Whether I agree or disagree, it's good to hear your professional opinion about things. While I've gotten some great shots with my nifty fifty. I find it annoying to use for the exact reasons you mentioned here. It's definitely not as versatile as other lenses I have.
I think if you have time to compose your shot and really get creative a prime lens can be an excellent choice. It really depends what kind of shoe you are and how you'd like to work.
Have all the lenses you mentioned but have deliberately only shot with my 50mm the last year and I am starting to like it. It may be the only lens I need, but it takes some time before you discover what a fantastic lens and that focus length is. I think 50 mm is for the creative and the other variants you mentioned for the not so creative people.
What's funny is most of the comments are agreeing with me. Who knew that we were all having this same issue with the 50 mm. Somewhere along the line we all must have felt we needed it for some reason. I guess it takes some time and a little bit of experience to figure out if you do or not.
Excellent video Bill. I completely agree with you. The 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 are workhorses. They do everything. I have a 50mm f1.8. Ask me how times I’ve used it…not much. I go for the 24-70f2.8. For landscapes I use the 16-35 if I want very wise angle.
That's a good way to put it They are where courses. Maybe I should sell my 24 to 70 F4 and this 50 mm and just get the 24 to 70 2.8. I'd probably be much happier. Thanks for watching!
Bill, thank you for this video. I have multiple zooms (14-35mm, 70-200mm) and have been looking for a prime. I have the 35mm and love it. Everyone says to get the 50mm but like you, it doesn’t work for my shooting. I’ll follow your lead and look at the 85mm. Thank you!
Good video and I could not agree more! I, too, have always found 50mm on FF being limited; if I have to pick one prime lens to walk around with, I would go with 35mm. Interestingly, among my photography friends, I got an impression that those who love 50mm prime, tends to really not like 35mm and vice versa. On the other hand, 55mm on APSC makes a decent portrait lens.
Hmm, i contemplated the 35mm prime and went with the 50 for some reason. Maybe i should trade it in on the 35mm as I'm not in kove with this 50mm, but at the same time can't say anything to criticize it. Just prefer my other z lenses.
Finally you say your a zoom shooter. So all the other preceding talk is not appropriate. I mainly shoot zooms but have two good fifty mm lenses that I use more now my camera has image stabilization. My zoom stabilized let me shoot at the same Sutter speed as my 50 wide open unstablelised. Now I have inbodie stabilization I gain with the wider aperture on my 50mm. .
Thanks for your video. I was thinking to get a used 50mm F1.8 z lens but I had the same the concerns that once I've got this lens it will be sitting in my bag and never see the daylight. I shoot mostly landscape and occassionally taking pictures of family pictures. I thinkmy 24-120 F/4 Z lens should do the job. Like you've mentioned I probably would go for the 85 mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/1.8 if I want to do portraits. The 50mm focal length for me is either here or there.
Just saw Eric's video where he responded. I was expecting some really controversial video but I don't see it that way. Its clear as you mentioned its the field of view you don't prefer when comparing it against your other options. Fully understandable and I feel that way about some focal lenghts. Its all about preference. I think for a general all purpose I like the 50, it just feels right and looks right to me.
I found I generally adapt to anything between 24mm to 85mm for most situations. I like 50mm the most for street, it gives me a little reach so I am far enough away that people don’t notice me but just wide enough to set context. Zooms make most sense for events where you need to change focal lengths quickly.
I'm feeling this so much right now. I bought my Z6II in September and the camera store didn't have the 24-70 f4, but they did have the 50mm 1.8. I should have known better because my old DX 50mm has been sitting on a shelf and my camera bag was filled with zooms. My favorite lens was always my Sigma 18-35 1.8, boy I wish Sigma could start making Z lenses, that 18-50 they have right now would be a gem. I also have my Nikon 70-200 f4, which I still use adapted. The Z 50mm is an amazing lens, it's sharp as all get out...but I find myself wanting a little wider all the time like you, and putting on the FTZ for my 70-200 is quite time consuming. The 50 may get sold and replaced with the new Z 24-120mm f4 when it comes out...maybe. Great vid!
Thanks, I can't wait for the third party companies to start coming out with lenses for this mount. I'm not sure why it's taking so long. I'm glad Viltrox I started coming out with lenses for this mount. Hopefully at some point they put out a zoom with autofocus. As I said in the video I've gone through so many 50 mm thinking I'm going to use it and it just doesn't happen!
@@BillEricPhotography I think Nikon wanted to wait so they could get a large chunk of their lineup out first, before allowing Sigma & Tamron into the hen house, but that’s just speculation on my part. While I love this 50mm it has reinforced that I’m a zoom guy.
I wonder why Viltrox is allowed to make these lenses. I'm not really sure how things work behind the scenes either. They may have made some sort of deal with the big third party manufacturers.
@@BillEricPhotography I ‘think’ that I read that Viltrox ‘backward engineers’ their lenses, where Sigma and Tamron receive direct specifications from the manufacturers, which Nikon has not released to them. I’m really hoping for some Sigma Art Z glass soon.
I have a Canon 50mm f1.8 mk2, that I have had since 2006. Purchased in Denver whilst on holiday in the USA. It has been a constant in my travel camera bag ever since, but I cant remember the last time it was used. It and my efm 22mm go in a small travel pouch and are there "just in case" something goes wrong with my standard lens, Canon efm18-150.
