View Single Post
      07-02-2019, 11:05 PM   #12
dcstep
Major General
United_States
1202
Rep
7,403
Posts

Drives: '09 Cpe Silverstone FR 6MT
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Colorado

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2009 M3  [4.20]
Quote:
Originally Posted by thatBimmerBloke View Post
It's a mirrorless full frame, much smaller than the conventional full frame DSLRs. One of the main advantages is its size. If there is a smaller size lens available with exceptional quality then why not pair it?

50mm f1.8? A relic from 1960? Where did I mention 50mm 1.8? You might want to read my post again. I mentioned Sony 55mm f1.8, again, Sony 55mm f1.8. Not to be confused with Sony 50mm f1.8 which is a totally different lens. Maybe look it up first before jumping to conclusions. It's one of the best full frame lenses available for Sony mirrorless lineup right now, pretty modern in tech, not a relic.

It is short for landscapes but if it's challenging to use it for portraits or street photography then that's just limited/bad composition.

Again, I merely suggested to try the field of view at 55mm and see if it works for the OP, if so then using a smaller prime lens with great picture quality, a smaller f stop and a shallower depth of field as compared to f4 would be a better option in a lot of scenarios.
50 or 55, either is an out of date lens choice for most photographers. The IQ is no better than the top zooms.

I own a Sony a7RIII and an a9. Put a full-frame lens on either and they're a seriously big rig. Don't go Sony full-frame to go small. An RX-10, RX-100, or a 6400 is a better choice if small is what you need.

When did shallower depth of field become an objective? If you want bokeh, a quality lens, at f/4, will give nice, smooth bokeh, if that's what floats your boat. With my 85/f1.4, I can shoot the left eye of a model in focus and the bridge of the nose and the right eye will be OOF. That's why I mainly shoot at f/8 and f/11. That very expensive lens is only in my kit because of its incredible IQ and it's my favorite focal length for portrait. Still, I sometimes think that I made a bad decision. I bought it a weak moment of GAS, but I need to work with it more to justify the investment.

Anyway, if you're serious, these days, I don't think that you limit your flexibility with a prime 50 or 55. It's a tweener focal length that's only of limited use, When you need 24mm, 55mm just won't do. When you need 105mm, 55mm just want do. If you can't handle the weight, then get an RX-100 or RX-10.

I know that the hipsters are out there using film and shooting 50-55mm primes. That's all good, but that's about nostalgia and a desire to learn lost crafts. Just realize that's not about better photography, but simply about learning something old. It's like why some guys/gals drive Porsche 356's, rather than a modern car. It's all good, but not to be confused with modern technology that frees us from the restrictions of the 1960s.

Sorry if I'm over reacting a bit. I know that the 50-55mm advice was given in good faith. I just want people to think deeper before investing in something that will not further their photography.
__________________