So you’ve picked up your first DSRL along with a kit lens. You’ve been playing with the features, getting to know the camera and the lens. Now you’re starting to think about what to buy next. A lot of advice tells you to invest in lenses, but which one should you start with? If you look into many professional photographer’s bags, you’ll come across the answer—a 50mm prime lens.
With all of the choices out there (wide-angle, telephoto, macro), why should you pick up a 50mm and why should it be the second thing you buy? There are several reasons.
Reason #1: Training Your Eye
A 50mm lens comes the closest to capturing what you eye naturally sees, so many beginning photographers find it a good training lens. Keep in mind though, that if you have a crop camera, such as a Nikon D5300 or a Canon 70D, then it is the 35mm lens that is roughly equivalent to 50mm on a full-frame camera (a 50mm lens is still a GREAT choice for a crop). The reason this is a good focal length to train your eye is that there is nothing to get used to. If, without a camera, you need to get closer to something to get a better look at it, you’d do the same with a 50mm lens (or equivalent) mounted on your camera. Likewise, if you need to back up to see something more fully, you’d be doing the same with a 50mm lens. Having a fixed focal length also requires you to spend a little more time composing each shot, which is never a bad thing.
Reason #2: Shallow Depth of Field
When you see a portrait, for instance, that has a softly blurred background behind the subject, this is caused by using a shallow depth of field. This can be achieved by using a low f-stop on the lens. However, your kit lens probably only goes down to about f/3.5, whereas a truly shallow depth of field begins around f/2.8. While you can find lenses out there such as Nikon’s 24-70mm f/2.8, which offers a good focal range and can produce a shallow depth of field, it’s also around $1800. For around $200, you can buy a 50mm f/1.8 lens (or 35mm f/1.8 for crop cameras) that will provide some excellent shallow depth of field. Working with shallow depth of field also requires developing accuracy with focus, which is an added bonus that will benefit all of your photography.
Reason #3: Versatility
A wide-angle lens (less than 35mm) is perfect for landscape photography, but you wouldn’t want to use one for taking portraits as it can cause unwanted distortion. Likewise, telephoto lenses (200-300mm) are excellent choices for photographing wildlife or sporting events, but not so good when shooting street photography where you may not want to draw attention to yourself. A 50mm lens, on the other hand, is excellent at portrait, street, and landscape photography. You can keep this lens on your camera all day and rarely find a situation where you wished you had a different lens. It is also lightweight and fast at focusing, making it an overall pleasurable experience.
Conclusion
A 50mm lens is often referred to as a “nifty fifty” because it is so versatile and easy to use. It is also an inexpensive investment that promises to improve your photography without weighing down your camera or your bag. It is a lens you can shoot with all day or easily keep tucked away when needed. A 50mm prime (the word photographers use when you are talking about a lens that doesn't change in focal length or “zoom”) is probably the cheapest way to dramatically improve the image quality of your photos – at least compared with the quality from the lens that came with your camera, often called a “kit” lens. It should be the second major investment you make as you start out with your photography. Fair warning though, it will be the gateway to wanting good quality zoom lenses that are far more expensive.
Update December 2014: Make sure to check out the comments below for some good questions and answers related to this topic.
Thank you, Jeff! I am sure you are right! One more question… do you recommend the 1.8 over… say, a 1.4? I akcnowledge that the 1.4 will be a little more expensive. But I am truly a bokeh lover and would love to maximize the effect as much as possible. Do you see much of a difference between these lenses, or would I be satisfied with the 1.8?
Thank you!
Tricia
I think you should start with the 1.8 and if you feel like it doesn’t get you enough bokeh then it was a very small investment to find that out.
Hi Jeff
Thanks for the great article and responses.
I’ve got a panasonic lumix g5 (crop factor of 2x, no in-built image stabilisation), looking to buy a fast prime lens to assist in low light conditions. I’ve read that image stabilisation can buy you about 2-3 stops worth of speed.
I’m deciding between getting a 25mm f1.7 (with no image stabilisation) and 30mm f2.8 (with stabilisation).
I’m reasonably easy between getting a 25mm vs a 30 mm. Do you think the latter lens having image stabilsation makes it worth getting the latter lens (with a higher f-number?)
Any thoughts, highly appreciated.
Hi RM,
I have the Panasonic 25mm f1.7 on my Olympus E-M10. It’s my favourite lens, and on the m43 sensor, it’s the equivalent of the 50mm that Jeff Harmon is writing about.
The faster aperture is a boon. I have IS in the camera body, but it only cuts in when it’s almost too almost dark for me to see.
If shutter speed = 1/focal length, you should be safe hand-holding to 1/25th. And slower than that if you hold your breath! 😉
My nifty-50 came with a Canon 35mm film camera about 18 years ago (early Rebel series) I now use it quite successfully with my 6D. It’s sharp and still works great. It is clearly sharper than my much newer 24-105 zoom.
Hi folks, I have a nifty 50 that I picked up off of ebay. It seems to be locked up, and there is a switch on the barrel that will the lens to move when it isn’t on my D7000. I can’t seem to move the lens switch, OR the lens while it’s on the camera, and I am beginning to suspect that this lens may not be compatible with my D7k. Can anyone help?
Thanks Monty
Hello
I have a Nikon D3200 and recently bought a 50mm F1.8. I’m shooting an outdoor wedding next month, this lens will be fine to work with?
Hi…. I have a Nikon D3100 and would like to take close-ups of flowers, butterflies, bees etc and wonder if a ‘nifty fifty’ lens would suit my requirement if someone could please reply. I can take reasonably good pictures, especially of the countryside, the harbour/boats/reflections also animals like cows, sheep, horses and my dogs, even though my camera is always on auto. I would appreciate some advice please. Kind regard,s a happy snapper
I plan to make a month long trip soon that will probably include a lot of landscape, cities, and also some indoor group photographing.
I have a Rebel t5 with the 18-55 and 75-300 kit lenses and the 24 and 50mm primes. I dont wish to take tbem all with me; do you think the 75-300 plus the two primes would be a wise choice, or perhaps the two zooms to cover the fullrange from wide angle to tele plus one of the primes for quality photos would be setter?
Hi,
Any thoughts on the Canon 40 2.8 STM ?
Thanks.
I have owned as many Canons as your average respondent. Although a lot of this is good advise, I truly wonder what all the prime is better than zoom value is here in reality. I owned many camera systems medium and large format where there were NO zooms. Another subject area that is valuable but somewhat truncated is that if focal length. This depends on a number of factors. One of the most objectionable assurances is that blurred out backgrounds make a good portrait. I’ve won enough portrait awards to think that encouragement is hogwash. Many who ask me about portraits want everything in sharp focus!
So for a 77D canon, will a 50mm be a good choice, or a 35mm?
thanks