Unless you have a bag full of them some prime lenses can be limiting. Like I said in the video 50 mm is a middle of the road focal distance. That might work in some situations but I find I usually want to go tighter or wider than it will let me.
Great video and thanks for repeating my own opinion on this lens- i was worried there was an application i wasn't thinking of for it. I don't remember why i bought this lens (maybe to have something that opened to 1.8 that didn't break bank), but it's basically my least favorite Z lens- BUT i can't say anything bad about it at the same time. The fact it was reasonable and i have a fear I'll have a reason to use it right after i sell is why i keep 🤣 I'm in love with the 14-30 f4, 100-400 f4.5/5.6, and the 24-70 f2.8 (my primary). I have a few others, but they rarely get used. I want the 70-200 f2.8, but feel it's redundant with my existing inventory.
Great vlog Bill so glad you made this one, I was looking to get a 50mm but after watching I feel I probably would not use it as much as I thought I might thanks as always 👍
And that scenario I think of 50 mm works well they are small inconspicuous on the camera and force you to get creative. I guess if I have a choice it's just not the one that I go to.
Bill, it's funny you made this video. The 50mm has always been my favorite lens, however, I haven't been using mine either. Been using the 20mm 1.8 S and the 24-70 2.8 S or 14-24 2.8 S. But I've been using my 20mm 1.8 S the most. Try out the 20 1.8, u will love it and it's on sale.
Awesome breathtaking photos of the NY city, as well as Poconos and open fields. Very professional results. By the way, I couldn’t find the “negative” video you mentioned as listed above nor under your channel. I’d like to view it for the fun of it. But I did order a 50mm today 🙂. I have a need for it.
Ha that's funny, 50 mm lenses can be good lenses it depends how you use it. And what your photography needs are. If you wait till the very end of the video the last 20 seconds a box will pop up on the bottom left hand corner and you'll see the video, don't buy this lens. it'll be there
@@BillEricPhotography Yes, saw the video. I see your points. My situation is a little different. I have a RF mount with the kit lens 24-70 f/4-7.1. So when I set to 50mm, it becomes f/5. The DOF would not be great in portraits. And the cost of 24-70 f/2.8 is $2400 vs $200 for 50 f/1.8. When I had the M50, I used Sigma 30 mm all the time, which was great. So I am hoping somewhat equivalent for a full frame RF 50mm. To be seen. 😊
I only own three Z mount lenses the 50mm 1.8, 20mm 1.8, and the 40mm 2.0 and love all three. I adapt the same Sigma 70-200 2.8 as you, but I much prefer the native mount performance of my primes. I use my 50mm for landscape, street, low light, and general indoor photography. A 50mm 1.8 lens is a great teaching tool for a young photographer to aid in learning of composition and creativity. I think you should try to make a video on using nothing but a 50mm lens and rediscover using creative techniques to capture your images. Thanks for the entertaining video, regardless if we agree or not on the importance of a 50mm lens😉😄👍.
I actually agree with you on going out with one lens and trying to see what you can capture with it. That's a great exercise and something I have done over the years. I think a young photographer probably wouldn't know what lenses they want yet. I am speaking as someone with some experience so for me the 50 just doesn't seem to be a go-to lens. It took me six of them to figure it out. I'm curious do you find the 40 and 50 mm focal lengths to be different enough to warrant owning both?
@@BillEricPhotography I asked myself that same question but figured at $270 dollars it would fill in the spot of 35mm in Z mount for now. I have to say that it does give enough of a difference in perspective to warrant having it in my bag along with the 50mm. The 40mm is so light and inexpensive (as far as mirrorless goes) that I will keep it even if I ever decide to get the 35mm, which I am not planning on doing so anytime soon. I would be curious if you would find the 40mm focal length more to your liking. Thanks for y'all's entertaining videos👍.
Now that I own a 35 mm and a 50 mm I doubt I would want a 40 but if I could get my hands on one to try it out I would love that. Maybe I will rent one to see. That might be a perfect lens if you don't have anything yet just wide enough to give you a little more of a field of view and nice and small and compact on the zmount cameras.
I started photography in the late 70’s with an OM-1 and the 50mm prime. I still like 50mm lens (or whatever the equiv focal length on various formats I have used) but like you really don’t use 50mm much except for pet photos & for some street stuff. I do love my adapted Summicron 50/2 on my Z6ii for those subjects. Everyone has their favorite focal length based on their esthetic sense.
Totally agree Tom! For me this lens just doesn't come out of the bag much. For other people it may be perfect. I was just trying to give my viewpoint today maybe help some young photographers who haven't figured any of this stuff out yet.
I've always been a fan of f4 zooms and fast primes. I always buy the nifty fifties, something that goes all the way back to the film days. I have some manual focus ones for my Canon FD mount (manual everything) that I love to adapt to my RP especially the very nice F1.2 SSC that cost me a pretty penny (for a used vintage lens, cheap by today's prices) but this is such a small part of what I normally use. They are so limited by any situation that they only come out when I have the time and the setup in advance. If it moves around (not a portrait or a macro/still life) I get the zoom (and a flash). So TLDR I love my 50mm's but they don't get used a lot. Footnote - My 28mm f2.8 and 35mm f2 get used much more often. My M50 is stored with the 22mm f 2.0 lens (35mm approx equivalent) (😂) I think I lost the kit zoom. That's my go to small camera. But I will always buy the 50's. And old vintage lenses. Reason be damned.
