The genius of the nifty 50: Why you need a 50mm prime lens

The world is already full of articles contemplating the best lens: The best lens for street photography, the best lens for portraiture, the best lens for wildlife.

Inevitably these all seem to conclude that while the author’s personal preference is for one such lens, there are merits to all focal lengths, and it ultimately depends on your shooting style as a photographer.

This is not that article.

Such advice is often meaningless to beginner photographers. Any photographer who has spent a decent amount of time with their glass will develop preferences for different focal lengths, be they 35mm for its ability to hone in on details, 85mm for its gentle background compression, or 24mm for exaggerated perspective and long leading lines.

The Best Lens, the one I am talking about today, is the lens every photographer should start out with, and which many should frequently return to: The fast 50.

50mm is not only the historical standard, but also photography’s most common focal length: Canon’s RF mount has two, Nikon Z has three and Sony FE has five. And you can add to this decades of historical SLR and rangefinder lenses which can be adapted to modern bodies.

So, what makes 50mm the best lens?

They can be cheap…

Canon’s RF 50mm f/1.8 is a faster, sharper lens than most, and it goes on sale at under $400. Sony has a workmanlike 50mm f/1.8 also under $400, or the more inspiring Zeiss 55mm at around $850 (they are also readily available used).

Nikon Z mount is the only major player that seems to have dropped the ball in the value department, with an optically superb 50mm f/1.8, albeit at over $900. Still, the adapted 50mm f/1.8G or a used f/1.4G will more than satisfy discerning cheapskates.

The 50mm focal length is so cheap due to a long history of production and scale economies, and unfortunately this does complicate things for crop sensor users. If you use an APS-C camera, your 50mm will render a field-of-view more akin to a 75mm lens on a full frame body.

To take advantage of the 50mm field-of-view you will need a 35mm lens or slightly wider. Luckily, Canon and Sony have cheap 35mm f/1.8 lenses, and Nikon also sells a cheap and high quality 40mm f/2, although personally I’d adapt the 35mm f/1.8G.

It’s precisely because these lenses are so cheap that every photographer ends up with one at some point. It’s also because of their cheapness that they have a reputation as lenses which you move on from, on the way to bigger and more expensive things. The idea that a 50mm is something to surpass is of course untrue because they can also scale with your budget and expectations.

…and pricey

Almost all 50mm lenses will hold up to professional use, but perhaps after a few years in the game you want something beefier, and capable of taking a printable landscape photo wide open.

Every big manufacturer lists excellent, blush-worthy 50mm lenses which could leave nobody wanting for better performance.

I have extensive experience with Sony’s 50mm f/1.2GM which is eye-bleeding sharp even wide open, and Canon and Nikon’s more expensive and bulkier alternatives appear equally impressive.

Even Panasonic users are not left out by the Leica SL 50mm f/1.4 Summilux, a somewhat frustrating and eye wateringly expensive lens, but a great performer, nonetheless.

With options like these, the 50mm user will never go wanting for sharpness.

50mm is home

The 50mm standard hinges on a fallacy: It does not match the focal length of the human eye— peripheral vision closer approximates 17mm, and our eyes continually dart around to fill our perception.

It also does not match the diagonal measurement of a full frame sensor (43.27mm for any lens designers reading today). I will go into a little of the history of the standard in the next section, however, like many standards the most compelling reason to consider 50mm the standard is because it works well, and no other lens has presented a better case.

At some point we must draw a point between where distortion ends and compression starts, and 50mm is as compelling a point as any. It is the widest lens on which many photographers would attempt a headshot, and about as long as you can go for compelling interior architecture.

The most common criticism of the focal length is that it is ‘boring’, however I believe there are benefits to a lens which gets out of the way and allows an image to speak for itself.

I believe those who criticise 50mm for its lack of characteristic are relying on their equipment to create intrigue, which should be already present in their lighting, emotion, and composition.

50mm is history

While it may only be Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Capa, and a few peers who traded exclusively in the fast 50, almost every notable photographer has dealt with the focal length at some point.

A 50mm would have come with the Minolta SRT-101 which kickstarted Annie Leibovitz’s passion for photography. Twin Lens Reflex preferring Diane Arbus, Helmut Newton and Vivian Maier all used 80mm, the medium format standard which best approximates the field of view of a 50mm lens.

