What's new
L-MOUNT Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Lumix S 50/1.8

I'm one of those that also had a love/hate relationship with the 50mm FOV. Never really used a 35mm on APSC where I first started out with ILC cameras, didn't get along with it when I had my 6D, but really quite liked it on m4/3. No idea why. So much so that I splashed out on the Panasonic Leica 25mm f1.4. And really really enjoyed it. So much so that when I side shifted to the S5, I had to acquire that 50mm FOV.
I absolutely love the Lumix S 50mm F1.8 Is it the sharpest 50mm out there? I'm guessing no, not by a long shot. But I really don't care. The Bokeh can be a little bit unusual at times, but I honestly don't worry about it. It's (the lens) has got a bit of character. It doesn't produce sterile, clinical images, it can produce a bit of CA at times, but in some way that I can not explain, it can produce almost organic looking shots at times. Did I say I really really like it? Build quality seems excellent to me, weather sealing is a bonus. It's one of the lenses that if I ever killed in some way, I'd instantly buy another.

Anyway, it was Chrysler day by the bay here today. I also took my Siggy 28-70 F2.8 along to try shooting @ 65mm, as I'm kinda a bit keen on the Siggy 65mm F2 prime. Don't think it's gonna happen though :)

54373406502_191fd76cd1_h.jpg
250309-P1025666 by Markus Welder, on Flickr

54374678615_b236b9e067_h.jpg
250309-P1025664 by Markus Welder, on Flickr

54374678610_200a689ec7_h.jpg
250309-P1025652 by Markus Welder, on Flickr

54374678670_ed4758171d_h.jpg
250309-P1025633 by Markus Welder, on Flickr

54374484929_3621290f04_h.jpg
250309-P1025640 by Markus Welder, on Flickr

54374678650_c53c474b8a_h.jpg
250309-P1025637 by Markus Welder, on Flickr
 
I love the pictures I get out of this lens. But I really have to set me to it to use it... I find it difficult to use in tighter spaces, but when I'm out and about with my family on a hike or something, then it really comes alive, then the focal length starts to work for me. But just walking in a city or landscape, I find it hard to use, but I love it! Way more then I loved the Sigma 45/2.8. For example, If I have a clear objective of what ì want to take pictures of, then I really love it. And the pictures I get out of it. But if I put this lens on my camera and I take a walk in nature, I doesn't really work for me. Really need to have a clear subject. Portraits, objects, etc. Where as if I put on my 35 and go for a walk, I don't have to think about it, I can walk to exactly the right spot, lift my camera and take a picture. Same with 28. But not so with 50.

That is the reason why I sold the 85 in the first place. Even harder to use for me. I always state that I would like to have a small 135/2.8 lens. Such a lens is way more useful to me because it has enough tele reach, and fast. And I bring it only when I need it or want to use it. 85 is too short in that regard.
 
Updating this thread with some recent faves from this lens. I use the Sigma 50/2 more often as it has just as good image quality but a nicer feel (metal, aperture ring) but no proper weather resistance but this lens never disappoints when I take it out.

55387804599_a660387cb0_c.jpg

Lúa waits to enter stage left by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

55392991982_669fdbdbd9_c.jpg

2-0 by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

55404317224_813c2662b6_c.jpg

Alhambra by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

55406406061_5f22fb5662_c.jpg

Arch by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

55408569606_92467d8706_c.jpg

Grasshopper and lime by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

55410813016_a9546e3dca_c.jpg

Alhambra gardens by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr
 
@Jonathan-Mac , I looked at your photos in the 'Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN Contemporary (I-Series)' thread, and I prefer the ones taken with the 50mm. These pictures looks more natural.
 
There's no reason a 50mm lens can't be great for landscapes, you just need to make it a good composition. These do seem to be significantly underexposed though.
 
I think using a 50mm lens in full-frame is the easiest focal range to compose, I stand nothing to gain in defending the 50mm focal length though, it's doesn't matter what other people believe or if they believe me, it's just remarkable that 50mm focal length has been called the "standard lens" like forever and now it's hard to compose shots with? I think it's whole existence is based on simplicity, ease, and being a standard. I'd be concerned with anyone learning becoming confused with the idea it is somehow harder to compose with? As far back as I can remember in photography classes, the 50mm was a requirement to have and use. I would encourage anyone to use a 50mm any and every way possible they could think of, you'll be better far quicker than if you don't
 
It is called a standard lens because the field of view resembles the view of a human eye, which is between 40 and 50mm. So it is also standard because that field of view does not emphasize for or background, it is natural and generates natural proportions. But it does not mean it is easy to use in all situations because it is standard. In a room you can get only portrait shots because you don’t have room to move for instance. And of course you can take landscapes with it. It is not a difficult lens, but horses for courses. And some prefer 50, some prefer 35 or 28. Who cares what others prefer, there is no-one to convince.