I'm sure I will keep this 50 also but like you it will be sitting in the bag most of the time. You definitely need a little time and room to use these lenses. I always find I want to go a little wider than the 50 will let me. I agree 24 and 35 are much better focal lengths. Thanks for watching!
@@BillEricPhotography and after reading this whole (everyone else who commented) group of 50mm owner-non users, I think Eric is in deep. Is it time for some popcorn 😂. BTW I just grabbed the Canon 17-40 f4 deal, just reinforcing the zoom side of the argument. Time to shoot!
Thanks, the camera was a nice camera and I had no issues with it other than the autofocus wasn't reliable. And at this level of camera that's not something you should have to worry about.
So then Henri Cartier-Bresson's works are boring? I think not. If one is familiar of the results rendered by each lens, you can choose what is most likely to work in each situation on the street. The 40 or 50mm lens works with ease in framing composition, geometry, with nearly no distortions, unless you work hard for such. Nothing wrong with the 24 to 35mm range though you really have to be more up close. Seeing something going on across the street might be totally lost at 24 or 28mm, as you can only crop in so much to save the day. Yes, there are times when you cannot back-up enough, but those times are rare. There are times when you might get less story with a tight lens, but then again with the wide you often crop to get only what you wish in view. Joel Meyerowitz is a proponent of the 35mm view to capture other elements within frame seemingly unrelated. That is interesting, though when he changed to the wider view, IMO, he had the same or less great images. To use 85mm or longer to get that special look or portrait qualities is great too. But you will toss-out a load of opportunities for shots that day on the street. Life is compromise with the short or long lens to get the special shots. The 40mm - 50mm will have less compromised days of shooting. OK -- maybe the 35mm. Love all the lenses, with the 28mm look being great, in some cases. In the end, it could be simply how we see the world, thus more a personal way of camera and mind ( heart ). Thanks for the video, Loren
The 50 is highly praised as the must get, why wouldn’t you get one. Well.. I made the mistake of buying one for my dslr which like you never used it. This time I rented the Z 1.8 over Thanksgiving which confirmed its a no for me.
I bought my first 35 with a 50 mm lens and in 1968 I did weddings with primes and then Diego's you couldn't find a decent zoom lens so I have to use a 35 + 50 + 85 train Kingdom all the time also a 51:4 and a dark environment like a reception where everyone's dancing is the only way you're going to get to be able to focus
Hi Bill, another enjoyable video and I love how you emphasize that it is a great lens but not for your use cases! I had the lens as well and sold it for the exact same reasons! I wish the 85 1.8 was as sharp as the 50😁. I actually feel the Z mount zooms resolve so well that they can more easily replace primes with little to no difference to overall final image quality that I hardly ever take the 24-70 2.8 off the camera and if I do it is for the 70-200 2.8.
That's pretty much the way I operate! I do like to use my fish eye to make some funny images and my 16 to 35 for landscapes. But I agree with you those two zoom lenses really cover most of everything.
I completely agree with you on this. Including the nifty 50. That lense was the biggest disappointment. There were more misses than hits. And even the hits were not that great.
Interesting video. Even though I don’t use it that much, I find the 50 is my security blanket. It’s the first focal length I had in the 70s and I just like having it. But, I think its popularity is a hangover from being the kit lens back in the the day when lens designers hadn’t figured out the wide to short telephoto zoom. I do enjoy these vlogs where you just talk like we’re hanging out talking photography.
Thanks Jim, I enjoy making these type also. It's just coming up with the ideas that they sometimes tough. But this one was something that just happened to strike me as I was thinking about my lens collection and why I never used the 50 mm. You may be right this may be a lens that people just think they need until they get it and realize they don't.
It's one of those lenses that everybody gets and I don't think too many people use it as much as they thought they would. I will say though Eric does use his.
I must admit that I only use the 50mm f/1.2S (the replacement of the lens I sold you) on special occasions, which probably doesn’t justify the cost of that lens. But I recently used that lens to photograph an expectant (pregnant) woman, and I really loved the results. Also, in those circumstances, you can get a little closer to your subject which can actually be nice. I feel the same way as you about the 35mm f/1.8 that I purchased and have virtually never used. Let me know if you want to buy that one😉.
It's funny how we spend the money on these lenses before we even know if we need them. I think every photographer is guilty of this. I can definitely see in a one-on-one situation where you have time to compose your shot a fast prime can be very nice.
Hi again…I’m the guy that was happy to find a content provider from the Massapequas, as I grew up there, but have been in Jersey for 35 years. Eric, this was interesting, thank you. Quick question…I’m looking to get a 70-200 2.8, but the Nikkor Z lens is a bit too steep for me on a fixed income. I was thinking about the highly rated Tamron G2 lens, but I noticed you use the Sigma. I remember you having a problem with the Z5 and compatibility with 3rd party f-mount lenses, which we later found in other cases to be a need for updating the firmware on those lenses(such as the Tamron. ) I’ve spoken to a few people who were fine with their cameras once the lenses were updated. I guess I’m willing to wait for Tamron to produce updated Z compatible versions in the Spring. Thoughts? Thanks!
As you know I had a G1 version of that Tamron lens and it wouldn't work and couldn't be updated. From what I understand the G2 versions work fine with the update. I just felt like the sigma was a better lens when I compared them. It's a big heavy lens but it's sharp and fast focusing and I love the images I get out of it. Ideally native mount 70 to 200 would be perfect because with the adapter the sigma is very long and barrel heavy.
