Missing my 50mm in the digital world

[NorCalLights]

So I might be alone in this, but recently I've been longing for the 50mm lens I used to use on my 35mm film camera. It was great to leave on at all times and throw in my bag since it was rugged and not super expensive... plus I loved how fast it was when shooting in less than ideal lighting conditions.

But the big thing I liked about it was the angle. 50mm just feels right to me, and I enjoy the simplicity and the challenge of shooting with a prime.

So I'm starting to look around for a lens that will give me something close to a 50mm equivalent when I use it with my D70. Any suggestions? Nothing too expensive, but quality and speed are important to me. As is auto-focus.

Thoughts? Thanks...

 

[miloblithe]

Would Nikon's 35mm f/2 make sense?

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_35_2/index.htm

 

[xPismo]

So I might be alone in this, but recently I've been longing for the 50mm lens I used to use...

Your not. Its a common thought. What size is your ccd? With Canon's APS/1.6x CMOS the 28/2.8 is the nearest replacement. Cheap and sharp. Nikon probably has the equiv.

I'm planning on dumping my 20/2.8 for cheap 50 & 28 primes. I miss them from my A1 days.

 

[Abstract]

Find a 35 mm of some sort. Otherwise, I don't know what you should do. They're quite expensive though when compared to the 50 mm.

 

[ChrisA]

...
So I'm starting to look around for a lens that will give me something close to a 50mm equivalent when I use it with my D70. Any suggestions?

Simple answer: Nikon 35mm f/2.0 AF-D It is priced at under $300.00

i have the manual focus 35mm f/2.0 AI-S lens. It's great I'd use it as a "normal" lens on an F2 sometimes. 50mm being a bit tight for small indoor spaces.

 

[shieldyoureyes]

I'm really suprised Nikon or Canon haven't released a cheap "standard" prime for their digitals. Sure you can get a 38mm or 35mm, but they are no where near the $100 price tag of the 50mm f/1.8. I'm going with the 28 f/2.8 and the 35 f/2.

Then there is always the sigma 30mm f/1.4, but that is only usable on digitals.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

IMO, whether you are Nikon or Canon - a 28mm or 35mm lens should do the trick!

 

[GoCubsGo]

I agree with you about the 50mm but I do not miss mine because I replaced it with the appropriate lens. The 50mm lens is supposed to be an average field of view of the human eye. I'm not sure how true that is, but I have held onto that theory for over a decade.
The 50mm is by far the best. The only thing better is a nice range finder and I'm sad to say my last range finder saw it's sudden death and repairs cost more than replacement.

 

[Abstract]

I agree with you about the 50mm but I do not miss mine because I replaced it with the appropriate lens.

So you got something like a 35 mm? I think the OP is asking why we can't have a dirt cheap "standard" lens for the smaller digital sensors. If you got a 35 mm standard lens, then great, but I still think he has a point if he's asking for a cheap option, like the 50 mm has always been.

The 50mm lens is supposed to be an average field of view of the human eye. I'm not sure how true that is, but I have held onto that theory for over a decade.

What do you mean by field of view? I think that on a 35 mm or full frame camera, a 50 mm lens approximates the angle view that your eyes are capable of focusing on. I mean sure, you have a peripheral vision of something like 140º, but not all of this is in focus. On the stuff near the centre of your line of sight is focused. The 50 mm can capture photos at an angle that approximates what's in focus in real life (ie: what your eye's macula(r) can concentrate on). With a camera, you'd have to zoom in a little bit more to make things look the same size and distance away through your camera when compared to what you see using only your eyes.

 

[NorCalLights]

So you got something like a 35 mm? I think the OP is asking why we can't have a dirt cheap "standard" lens for the smaller digital sensors. If you got a 35 mm standard lens, then great, but I still think he has a point if he's asking for a cheap option, like the 50 mm has always been.

That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm gonna run out to my photography shop and pick up a 35mm f/2 this weekend and try it out, but it'll probably cost me twice what a 50mm f/1.8 would. I'm okay with that though... as a lifelong Mac user, I'm used to paying premiums for the things I enjoy.

I'll also look at the Sigma. Since I already have a 35mm manual focus lens for my manual body, an all digital lens would be fine.

Thanks for the help, everyone... it's good to hear that I'm not alone.

 

[GeeYouEye]

Well, if you've got a (say) 28-70mm kit lens, you could always just leave it on 35mm. :shrug:

 

[NorCalLights]

Well, if you've got a (say) 28-70mm kit lens, you could always just leave it on 35mm. :shrug:

Which isn't the same at all as a 35mm prime. That kit lens isn't nearly as fast as f/2 and a zoom will never be as sharp as a prime at the same focal length.

A zoom is a tool, but if I don't need that tool, I'll take a prime.