I myself like 28 or 35 the most, because in my eye it is the easiest to compose with. Actually my zooms starting at 24, will get most of their usage at 24mm. Shots taken with 40 or 50 are harder for me because you have to move more around to get the view you want, if there is enough room. But in my eyes that behavior of going to the right place tend to lead to better pictures for me, if there is enough room ;-)
 
I stated "it's just remarkable that 50mm focal length has been called the "standard lens" like forever" I assume your post was a response to mine because you started off replying directly to why it's called a standard lens, but I was only pointing out a reality, or a "truth".

I also apologize my statement was mistook as a question, I was focused on the 50mm focal length only and don't really like to pivot my topics. What you prefer is relatable but it has nothing to do with the 50mm focal range. The range is nearest the average human perspective, it's simple, it's inexpensive, it's cost effective to manufacture, and on and on and in versality, unmatched.

I'm a few years old, but after using wide-angles I started synthesizing that 35mm was closer to my natural perspective .... where drama and the story are greatly enhanced? I got into birds and wildlife, using telephotos for landscapes. That's how I discovered I had changed my photographic perception based on what lens focal ranges I was using primarily? If all one uses is a particular focal range, that's going to be your normal or standard perspective you train your eye with, possibly making you not comfortable with any other range and because you chose this?

The 50mm is the benchmark of photography because it captures the world the way our eyes actually see it, free of spatial distortion. While wide angles are great for dramatic environments, a 50mm forces you to focus on pure composition, human connection, and storytelling without relying on visual tricks, that is the bottom line I can see clearly. Truthful photography = 50mm

When it came to Canon and Contax/Yashica ML the 50mm 1.4 was the color reference standard for their lineups so Standard has multiple meanings as well
 
Last edited:
For me, a 50mm prime is the ideal short portrait lens. But it’s pretty pointless for other uses:

- Landscapes - pointless since a zoom that covers 50mm will deliver way more flexibility.

- Street - not entirely pointless, but a wider lens will be less constraining.

- Sports and wildlife - pointless, way too short, and in any case a zoom is way better when the subject size is changing rapidly in the viewfinder.

- Still life - perhaps ok, but a zoom is likely to be more flexible.

- Urban/cityscape - pointless, for the same reasons as it’s pointless for landscapes.

- Macro - obviously pointless, unless it’s got short focusing, when it becomes almost pointless (a proper macro lens at 2-3 times the focal length will deliver better results).

Tell me I’m wrong!
 
personally, I totally understand how people train their eyes and how it's normal human emotion to have favorites based on their training

I'm not advocating for the 50mm lenses or how they performed or failed to perform in some fashion for anyone

I'm only advocating for the focal length: 50's make the user really work for the angles and perspectives necessary

Meike 50 1.2

panorama.jpg
  • Panasonic DC-S5M2
  • 50mm
  • 1/13s
  • ISO 200
 
Any focal length is what you make of it. Personally if I could only have one focal length it would be 50mm but that wouldn't work for everyone and it's not a real situation.

I am still waiting for Panasonic or Sigma to bring out a macro 50mm to make the focal length even more useful. For years I used the Pentax DA 35mm f/2.8 Limited, which has 1:1 macro, as my standard prime on APS-C and it produced great results. There's something to be said for a standard prime that does macro - certainly it's not a lens you can be bored with as there's always something to photograph with it.
 
pdk42 said:
For me, a 50mm prime is the ideal short portrait lens. But it’s pretty pointless for other uses:

- Landscapes - pointless since a zoom that covers 50mm will deliver way more flexibility.

- Street - not entirely pointless, but a wider lens will be less constraining.

- Sports and wildlife - pointless, way too short, and in any case a zoom is way better when the subject size is changing rapidly in the viewfinder.

- Still life - perhaps ok, but a zoom is likely to be more flexible.

- Urban/cityscape - pointless, for the same reasons as it’s pointless for landscapes.

- Macro - obviously pointless, unless it’s got short focusing, when it becomes almost pointless (a proper macro lens at 2-3 times the focal length will deliver better results).

Tell me I’m wrong!
Click to expand...
Maybe if you need a low iso and fast enough shutter speed? There are not that many zoom lenses covering 50mm and < 2.0 and weighing less then 1.5kg

From a pure landscape point of view you are correct of course. But indoors or portrait I actually like the prime more. By 2.8 the1.4 50mm primes are generally also much better then a 2.8 zoom wide-open in quality

Normally I also like the “challenge” of using one focal length and really like that after a while you “see” in that focal length. Nowadays the challenge is to go out and shoot, with whatever lens. Or maybe even “go out”…. But that’s another story.

On topic:
IMG_0003.jpeg
  • Panasonic DC-S5M2
  • ƒ/1.8
  • 50mm
  • 1/60s
  • ISO 125
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top