Nifty Fifty, or Camera Con-job?

Nifty Fifty, or Camera Con-job?

Phil Taylor and I have been talking about lenses and stuff ever since I interviewed him for EPZ last year. He let slip his contempt for the way that 50mm lenses are advocated as a must-have: while I rate them, and only feel slightly guilty about the number of them that I own. So we’ve conducted an email debate on the subject…

John: I’m a fan of both fixed focal lengths and in particular the bog-standard 50mm lens. It’s a chameleon on full frame, allowing both wide and tele lenses to stay in the bag, and on a crop frame, it’s an absolute delight, giving a short tele perspective that I love – ideal for portraits! So I’d encourage every camera owner to consider getting a Nifty Fifty – as their first accessory lens if, as so many people have, they’ve bought an APS-C format camera with a kit 18-55mm zoom. It will rock your world!



Phil: Sorry, the 50mm is no chameleon for me, it’s more like a leopard that can’t change its spots. It just sits there, neither wide nor narrow, its only trick being that it’s just 3 stops brighter than the average kit lens, doesn’t usually have the build quality of a yoghurt pot, and can pull off a decent shallow depth of field (don’t call it Bokeh, that’s something else).

Now, John mentions the 18 to 55 kit zoom on APS C, and I think that’s the origin of the worship of the nifty fifty. Way back in the 60s and 70s the standard lens was a well-established construction. 6 elements, good close up performance, because of its design one of the sharpest lenses in the set, f/2 aperture. Colour film at 400 ASA (yes ASA, too early for ISO) appeared in 1978, so until then f/2 was really handy. Of course, these plus points, and the ease of manufacture made it the natural choice to bundle with a camera.



John: Well, on APS-C the 50mm makes a handy portrait lens, too. And – as it’s around 70mm equivalent, anything that’s a bit longer is even better – and there were a few 55mm and even 58mm standard lenses…

Phil: I was coming to that! Of course, the exception to the rule was the 58mm Helios 44, much loved by hipsters, but then it came with the Zenith, a camera that may have been built in the same factory as the T-34 tank, and pays homage to that in styling as well as durability. And weight.

In the 80s, manufacturers started to offer 28-70, 35-70, 35-80 lenses of varying quality, that seemed to become the norm, you didn’t need to buy a new lens immediately to go wider or to get a bit closer. The drawback of these ‘kit lenses’ was that they were usually f/3.5 to 4.5, and some even darker; of course that meant that for available light you needed something brighter. Then Digital came along, the bodies had eye watering prices, so anything that cut the price of a starter kit was welcome, enter the 18 to 55 f/4 to f/5.6. The quality was low, aperture so dark, it was like the camera had a cataract.



John: Well said! Unfortunately, when I took the first one it was my misfortune to own – it cost an extra £10 compared with the body on its own (which wasn’t in stock). I’ve given a couple of these away over the years: though I should have given them to my enemies rather than people I wanted to keep as friends…

Phil: Of course, in the 2000s, somebody noticed that the 50mm lens was exceptionally sharp, especially compared to the plastic 18-55 or similar. It was a 75/80mm f/1.8 equivalent on crop sensor, and thus far from an ideal all-rounder. People bought into it for the aperture, and that is a great idea, but others simply bought it because it was sharp. They then wondered why this ‘standard lens’ was now a telephoto with a narrow angle (not making it up, I know someone who actually bought that as their first travel lens!)

John: in the years when my digital camera wasn’t full frame (up to 2008 and my lovely Alpha 900) I did tend to keep my 50mm on the camera most of the time. But I do love portraits and studio work…


Phil: The standard lens CAN be very useful. In my 16 years of wedding photography, I used it as the main lens on both medium format and 35mm It allowed you to communicate with the couple without shouting, work hand held in low light, open up the aperture and separate stuff from backgrounds, even allow you to move further back for group shots whilst pushing guests with 35mm lenses on compacts behind you.



John: That’s sneaky: and a really good tip for anyone shooting weddings! Though my limited experience is that there’s always someone who tries to sneak in front of me to get their own shot of the formal groups. The first wedding I ever shot it was the groom’s Dad with a twin lens reflex. So what would you do, Phil, rather than packing a Helios? After all, we’re in the Roaring Twenties now, and digital magic has touched us all…

Phil: Funny you should ask that! I’m going to recommend a more unconventional alternative to the Nifty Fifty, the 18-50 f2.8 or 17-50 f/2.8. Various manufacturers churn these out. The build quality is superior to the kit lenses, they are a mere one stop darker than a typical 50, usually have image stabilisation built in, and sometimes excellent macro capabilities. They have that portrait capability, as well as being able to zoom out to about 28mm-equivalent, making it a pretty good default lens to keep on the camera at all times. If you REALLY need f/1.8 Sigma does a lovely 18-35.

John: so you reckon that’s all sorted, then? I know you’ve referred to a ‘holy trinity’ of zooms for press work…



Phil: Unfortunately, the situation isn’t so happy on full frame. I can’t really see why Canon made their ‘kit lens’ a 24-105 f/4 (f/4, you did read that correctly, and it’s an L lens!!!). To get the 24-70 or 28-70 f/2.8 equivalent of the 17- 50 f/2.8 requires a small mortgage, and I reckon you could get a 28, 50 and 85 f/1.8 for less, and that idea is actually tempting me as I type. We are of course in a different age with modern sensors, I shot a bomb disposal scene at 102,000 ISO last year, and it was useable (you don’t want a sudden flash in a situation like this). 6,400 ASA is perfectly useable for press work, so, maybe we don’t need the wide apertures any longer?

John: As it goes, my walkabout kit these days is a Sony Alpha 7 body with an 85mm f/1.8 Sony lens on it, and Samyang 24mm f/2.8 and 45mm f/1.8 in my pocket. I entirely agree that you don’t need really wide apertures to gather light these days in the vast majority of situations: and I’m happy to sacrifice a further stop with the wideangle lens, as it doesn’t need such high shutter speeds for stability. And the whole lot weighs in, I reckon, below an EOS 5D with that hefty 24-105.