Cheap lenses

[General_Led]

So I just bought a canon t4i. Currently I have a canon 18-55mm lens that came with my canon XT and I have a Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 lens and we'll I'll be going to a wedding here soon so I need something with a bit further range. I was looking at this http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/ef-s-55-250mm-f-4-56-is-ii-refurbished would this be an okay lens to get?

[ALwin]

So I just bought a canon t4i. Currently I have a canon 18-55mm lens that came with my canon XT and I have a Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 lens and we'll I'll be going to a wedding here soon so I need something with a bit further range. I was looking at this http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/ef-s-55-250mm-f-4-56-is-ii-refurbished would this be an okay lens to get?

 

Yes it's an OK lens to get.  If your Sigma 17-70 can be used on both your Canon cameras, you wouldn't need the kit lens at all.

 

A 250mm lens for a photo camera doesn't mean much at all in terms of zoom.  Even an expensive 400mm still lens is not a large zoom lens, it only provides about 8x zoom on a full frame camera.

 

I'm not going to recommend what other lenses you can get, for the following reasons:

1. I have no idea what you plan to do with your camera, what direction you are going, your skill level

2. I don't know your budget

3. Most of the lenses I would really recommend... they may be way out of your price range.  The cheapest Canon zoom lens I would ever consider recommending to anyone is going to cost at least $1200.

 

 

Addendum

If you are going to attend the wedding as a guest, mind you that I don't know how good a relationship you have with the bride and groom, you may want to stay out of the way of the official photographer(s) if there are any.

 

http://petapixel.com/2013/05/15/guest-photographers-or-why-you-should-have-an-unplugged-wedding/

If it were my wedding, no guest would be allowed to take any photographs at anytime on pain of being forever alienated.

[bob345]

-snip-

 

400 mm is considered a long lens. and only 8x zoom compared to what? a 50mm? If he used that a 400mm would be considered a bit more than a 23x zoom compared to the widest 17mm focal length that he currently has. Sorry, i just had to correct that.

 

As for a cheap lens to get, that 55-250 stm is about the best you can get for the price in the range of a telephoto. I would also look into something like the new canon 50mm 1.8 stm. on a crop sensor, that is roughly and 80mm equivalent which is great for portraits.

[kirashi]

400 mm is considered a long lens. and only 8x zoom compared to what? a 50mm? If he used that a 400mm would be considered a bit more than a 23x zoom compared to the widest 17mm focal length that he currently has. Sorry, i just had to correct that.

 

As for a cheap lens to get, that 55-250 stm is about the best you can get for the price in the range of a telephoto. I would also look into something like the new canon 50mm 1.8 stm. on a crop sensor, that is roughly and 80mm equivalent which is great for portraits.

 

I second this from experience. There are 2 lenses that I believe everyone starting out in SLR photography should at least play with, if not purchase.

 

 

The first is what they call the "Nifty Fifty" which is the f1.8 50mm for around ~$120CAD. This lens is going to give you that soft blurry background you see in portrait photography, and is extremely sharp looking for the price range. I have not looked into the most recent STM model, but I imagine they've started using the faster and quieter Stepper Motor mechanism.

 

 

The next one is the 55-250mm IS lens. This lens comes in all ranges of pricing from $90CAD refurbished to $300CAD brand new, as it has undergone 2 major revisions in the past few years. The most current, as mentioned by @bob345, is the IS STM version, which again uses the faster and quieter focusing motor. Probably has more focus points too, but I haven't looked into it.

I picked up older 2nd generation model for $189CAD a couple years ago. It's only got IS (image stabilization) which works well for handheld zoom shots without a tripod up to the 200mm mark, unless you're really stable with your hands. I'd love to have the IS STM version though for video shoots because it's quiet during focusing.

 

Either way, ANY lens with IS is definitely better for handheld shots than non-IS lenses. I had a chance to demo the 75-300mm zoom lens at my local FutureShop (now BestBuy) and compared it with my 55-250mm IS lens. Sure, the 300mm focal length got me slightly closer to the afroman in their TV section at the back, but it was definitely more grainly and less sharp than my 55-250mm zoomed in all the way to 250mm.