Great video and content! I almost bought the 50 just bc of the sharpness, but I’ve never been a fan of the FOV. Totally agree with the 50 not being wide enough. I replaced my 16-35(I’ve been having some motor issues with it) with the 14-30, excellent lens and preordered the Nikon Z 28mm f2.8. I have a love/hate relationship with the Sigma Sport 70-200, it’s excellent and sharp, but so heavy(it goes to WDW with me).
Ive actually been thinking about selling my 24-70 2.8 and replacing it with a 50. my reasoning, it is rare that I shoot my 24-70 at anything other than 24 or 70. I have 70 covered with my 70-200 (although that is an f4) and I have 24-35 covered with my 15-35 2.8. My 24-70 is also not native so I tend not to pull it out of the bag as much as I used to.
In that situation of 50 mm might work for you. That's the thing about this every photographers a little different and shoots differently. They are inexpensive enough to give a shot maybe before you sell the 24 to 70 and see how you like it.
I think that was kind of my point in this video. It really depends what you are shooting and it might be better to find that out before you invest in too many lenses.
@@BillEricPhotography I absolutely agree and great video to show exactly what you meant by it, with your examples on having to move back and forth with the 50mm vs if you had the right zoom lens , it could be much quicker and easier on the photographer ❤️ keep up the great work.Love your videos.
Most people buy a 50mm because it is bokeh on the cheap compared to other lenses. Both your 70-200 2.8 and 24-70 are very expensive and are 2 stops slower with less background blur. You point out all the disadvantages of the 50mm 1.x very well, but if you want to reduce extractions this is the cheap solution but sneaker zoom is very inconvenient, and often unacceptable to people like you who are completely sold on the zoom lens. The 24-70 70-200 are my favorite lenses as well but I wish these lenses came in F2.0 or better. You extolled the out of focus on the 70-200 2.8 but you could not use it in the party venue. By your logic against the 50, you should get rid of your 70-200 because it does not fit this venue. My point is. 50mm has a very limited venue because it has no zoom. You said portrait photographers should use an 85mm but if you have a small studio this may not be useful. So I agree the 50mm 1.4 has a very limited use, and if you can cover it with a 24-70 2.8.. great. If they made a 24-70 1.4 to 1.8 I would get rid of my 50mm. The 50mm 1.4/1.8 is restricted focal length and limited use may make it less desirable, but it is still a great lens. The 400 2.8 600 F4 have no zoom which is very restrictive and is only really used in sports and bird/wildlife. Does not make it a bad lens though those who cannot afford one will often cry sour grapes. The 50mm 1.4 is kind of a one trick pony for cheap. If you look at the images created by vintage manual primes lenses around 50mm as seen on other youtube videos the images are fantastic IF you into that type of creative photography. If not, the 24-70 is a great lens for you.
I pretty much agree with everything you said here. It just doesn't seem to fit my style of photography. The 50 mm 1.8 Nikon that I have is a fantastically short lens that produces excellent images but I just find myself not going to it. For me I think the 35 mm is a better choice.
@@BillEricPhotography I don’t blame you! The video was very informative - it’s funny because I find the same thing with the focal length. Probably best use I’ve found is landscapes but then it isn’t worth switching from a zoom
I agree, I think the beauty of a 50 mm 1.8 is the shallow depth of field. So if you're using it on big landscapes that you'd normally shoot at f11 or f8 it doesn't make sense. If you had a static portrait subject or you doing a still life I think it's a perfect lens but in any kind of situation where things are fluid it's a tough lens to work with.
Whether I agree or disagree, it's good to hear your professional opinion about things. While I've gotten some great shots with my nifty fifty. I find it annoying to use for the exact reasons you mentioned here. It's definitely not as versatile as other lenses I have.
I think if you have time to compose your shot and really get creative a prime lens can be an excellent choice. It really depends what kind of shoe you are and how you'd like to work.
Have all the lenses you mentioned but have deliberately only shot with my 50mm the last year and I am starting to like it. It may be the only lens I need, but it takes some time before you discover what a fantastic lens and that focus length is. I think 50 mm is for the creative and the other variants you mentioned for the not so creative people.
It may be for the creative but maybe not so much for when you are working. Unless it's a very controlled environment.
YES! Sometimes you have to address the topic that may be unpopular with some people. I can't get into the 50 either....I keep trying.
What's funny is most of the comments are agreeing with me. Who knew that we were all having this same issue with the 50 mm. Somewhere along the line we all must have felt we needed it for some reason. I guess it takes some time and a little bit of experience to figure out if you do or not.
6:09 wow, the flash on this photo is literally perfection. did you ceiling bounce?
Excellent video Bill. I completely agree with you. The 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 are workhorses. They do everything. I have a 50mm f1.8. Ask me how times I’ve used it…not much. I go for the 24-70f2.8. For landscapes I use the 16-35 if I want very wise angle.
That's a good way to put it They are where courses. Maybe I should sell my 24 to 70 F4 and this 50 mm and just get the 24 to 70 2.8. I'd probably be much happier. Thanks for watching!
Bill, thank you for this video. I have multiple zooms (14-35mm, 70-200mm) and have been looking for a prime. I have the 35mm and love it. Everyone says to get the 50mm but like you, it doesn’t work for my shooting. I’ll follow your lead and look at the 85mm. Thank you!
