The not so young among us still know it: the prime lens with 50 mm focal length. Virtually all photographers started out shooting with the 50 mm, because it was a standard, so to speak, with the first 35 mm camera you bought. Some photographers, like Henri Cartier Bresson, never (or at least rarely) used any other focal length. But is it still useful today, when zoom lenses have largely replaced prime lenses?

What’s in favor of the 50 mm?

It is generally said that 50 mm focal length on a 35 mm camera roughly corresponds to the angle of view of our eye. However, this is only partially correct, since we have two eyes and our angle of view is significantly larger in width than in height. What is correct, however, is that we perceive the image effect of a photo taken with a normal lens as very natural. This can speak for or against the normal lens, because normal can also quickly become boring.

But the following points definitely speak for the 50 mm:

  • The price/quality ratio.
    Normal lenses have been built for many years and are therefore well designed and offer convincing image quality (although not on the level of modern lenses, see below). In addition, they used to be built in very large numbers. Therefore, they are very inexpensive compared to other lenses.
  • The initial aperture
    Unlike most inexpensive zoom lenses, normal lenses usually have a very fast initial aperture. Common apertures are 1.4 and 1.7/1.8, about three stops more than basic zoom lenses. In low light, this can make the difference between a usable and unusable shot. But perhaps even more important is the extremely shallow depth of field possible at open aperture.
  • Size and weight
    Normal lenses are amazingly compact and lightweight. That’s all that needs to be said.

Objections against a 50 mm

If you’re used to framing differently by simply turning the zoom ring, you’ll have to get used to a prime lens. Moving is the order of the day. But that doesn’t have to be a disadvantage at all, because a different shooting position creates a different perspective and not simply a different image frame. Still, you’re a bit inflexible with just one focal length.

More important is the fact that the standard lenses have not been further developed for what feels like 30 years. This is especially true for the autofocus function. As a rule, no ultrasonic motors are used and therefore the autofocus of the standard lenses is somewhat sluggish. But then, you don’t usually do action photography with the 50. They also lack the last bit of imaging quality. But they are better than many simple zoom lenses.

Initial aperture 1.4 or 1.8?

The difference between 1.4 and 1.8 is half an aperture stop. You simply can’t see the difference in depth of field. So the 1.8 will do. This is available from both Nikon and Canon for about 100 EUR. New, mind you!

For whom is the normal lens suitable?

First of all, for those who like to work with shallow depth of field and don’t want to spend a lot of money for it. For owners of APS-C or DX cameras, it is also the ideal portrait focal length, because thanks to the crop factor of 1.6 or 1.5, it corresponds to the angle of view of a 75 mm lens on a full-frame camera.

Conclusion

The normal lens is out of fashion, but that doesn’t make it unusable. High speed for little money, where else can you get that?

As always, I’m looking forward to your thoughts and comments.