50 mm Lens for Travel?

[hmca]

In preparation for an upcoming trip, I came across a photographer who recommended the 50mm lens for travel.....because that is closest to what we

actually see when viewing a scene.   I hadn't even thought of including this lens but now I'm contemplating it.   I just took a quick picture and then

because of the black and white challenge converted it just to see what I might expect.  I also want to try to use it for a pano shot, just to see what kind

of a result I'd get.   I will bring a wide angle and zoom but am now wondering if taking this prime (my only one) might be worthwhile.  Would be

interested in your thoughts.

[cats4jan]

I can't comment on camera stuff since I'm a point and shoot kinda gal, but I jumped on here to say what a gorgeous shot you have there. This is one case where b/w has taken all the soul out of your photo. The color one is sooo good.

[hmca]

Thanks, Janice. Appreciate your thoughts.

[fotofrank]

Helen,

On Vacation, I tend to carry a single Zoom lens and a 35mm 1.8 as most site's ban large camera bags and tripods - not to mention the weight. My guess is it would depend on where you are going. 50mm inside buildings with a crop sensor - I don't think so.

Here is my lightroom Metadata on focal length from 5000 images:

18mm = 15%
35mm = 20%
50/60mm = 25%
60/100mm = 10%
Over 100m = 30%

[Sydney]

Helen, If you think you will be doing any street photography a 50mm lens will be just the thing to have. And, from what I have seen, street photography lends well to b&w conversion.

[michelb]

The 'normal' angle of vision also varies depending on your own taste. From many discussions on the subject, it appears that the 50mm (full frame) is a bit restrictive. 35mm was the preferred focal lens for Leica shooters like Cartier-Bresson. That was about the same as with my first twin lens reflex (75mm for 120 rolls). I have been an early and satisfied user of zooms in the sixties, but my own experience was that most of my shots were taken in the 28 - 35 mm range (good for travel photos). When I bougtht recently a fixed-focal Fuji 100S (35mm - F2) I rapidly ceased to carry my heavy bag with the DSLR and lenses... Most probably it's just me, but I feel at ease to "zoom with my feet" and use the optical viewer with a direct contact with my subjects. The Fuji only requires a small bag... with enough space to also fit my small Panasonic with 24-300mm zoom. Useful for some telephoto subjects (zoo...)
My recent smartphone has really excellent results in good light. Its wide format is ideal for landscapes and portraits of standing subjects. With any of those 3 cameras I feel unobstrusive.

Just a note about the advantages/drawbacks of the smartphone:
- always available
- unobstrusive
- depth of field (I was more at ease to shoot flowers than with the Fuji)
- excellent fixed lens for fine details with more than enough pixels to crop.
- wide format ratio (landscapes)
- Easy syncing with the Cloud: good for backup and sharing.
- limited but useful editing in camera.
- affordable micro SD storage

Drawbacks
- shutter lag
- no stabilization (on my model)
- limited dynamic range (especially compared with the excellent Fuji)
- heavy noise reduction for low light.
- subject to flare (not protected lens)
- no raw format

[Deleted]

You don't say if the recommendation you received regard using a 50mm prime was based on a full frame or crop sensor. With a 50mm lens on your crop sensor 7D, that equates to 80mm. As has been mentioned, I would have thought 80mm inside a Cathedral or such like would be a rather narrow field of view.
Like the image by the way!

[cats4jan]

Michel's number one point is right on - "always available"

Sometimes I see something and think "wish I had my camera" - I just need to remember I do have my camera - it's just that it's in my phone. I'm amazed at how well these phone cameras work. For most of us, it's enough camera to fit our needs.

[hmca]

Thank you for the input Frank, Sydney, Michel, Phil and Janice.

Frank.....I use LR on a "need to know basis". Thanks for telling me about metadata searches! My search confirmed what I suspected....that most of my pix were shot within the range of my 24-105 lens. It was interesting to look at other criteria as well.

Sydney.....while traveling I do try to do a bit of street photography, so thanks for pointing that out. Another reason I thought about that lens is because of the wide aperture would allow me some opportunity to try for some creative blur techniques..

Michel.....thanks for your detailed post. It reconfirms what I already know about myself and that is that I'm not really practical when it comes to traveling. I have a Sony a6000 that I purchased with travel in mind. However, what I have found is that I now bring two cameras instead of one! I resist using my iphone for photography as I like to know that I have an image that can be printed at 13x19 should I capture something worthy.