85 is another one I didn't use too much but it does give a unique look. Also if you do any kind of portrait photography it's a great lens to have.
Good video and I could not agree more! I, too, have always found 50mm on FF being limited; if I have to pick one prime lens to walk around with, I would go with 35mm. Interestingly, among my photography friends, I got an impression that those who love 50mm prime, tends to really not like 35mm and vice versa. On the other hand, 55mm on APSC makes a decent portrait lens.
It's funny you say that because I tend to like the 35 better also. Eric on the other hand always seems to own a 50 and I don't recall him owning a 35
Hmm, i contemplated the 35mm prime and went with the 50 for some reason. Maybe i should trade it in on the 35mm as I'm not in kove with this 50mm, but at the same time can't say anything to criticize it. Just prefer my other z lenses.
The will give you a little more flexibility than the 50 if you need something a bit wider
Finally you say your a zoom shooter. So all the other preceding talk is not appropriate. I mainly shoot zooms but have two good fifty mm lenses that I use more now my camera has image stabilization. My zoom stabilized let me shoot at the same Sutter speed as my 50 wide open unstablelised. Now I have inbodie stabilization I gain with the wider aperture on my 50mm. .
Thanks for your video. I was thinking to get a used 50mm F1.8 z lens but I had the same the concerns that once I've got this lens it will be sitting in my bag and never see the daylight. I shoot mostly landscape and occassionally taking pictures of family pictures. I thinkmy 24-120 F/4 Z lens should do the job. Like you've mentioned I probably would go for the 85
mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/1.8 if I want to do portraits. The 50mm focal length for me is either here or there.
Just saw Eric's video where he responded. I was expecting some really controversial video but I don't see it that way. Its clear as you mentioned its the field of view you don't prefer when comparing it against your other options. Fully understandable and I feel that way about some focal lenghts. Its all about preference. I think for a general all purpose I like the 50, it just feels right and looks right to me.
So true, it’s really about personal preference.
I found I generally adapt to anything between 24mm to 85mm for most situations. I like 50mm the most for street, it gives me a little reach so I am far enough away that people don’t notice me but just wide enough to set context. Zooms make most sense for events where you need to change focal lengths quickly.
Agreed. Everyone is different and has different styles.
I'm feeling this so much right now. I bought my Z6II in September and the camera store didn't have the 24-70 f4, but they did have the 50mm 1.8. I should have known better because my old DX 50mm has been sitting on a shelf and my camera bag was filled with zooms. My favorite lens was always my Sigma 18-35 1.8, boy I wish Sigma could start making Z lenses, that 18-50 they have right now would be a gem. I also have my Nikon 70-200 f4, which I still use adapted. The Z 50mm is an amazing lens, it's sharp as all get out...but I find myself wanting a little wider all the time like you, and putting on the FTZ for my 70-200 is quite time consuming. The 50 may get sold and replaced with the new Z 24-120mm f4 when it comes out...maybe. Great vid!
Thanks, I can't wait for the third party companies to start coming out with lenses for this mount. I'm not sure why it's taking so long. I'm glad Viltrox I started coming out with lenses for this mount. Hopefully at some point they put out a zoom with autofocus. As I said in the video I've gone through so many 50 mm thinking I'm going to use it and it just doesn't happen!
@@BillEricPhotography I think Nikon wanted to wait so they could get a large chunk of their lineup out first, before allowing Sigma & Tamron into the hen house, but that’s just speculation on my part. While I love this 50mm it has reinforced that I’m a zoom guy.
I wonder why Viltrox is allowed to make these lenses. I'm not really sure how things work behind the scenes either. They may have made some sort of deal with the big third party manufacturers.
@@BillEricPhotography I ‘think’ that I read that Viltrox ‘backward engineers’ their lenses, where Sigma and Tamron receive direct specifications from the manufacturers, which Nikon has not released to them. I’m really hoping for some Sigma Art Z glass soon.
That makes sense, it will be nice when I start producing more lenses for this mount.
I have a Canon 50mm f1.8 mk2, that I have had since 2006. Purchased in Denver whilst on holiday in the USA. It has been a constant in my travel camera bag ever since, but I cant remember the last time it was used. It and my efm 22mm go in a small travel pouch and are there "just in case" something goes wrong with my standard lens, Canon efm18-150.
Unless you have a bag full of them some prime lenses can be limiting. Like I said in the video 50 mm is a middle of the road focal distance. That might work in some situations but I find I usually want to go tighter or wider than it will let me.
Great video and thanks for repeating my own opinion on this lens- i was worried there was an application i wasn't thinking of for it.
I don't remember why i bought this lens (maybe to have something that opened to 1.8 that didn't break bank), but it's basically my least favorite Z lens- BUT i can't say anything bad about it at the same time. The fact it was reasonable and i have a fear I'll have a reason to use it right after i sell is why i keep 🤣
I'm in love with the 14-30 f4, 100-400 f4.5/5.6, and the 24-70 f2.8 (my primary). I have a few others, but they rarely get used. I want the 70-200 f2.8, but feel it's redundant with my existing inventory.
Yeah it’s one of those lenses that you’re like, “ok it’s fine I guess”
Great vlog Bill so glad you made this one, I was looking to get a 50mm but after watching I feel I probably would not use it as much as I thought I might thanks as always 👍
Happy to help. It's a good lens just not the right focal length for me.