So many famous photographers used 50mm lenses for the same reason you likely have one in your camera bag: they are cheap, high performing, and no-frills. The lenses are popular because they are cheap, and cheap because they are popular— the equation would collapse were it not a reliable and highly useful lens.

The 50mm standard is relatively new, and inextricably linked to the 35mm standard film gauge. When motion picture technology first emerged there were several competing formats, yet nothing could compete with 35mm which simply split mass-produced 70mm roll film down the middle.

In 1913 when Leitz engineer Oskar Barnack was tasked with creating the film-stock-testing machine which would become the original Leica, he used a 42mm microscope lens, more because it fit the imaging circle required for the new format than because it happened to fit the magic number of the diagonal of the film plane.

A microscope lens worked well enough to test film, but when Barnack proposed that his new little camera could be used as a portable camera, a higher quality lens which would stand up to enlargements was required.

The Max Berek designed 50mm f/3.5 Anastigmat (shortly thereafter renamed to Elmax, a portmanteau of Ernst Leitz and Max Berek’s names, to avoid copyright concerns) adorned the first commercially available Leicas (Leitz, camera - it seems they really enjoyed the portmanteau in the Leitz factory!).

A generation later, the Leica came with interchangeable lenses, and a 35mm wide angle and 135mm telephoto complemented the 50mm standard.

As SLRs emerged, 50mm lens designs could fit a lot of glass in the focal path while still leaving clearance for a mirror. Wide-angle lenses required retrofocus designs to avoid the mirror, and long lenses required a telephoto design to keep sizes reasonable.

Meanwhile, the SLR era of 50mm lenses hinged on the double-gauss, an optically unproblematic and economically viable design. Only small variations were made to this up until mirrorless technology allowed for the current crop of optically superb 50mm lenses which extend lens elements all the way back to the sensor plane.

But are they out of fashion?

And yet, in modern times the nifty fifty is often considered a relic. A boring lens which was fine for old codgers like Bresson, but less useful and dynamic than say, the 35mm/85mm duet: An incredibly popular choice among wedding photographers.

Of the two, only 35mm is a viable replacement for the 50mm standard (85mm makes for a stunning mid-telephoto, but a difficult do-anything lens).

35mm is eager to take over as the new standard for YouTubers and influencers, and even the modern Leica user may find 35mm a better fit on a modern 0.72x finder. But 35mm is nowhere near as versatile as 50mm.

It excels at singling out individual details, with just enough distortion to move the world out of your subject’s way. 35mm will allow an event photographer to get small group shots while navigating the bustle of a busy room.

For single subject images, the 35mm focal length is supremely convenient. But what it cannot create are graphic, involved, and tight images which interplay subject and background.

While 35mm is a safe option, it is this lack of risks which I believe come as its biggest detriment. A 35/85 photographer with two bodies can easily stay put or slowly roam a room knowing that they have a lens available for whatever comes their way.

Worse, a photographer with a capable zoom is at risk of becoming comfortable with staying completely stationary, letting the zoom do the work and giving up the possibility of taking any control over their background.

A photographer with a 50mm knows they will have to move, and in doing so creates a higher chance of risk and reward.

So, is my conclusion that you should sell your other lenses for a shockingly expensive new 50mm f/1.2? Obviously not. It would be hypocritical not to mention that all the famous photographers I mentioned used 35mm, 28mm, or any other focal length which suited the shot.

What I do believe is that the age of the nifty fifty is not over. Beginner photographers are often looking for the next new thing to level-up their images. Seasoned pros are often wondering what might challenge them and spark some creativity.

If the 50mm has sat dormant in your camera bag, or if you’ve never tried one before, you owe it to yourself to see how your images perform on the neutral territory of a humble lens which disappears and allows your image to speak on its own terms. ❂

About the author: Josh Wells is a portrait photographer for both commercial clients and his own artistic practice. He writes about better photography through science and philosophy as UV Filter Monocles on both Medium and Substack, and his solo exhibition Fikacam runs at Victoria Park Arts Centre this June. See more at joshwellsphotography.com.