I did some rack focus pulls across mixer and switcher consoles, and the close focus of the 100/2 would have been sweet - and the DOF up close with the 100/2 would have been shallower than the 85/1.4 backed up and wide open.

For macro photography though, the 180/3.5L would be a dream, though the 100L IS might be more fun when you can get the shots quickly without the need for a tripod.

Re: Anyone else not a big fan of the nifty 50?
 

That's a great summary John. The focus ring on the Zeiss is so sweet, my only Canon lenses - for now anyway - are zooms. For video I just love the feel and the throw my Zeiss lenses have, so for me the 100 Makro is the only choice. I've already seen what the 100mp can do with from looking at Flickr and Fred Miranda, one day I hope to use it to its potential.

Re: Anyone else not a big fan of the nifty 50?
 

Both the Canon EF and Sigma 180mm have f/3.5 widest aperture, but I much prefer the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 Macro APO, which is sharp wide open and at most f/stops (although like the ZE 100mm it only reaches 1:2 Macro). The 180mm f/2.8 came in AF and MF versions. The MF version has a nice wide and smooth focus ring and the whole lens is very robustly built with metal barrel and metal hood.

I'm not sure if I agree with the term '...It's right on the edge of video..'. I use every aperture on my lenses for video, from wide open to completely stopped down, depending on subject and requirement or affect, and use every type of lens from extreme wide angle to extreme telephoto.
Yes, I will of course use a lens wide-open when needed, but despite the vogue for many DLSR videographers to shoot constantly at widest f-stop, I tend to use the f/4-f/8 range far more often.

I'm still amazed at the number of people who seem to think that just because they've got a 50mm f/1.2 lens bayoneted on to their camera that they must shoot almost everything at the widest possible aperture. A narrow DOF is great for certain subjects...but I see it used far too much over recent years, and becomes tedious when it becomes the sole factor of the video.

Making the subject stand out from a busy background can be controlled with lens aperture, but more often a telephoto lens improves that affect.

Even at f/4 with a 45mm lens, the subject can be made to stand out in sharp relief from the background by simply moving in closer to the subject so that it forms part of the frame.

Yes, use that f/1.4 aperture to focus the viewers brief attention on the eye of a model, or maybe as an effort to maintain clean ISO during low light levels, but not just for the sake of it on almost every scene in the movie.

Re: Anyone else not a big fan of the nifty 50?
 

I agree with you about aperture. By "right on the edge", I mean that f/4 is often as slow as I can go indoors even with a small light kit to keep the gain (ISO) at a reasonable level. At NAB, f/4 was pretty comfortable on the open floor, but not fast enough to shoot the equipment in the darker booths.

On one of our first narrative shoots (back in the auto-only days of the 5D2), we only had a 24/2.8, 50/1.8, and 200/4. We'd set up an f/2.8 shot for the wider lenses, decide to go to the tighter lens and have to move lights. The good news is that you can move the lights closer with a tight lens. The bad news is that you have to pull them back if you return to a wide shot. Of course, with enough watts, this isn't a problem. And shooting at f/4 or slower is a good approach for telling a Hollywood story where you want to nail focus 100% of the time.

So f/3.5 isn't over the edge. It just doesn't give you much margin. A matched f/2 kit doesn't let you shoot in the lowest light or get to the slimmest possible DOF, but it ensures that once you set up a scene, you've got some margin if it's a bit dark and that you can go to any lens at will - especially when the lenses can cover close focusing.

The Sigma 180/2.8 Macro APO would be a real option for replacing my Canon EF 200/2.8L. Like the 70-200L zoom, the images are stunning, but the MFD is about five feet. And unlike the Canon zoom, the prime doesn't have IS. I really love the 200L for photos and have a 2x extender, but I find the 200mm view to be too tight for my style of video. In practice, I only use it outdoors and only very rarely for video. Adding macro capability would certainly increase its value in my kit.

Re: Anyone else not a big fan of the nifty 50?
 

Looking at the Sigma website, isn't this a 150mm lens, rather than 180? I see that they have a version with optical stabilization too, but it's pricey.

Still the advantage of the ZE 100/2 is that it can replace a fast 85mm lens in the kit, and it offers a manual focus ring for video.

Re: Anyone else not a big fan of the nifty 50?
 

The Sigma 180mm APO f/2.8 Macro was discontinued when they launched the updated f/3.5 EX 1:1 model, so you'll need to keep an eye on Ebay for one.
Like you, I love the sharpness and handling of the Canon 200mm f/2.8, and also owned the Pentax A* 200mm f/2.8 and Nikkor 180mm f/2.8...all knife-sharp optics, but always wished that they had closer minimum focus. The Sigma 180mm f/2.8 Macro fitted that requirement. I've owned two of them in the past, but sadly dropped both from a great height on to rocks and both broke in half! So now I'm on the look out for another.

Re: Anyone else not a big fan of the nifty 50?
 

Both? Dang!

Re: Anyone else not a big fan of the nifty 50?
 

Kind of funny, two years ago at NAB 2009, I was one of the few - maybe the only person shooting interviews on the show floor with the 5DM2 and "tweeting", now, you're right, everyone is doing it! Pretty cool to see the evolution though. The lens used in the video above and the one I find myself reaching for is the Canon 24-70 2.8. That way I can hit a wide range when run-n-gunnin'. It's not as tack sharp as a prime and there is no IS, but being able to go wide to slight telephoto is pretty sweet. It's also a beast to handhold still without a rig. I've been eating my Wheaties :) Cost is also pretty extreme. Luckily I had this lens on my ole Canon 1D Mark IIn before the whole HDSLR revolution began so it was "just sitting around". It probably wouldn't have been a lens I would have chosen for HD Video. Now I love it, I bought the 50mm 1.4 after, and still, the 24-70 gets way more use.

Re: Anyone else not a big fan of the nifty 50?
 

I'm with you on the 24-70, its just such a useful range, great bokeh and on the 5D and there aren't many occasions that you want to stop down below 2.8 (except for the obvious low-light situations). Yes it is a little less sharp than a good prime when you pixel peep on a 21 mega pixel image, but you can't do that with video anyway. Close focusing is actually pretty good too (from memory it goes to around .3 magnification).

But I would still like to round it off with the 100mm macro IS f2.8 (my next lens purchase and a good match with the 24-70 in terms of aperture).

For low-light I've got a Super Tak SMC f1.4 50mm and for a low-light-wide I would like to add the 28 1.8 or similar. For the moment that's about all I really want from a set of lenses.