Great video, and get your point.
I usally use my Z 50mm 1.8 when I do streetphotography and totally love it!
And that scenario I think of 50 mm works well they are small inconspicuous on the camera and force you to get creative. I guess if I have a choice it's just not the one that I go to.
Bill, it's funny you made this video. The 50mm has always been my favorite lens, however, I haven't been using mine either. Been using the 20mm 1.8 S and the 24-70 2.8 S or 14-24 2.8 S. But I've been using my 20mm 1.8 S the most. Try out the 20 1.8, u will love it and it's on sale.
How is it when you shoot people? Does it distort their faces? I find even using the 35mm to be a little too wide for portraits.
Awesome breathtaking photos of the NY city, as well as Poconos and open fields. Very professional results. By the way, I couldn’t find the “negative” video you mentioned as listed above nor under your channel. I’d like to view it for the fun of it. But I did order a 50mm today 🙂. I have a need for it.
Ha that's funny, 50 mm lenses can be good lenses it depends how you use it. And what your photography needs are. If you wait till the very end of the video the last 20 seconds a box will pop up on the bottom left hand corner and you'll see the video, don't buy this lens. it'll be there
@@BillEricPhotography Yes, saw the video. I see your points. My situation is a little different. I have a RF mount with the kit lens 24-70 f/4-7.1. So when I set to 50mm, it becomes f/5. The DOF would not be great in portraits. And the cost of 24-70 f/2.8 is $2400 vs $200 for 50 f/1.8. When I had the M50, I used Sigma 30 mm all the time, which was great. So I am hoping somewhat equivalent for a full frame RF 50mm. To be seen. 😊
That makes sense for what you want to do. I'm sure you will love the depth of field of a 1.8 lens. It really creates unique images!
I only own three Z mount lenses the 50mm 1.8, 20mm 1.8, and the 40mm 2.0 and love all three. I adapt the same Sigma 70-200 2.8 as you, but I much prefer the native mount performance of my primes. I use my 50mm for landscape, street, low light, and general indoor photography. A 50mm 1.8 lens is a great teaching tool for a young photographer to aid in learning of composition and creativity. I think you should try to make a video on using nothing but a 50mm lens and rediscover using creative techniques to capture your images. Thanks for the entertaining video, regardless if we agree or not on the importance of a 50mm lens😉😄👍.
I actually agree with you on going out with one lens and trying to see what you can capture with it. That's a great exercise and something I have done over the years. I think a young photographer probably wouldn't know what lenses they want yet. I am speaking as someone with some experience so for me the 50 just doesn't seem to be a go-to lens. It took me six of them to figure it out. I'm curious do you find the 40 and 50 mm focal lengths to be different enough to warrant owning both?
@@BillEricPhotography I asked myself that same question but figured at $270 dollars it would fill in the spot of 35mm in Z mount for now. I have to say that it does give enough of a difference in perspective to warrant having it in my bag along with the 50mm. The 40mm is so light and inexpensive (as far as mirrorless goes) that I will keep it even if I ever decide to get the 35mm, which I am not planning on doing so anytime soon. I would be curious if you would find the 40mm focal length more to your liking. Thanks for y'all's entertaining videos👍.
Now that I own a 35 mm and a 50 mm I doubt I would want a 40 but if I could get my hands on one to try it out I would love that. Maybe I will rent one to see. That might be a perfect lens if you don't have anything yet just wide enough to give you a little more of a field of view and nice and small and compact on the zmount cameras.
I started photography in the late 70’s with an OM-1 and the 50mm prime. I still like 50mm lens (or whatever the equiv focal length on various formats I have used) but like you really don’t use 50mm much except for pet photos & for some street stuff. I do love my adapted Summicron 50/2 on my Z6ii for those subjects. Everyone has their favorite focal length based on their esthetic sense.
Totally agree Tom! For me this lens just doesn't come out of the bag much. For other people it may be perfect. I was just trying to give my viewpoint today maybe help some young photographers who haven't figured any of this stuff out yet.
I've always been a fan of f4 zooms and fast primes. I always buy the nifty fifties, something that goes all the way back to the film days. I have some manual focus ones for my Canon FD mount (manual everything) that I love to adapt to my RP especially the very nice F1.2 SSC that cost me a pretty penny (for a used vintage lens, cheap by today's prices) but this is such a small part of what I normally use. They are so limited by any situation that they only come out when I have the time and the setup in advance. If it moves around (not a portrait or a macro/still life) I get the zoom (and a flash). So TLDR I love my 50mm's but they don't get used a lot.
Footnote - My 28mm f2.8 and 35mm f2 get used much more often. My M50 is stored with the 22mm f 2.0 lens (35mm approx equivalent) (😂) I think I lost the kit zoom. That's my go to small camera.
But I will always buy the 50's. And old vintage lenses. Reason be damned.
I'm sure I will keep this 50 also but like you it will be sitting in the bag most of the time. You definitely need a little time and room to use these lenses. I always find I want to go a little wider than the 50 will let me. I agree 24 and 35 are much better focal lengths. Thanks for watching!
@@BillEricPhotography Thanks for making! Now crack the whip and make Eric defend himself and the "perfection" of the 50mm at f1.2....🌃😱
I'm sure he already has that video in the works!
@@BillEricPhotography and after reading this whole (everyone else who commented) group of 50mm owner-non users, I think Eric is in deep. Is it time for some popcorn 😂. BTW I just grabbed the Canon 17-40 f4 deal, just reinforcing the zoom side of the argument. Time to shoot!