[ALwin]

400 mm is considered a long lens. and only 8x zoom compared to what? a 50mm? If he used that a 400mm would be considered a bit more than a 23x zoom compared to the widest 17mm focal length that he currently has. Sorry, i just had to correct that.

 

As for a cheap lens to get, that 55-250 stm is about the best you can get for the price in the range of a telephoto. I would also look into something like the new canon 50mm 1.8 stm. on a crop sensor, that is roughly and 80mm equivalent which is great for portraits.

 

On a Full Frame camera where 50mm is considered the normal focal length, a 400mm lens is only an 8x zoom magnification.  On an APS-C camera I believe a 35mm is considered the normal focal length so a 400mm lens is a 11.4x zoom magnification lens.  So on his APS-C camera, the 250mm lens is a 7.1x zoom magnification lens.

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00O1Mz

 

If he expects to be able to isolate just the bride or the groom's face with a 250mm focal length from the back of the church, it will hardly be possible.

 

Now, is he a wedding photographer?  I have no idea, he doesn't specify.  All he says is he is going to a wedding and want a lens with a bit of range.  I'm only telling him not to expect too great a zoom or magnification capability.

 

But if I were a wedding photographer, this is what I would carry at the bare minimum.

1. 2 camera bodies

2. 3 lenses (mid range zoom, telephoto zoom and a portrait lens), for example

• 24-70 2.8
• 70-200 2.8
• 85 1.4

Edit: made a mistake, should be saying magnification instead of zoom.

[.spider.]

On a Full Frame camera where 50mm is considered the normal focal length, a 400mm lens is only an 8x zoom. On an APS-C camera I believe a 35mm is considered the normal focal length so a 400mm lens is a 11.4x zoom lens. So on his APS-C camera, the 250mm lens is a 7.1x zoom lens.

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00O1Mz

Reading this hurts.

A 400mm prime is 1x zoom.

On a Full Frame camera where 50mm is considered the normal focal length, a 400mm lens is only an 8x zoom magnification. 

Even the MP-E 65mm 1:2.8 doesn't have 8x magnification, so why should an unspecified 400mm lens have a magnification of 8x, that's weird.

[ALwin]

Reading this hurts.

A 400mm prime is 1x zoom.

 

If you think you know or understand something better than I do, I invite you to explain it and help the OP out.

 

And for all you know, I could be talking about a 50-400mm lens

[General_Led]

Yes it's an OK lens to get. If your Sigma 17-70 can be used on both your Canon cameras, you wouldn't need the kit lens at all.

A 250mm lens for a photo camera doesn't mean much at all in terms of zoom. Even an expensive 400mm still lens is not a large zoom lens, it only provides about 8x zoom on a full frame camera.

I'm not going to recommend what other lenses you can get, for the following reasons:

1. I have no idea what you plan to do with your camera, what direction you are going, your skill level

2. I don't know your budget

3. Most of the lenses I would really recommend... they may be way out of your price range. The cheapest Canon zoom lens I would ever consider recommending to anyone is going to cost at least $1200.

Addendum

If you are going to attend the wedding as a guest, mind you that I don't know how good a relationship you have with the bride and groom, you may want to stay out of the way of the official photographer(s) if there are any.

http://petapixel.com/2013/05/15/guest-photographers-or-why-you-should-have-an-unplugged-wedding/

If it were my wedding, no guest would be allowed to take any photographs at anytime on pain of being forever alienated.

On a Full Frame camera where 50mm is considered the normal focal length, a 400mm lens is only an 8x zoom magnification. On an APS-C camera I believe a 35mm is considered the normal focal length so a 400mm lens is a 11.4x zoom magnification lens. So on his APS-C camera, the 250mm lens is a 7.1x zoom magnification lens.