Phil and Michel.......yes my camera is a cropped sensor. Most of what I will be shooting is landscape as this will be a trip to Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks. I did get an L-bracket for my camera as Phil told me about for shooting pano's and I love it! So in writing this and reading what has been said I can see where a practical person would probably opt to go without the 50mm. But being it is so small, I'm guessing I will bring it with me........

While I don't have a good zoom my Canon 70-300 low end model is light weight, doesn't require a collar, and will be able to be used with the L-bracket. I am thinking that editing software will bring out the best in those shots as I'll be using a tripod.

[bnk1953]

For my 2 cents - my travel lens is a Nikon 18-300. Wide enough for the expansive landscapes (and stitching panos) and then for close-ups of those far away animals and everything in between. It is a heavier lens but I also don't have to carry other lenses with me - one set of screw-on filters (ND and polarizer) and definitely don't have to worry about dust/water getting into the camera when changing lenses. (It was a lifesaver when in Iceland on one no good very bad weather day really wouldn't allow for any lens changes).
~bruce.

[hmca]

Thanks, Bruce. Although Canon doesn't have one, Tamron does and the reviews I read were very good. Something to think about for the future. Also saw where Tamron is coming out with an 18-400. Thanks for commenting.

[Fauxtoto]

Helen,

When I was young and crazy (now I am less young), all I had for many years was a good 35 mm reflex film camera equipped with a quality fast 55 mm lens. It was covering from f2 to f16. I was mostly shooting with B&W films. Now I shoot with a Canon 60D, equipped with the original average quality EF-S 18-135 mm. My thoughts about a quality prime 50 mm (or 55mm) lens: So much fun!

- Going around with a prime lens, you have to accept that you will miss shuts you would have otherwise taken with a zoom. So what! Of course, if by choice you do not mind. A freedom an amateur photograph may have over a professional one.

- Going around with a 50 mm lens forces you to do the framing and composition with your legs and body. Not only do you have to move closer to your subject, but also around your subject. Getting closer to your subject may mean for taking the picture of strangers that you could have at some point to look at them right into the eyes and give them a nice respectful smile, ask permission or chat with them.

- Depth of field. A good prime 50 mm lens should be fast enough to give you all the possibilities to fully control the depth of field, especially nowadays where you can adjust the ISO directly on the camera and where grain at high ISO is getting less and less an issue. It does require practice to develop ease with the manipulation of the camera/lens and the ability to visualize the result in advance. Points and shoots and zooms with variable fastest apertures (such as mine which rapidly falls at 5.6 as the fastest aperture) do not give such flexibility.

- I believe that the fact that 50 mm is closest to what we actually see should contribute to make the picture more comfortable to look at. However, this does not mean that it is necessarily the best choice to represent reality. For instance, in a specific portrait situation where you would like to show the environment of the person, you may prefer to use a wider lens such as 35 mm.

- The focal of the lens is not a major factor in what characteristics are best suited for B&W. Characteristics such as contrast, texture, lines and dynamic range remain applicable.

Most of all: Have a nice trip.

[hmca]

Fauxtoto, thank you for sharing your thoughts on the 50 mm lens. Being it's so small, I will probably bring it and see if I can "play" with the apertures to get something interesting.

[michelb]

Sept 2, 2017 20:20:48 GMT hmca said:

Fauxtoto , thank you for sharing your thoughts on the 50 mm lens. Being it's so small, I will probably bring it and see if I can "play" with the apertures to get something interesting.

Yes, I am sure you'll have fun playing with apertures.

With your cropped sensor, 50mm seems a bit short for portraits, but you have enough quality to crop, and the reduced depth of field at f:2 is great in available light.

May I also suggest that your 50mm fixed lens is apt to produce excellent quality 'photomerge panoramas'? Even hand held, three or four ovelapping shots may yield super quality panos (a light tripod will help, sure). When you realize the focal length seems too long for the beautiful landscape, don't miss the opportunity!

[hmca]

michelb , I just read some articles on shooting panos via a link shared by PeterJ in another post.   I have also been following @scania's panoramic work and purchased an L-Bracket as a result.  I will definitely try using my 50 for a pano....and hopefully practice a few before we leave on Monday.