We'll see what he comes up with
Outstanding insight and transparency. Thank you for sharing and please keep it up! On a separate note, what didn't you like about the Z5?
Thanks, the camera was a nice camera and I had no issues with it other than the autofocus wasn't reliable. And at this level of camera that's not something you should have to worry about.
So then Henri Cartier-Bresson's works are boring? I think not. If one is familiar of the results rendered by each lens, you can choose what is most likely to work in each situation on the street. The 40 or 50mm lens works with ease in framing composition, geometry, with nearly no distortions, unless you work hard for such. Nothing wrong with the 24 to 35mm range though you really have to be more up close. Seeing something going on across the street might be totally lost at 24 or 28mm, as you can only crop in so much to save the day. Yes, there are times when you cannot back-up enough, but those times are rare. There are times when you might get less story with a tight lens, but then again with the wide you often crop to get only what you wish in view. Joel Meyerowitz is a proponent of the 35mm view to capture other elements within frame seemingly unrelated. That is interesting, though when he changed to the wider view, IMO, he had the same or less great images. To use 85mm or longer to get that special look or portrait qualities is great too. But you will toss-out a load of opportunities for shots that day on the street. Life is compromise with the short or long lens to get the special shots. The 40mm - 50mm will have less compromised days of shooting. OK -- maybe the 35mm. Love all the lenses, with the 28mm look being great, in some cases. In the end, it could be simply how we see the world, thus more a personal way of camera and mind ( heart ). Thanks for the video, Loren
The 50 is highly praised as the must get, why wouldn’t you get one. Well..
I made the mistake of buying one for my dslr which like you never used it. This time I rented the Z 1.8 over Thanksgiving which confirmed its a no for me.
I don't know why I never rent lenses and try them out. It would be the smart thing to do. Maybe in the future I'll try to remember to do that!
Nice explanation...👍👍👍
👍😊
I bought my first 35 with a 50 mm lens and in 1968 I did weddings with primes and then Diego's you couldn't find a decent zoom lens so I have to use a 35 + 50 + 85 train Kingdom all the time also a 51:4 and a dark environment like a reception where everyone's dancing is the only way you're going to get to be able to focus
Hi Bill, another enjoyable video and I love how you emphasize that it is a great lens but not for your use cases! I had the lens as well and sold it for the exact same reasons! I wish the 85 1.8 was as sharp as the 50😁. I actually feel the Z mount zooms resolve so well that they can more easily replace primes with little to no difference to overall final image quality that I hardly ever take the 24-70 2.8 off the camera and if I do it is for the 70-200 2.8.
That's pretty much the way I operate! I do like to use my fish eye to make some funny images and my 16 to 35 for landscapes. But I agree with you those two zoom lenses really cover most of everything.
I have 2 50mms which I never use. I usually go with a 35mm. I like things a bit wider.
I feel the same way. For me a little wider is better.
I completely agree with you on this. Including the nifty 50. That lense was the biggest disappointment. There were more misses than hits. And even the hits were not that great.
I'm not sure why so many people love that lens. To me it's one of the worst lenses on the market.
Interesting video. Even though I don’t use it that much, I find the 50 is my security blanket. It’s the first focal length I had in the 70s and I just like having it. But, I think its popularity is a hangover from being the kit lens back in the the day when lens designers hadn’t figured out the wide to short telephoto zoom. I do enjoy these vlogs where you just talk like we’re hanging out talking photography.
Thanks Jim, I enjoy making these type also. It's just coming up with the ideas that they sometimes tough. But this one was something that just happened to strike me as I was thinking about my lens collection and why I never used the 50 mm. You may be right this may be a lens that people just think they need until they get it and realize they don't.
@@BillEricPhotography Curiously, I ran across this video and my comment two days after selling my 50. I just didn’t use it.
It's one of those lenses that everybody gets and I don't think too many people use it as much as they thought they would. I will say though Eric does use his.
I must admit that I only use the 50mm f/1.2S (the replacement of the lens I sold you) on special occasions, which probably doesn’t justify the cost of that lens. But I recently used that lens to photograph an expectant (pregnant) woman, and I really loved the results. Also, in those circumstances, you can get a little closer to your subject which can actually be nice. I feel the same way as you about the 35mm f/1.8 that I purchased and have virtually never used. Let me know if you want to buy that one😉.
It's funny how we spend the money on these lenses before we even know if we need them. I think every photographer is guilty of this. I can definitely see in a one-on-one situation where you have time to compose your shot a fast prime can be very nice.
@@BillEricPhotography So do you want to buy my 35mm f/1.8S? It’s brand new, and I’ll sell it to you for the same price as that Viltrox 35mm.
You mean free! They gave it to me. I'm just teasing. I actually have no need for it now I like the Viltrox.
Hi again…I’m the guy that was happy to find a content provider from the Massapequas, as I grew up there, but have been in Jersey for 35 years. Eric, this was interesting, thank you. Quick question…I’m looking to get a 70-200 2.8, but the Nikkor Z lens is a bit too steep for me on a fixed income. I was thinking about the highly rated Tamron G2 lens, but I noticed you use the Sigma. I remember you having a problem with the Z5 and compatibility with 3rd party f-mount lenses, which we later found in other cases to be a need for updating the firmware on those lenses(such as the Tamron. ) I’ve spoken to a few people who were fine with their cameras once the lenses were updated. I guess I’m willing to wait for Tamron to produce updated Z compatible versions in the Spring. Thoughts? Thanks!
As you know I had a G1 version of that Tamron lens and it wouldn't work and couldn't be updated. From what I understand the G2 versions work fine with the update. I just felt like the sigma was a better lens when I compared them. It's a big heavy lens but it's sharp and fast focusing and I love the images I get out of it. Ideally native mount 70 to 200 would be perfect because with the adapter the sigma is very long and barrel heavy.
@@BillEricPhotography thanks for the quick reply!
Thanks for watching!
Great video and content! I almost bought the 50 just bc of the sharpness, but I’ve never been a fan of the FOV. Totally agree with the 50 not being wide enough. I replaced my 16-35(I’ve been having some motor issues with it) with the 14-30, excellent lens and preordered the Nikon Z 28mm f2.8. I have a love/hate relationship with the Sigma Sport 70-200, it’s excellent and sharp, but so heavy(it goes to WDW with me).
That is definitely a heavy lens. It's a nice lens though! 14 to 30 sounds like a nice focal length. Can you put filters on that?
@@BillEricPhotography yes 82mm filters.
Thanks!
Ive actually been thinking about selling my 24-70 2.8 and replacing it with a 50. my reasoning, it is rare that I shoot my 24-70 at anything other than 24 or 70. I have 70 covered with my 70-200 (although that is an f4) and I have 24-35 covered with my 15-35 2.8. My 24-70 is also not native so I tend not to pull it out of the bag as much as I used to.
In that situation of 50 mm might work for you. That's the thing about this every photographers a little different and shoots differently. They are inexpensive enough to give a shot maybe before you sell the 24 to 70 and see how you like it.
I am addicted to 50mm lenses it’s not even funny anymore
Ditto. I want to use it but it never seems like the best choice other than bragging that I'm using such a great lens.
I totally agree. I wish I actually used mine more but like you said there seems to always be a better choice for whatever situation I'm in.
Haha, brave man now that they're hiding the dislike count 😂 Great video, though. It's a classic "jack of all trades, master of none" situation.
I didn't know they were hiding the thumbs down. I agree with you it can do a little bit of everything but nothing exactly the way I want
Bought mine 4 years ago and only used it a few times
That seems to be the consensus here. Everyone buys them but doesn't really use them too much.
@@BillEricPhotography I mostly use my 16-35 or 100-400mm and occasionally dabbled into my 100mm macro
I think that was kind of my point in this video. It really depends what you are shooting and it might be better to find that out before you invest in too many lenses.
@@BillEricPhotography I absolutely agree and great video to show exactly what you meant by it, with your examples on having to move back and forth with the 50mm vs if you had the right zoom lens , it could be much quicker and easier on the photographer ❤️ keep up the great work.Love your videos.
Thanks, appreciate it!
Most people buy a 50mm because it is bokeh on the cheap compared to other lenses. Both your 70-200 2.8 and 24-70 are very expensive and are 2 stops slower with less background blur. You point out all the disadvantages of the 50mm 1.x very well, but if you want to reduce extractions this is the cheap solution but sneaker zoom is very inconvenient, and often unacceptable to people like you who are completely sold on the zoom lens. The 24-70 70-200 are my favorite lenses as well but I wish these lenses came in F2.0 or better. You extolled the out of focus on the 70-200 2.8 but you could not use it in the party venue. By your logic against the 50, you should get rid of your 70-200 because it does not fit this venue. My point is. 50mm has a very limited venue because it has no zoom. You said portrait photographers should use an 85mm but if you have a small studio this may not be useful. So I agree the 50mm 1.4 has a very limited use, and if you can cover it with a 24-70 2.8.. great. If they made a 24-70 1.4 to 1.8 I would get rid of my 50mm. The 50mm 1.4/1.8 is restricted focal length and limited use may make it less desirable, but it is still a great lens. The 400 2.8 600 F4 have no zoom which is very restrictive and is only really used in sports and bird/wildlife. Does not make it a bad lens though those who cannot afford one will often cry sour grapes. The 50mm 1.4 is kind of a one trick pony for cheap. If you look at the images created by vintage manual primes lenses around 50mm as seen on other youtube videos the images are fantastic IF you into that type of creative photography. If not, the 24-70 is a great lens for you.
I pretty much agree with everything you said here. It just doesn't seem to fit my style of photography. The 50 mm 1.8 Nikon that I have is a fantastically short lens that produces excellent images but I just find myself not going to it. For me I think the 35 mm is a better choice.
each to their own, if we all liked the same stuff life would be dull as hell
Agreed!
Somethings up with the audio in the video 🙈
Yes, the battery on my microphone must have been starting to die. I noticed it while I was editing but I wasn't going to rerecord the whole thing.
@@BillEricPhotography I don’t blame you! The video was very informative - it’s funny because I find the same thing with the focal length. Probably best use I’ve found is landscapes but then it isn’t worth switching from a zoom
I agree, I think the beauty of a 50 mm 1.8 is the shallow depth of field. So if you're using it on big landscapes that you'd normally shoot at f11 or f8 it doesn't make sense. If you had a static portrait subject or you doing a still life I think it's a perfect lens but in any kind of situation where things are fluid it's a tough lens to work with.
well can I have it since you don't need it.