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00O1Mz

If he expects to be able to isolate just the bride or the groom's face with a 250mm focal length from the back of the church, it will hardly be possible.

Now, is he a wedding photographer? I have no idea, he doesn't specify. All he says is he is going to a wedding and want a lens with a bit of range. I'm only telling him not to expect too great a zoom or magnification capability.

But if I were a wedding photographer, this is what I would carry at the bare minimum.

1. 2 camera bodies

2. 3 lenses (mid range zoom, telephoto zoom and a portrait lens), for example

• 24-70 2.8
• 70-200 2.8
• 85 1.4

Edit: made a mistake, should be saying magnification instead of zoom.

Sorry, I didn't specify well enough. I'm not the wedding photographer and I have no plans to take pictures during it. I was asked to take pictures during a lot of the other stuff such as the rehersal and stuff like that. As well it's in a very scenic area so I'd like to go take some shots of the nature around. Really what I'm looking for is something that just gives me better range then my Sigma. Unfortunately I don't have 500 to drop on a lens since I just spent 450 on the camera however I do have enough to buy something that is good enough for the short term and I can eventually upgrade in the future.

Also, any opinions on tamron? They seem to pop up a lot as I'm searching for inexpensive lenses.

[ALwin]

Sorry, I didn't specify well enough. I'm not the wedding photographer and I have no plans to take pictures during it. I was asked to take pictures during a lot of the other stuff such as the rehersal and stuff like that. As well it's in a very scenic area so I'd like to go take some shots of the nature around. Really what I'm looking for is something that just gives me better range then my Sigma. Unfortunately I don't have 500 to drop on a lens since I just spent 450 on the camera however I do have enough to buy something that is good enough for the short term and I can eventually upgrade in the future.

Also, any opinions on tamron? They seem to pop up a lot as I'm searching for inexpensive lenses.

 

If that's the case, the 250mm lens you selected could be ok.  Buying it brand new will cost you more than buying a refurbished version.  However if you do have good camera stores in your area, ones that sell second hand lenses, look for any lens between the 50mm to 300mm range.  But I don't think you will find any second hand lenses for the price of the Canon you are considering.  Typical good telephoto lenses cost a bit more even if they are second hand.  So what's the max budget you can afford?

 

Look at the reviews on B&H for the Canon 55-250 and on The Digital Picture website The TDP website was reviewing other versions.  It's been many years since I bought any lens on a budget, so in this aspect I am way out of the game to actually tell you the quality of the lens.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/543923-USA/Canon_2044B002AA_EF_S_55_250mm_f_4_5_6_IS.html

http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/lenses/canon_55-250_4-5p6_is_ii/user-reviews

http://lenstests.com/reviews/canon-ef-s-55-250mm-f4-5.6-is-ii-page-3

 

I've never used Tamron lenses before, however it seems recently they are now stepping up their game just like Sigma did a few years ago by introducing their Art, Contemporary and Sports series of lenses.  Except these new generation of Tamron lenses may not be available yet.

 

By the way, which version of the Sigma 17-70 do you have?

 

Is it the new Contemporary version with the big silver C: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/909806-REG/Sigma_884101_17_70mm_f_2_8_4_DC_Macro.html

 

or the older version: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/17-70mm-f28-4-dc-macro-os-hsm-0

[.spider.]

The 55-250mm II IS is fine.

[General_Led]

 

If that's the case, the 250mm lens you selected could be ok.  Buying it brand new will cost you more than buying a refurbished version.  However if you do have good camera stores in your area, ones that sell second hand lenses, look for any lens between the 50mm to 300mm range.  But I don't think you will find any second hand lenses for the price of the Canon you are considering.  Typical good telephoto lenses cost a bit more even if they are second hand.  So what's the max budget you can afford?

 

Look at the reviews on B&H for the Canon 55-250 and on The Digital Picture website The TDP website was reviewing other versions.  It's been many years since I bought any lens on a budget, so in this aspect I am way out of the game to actually tell you the quality of the lens.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/543923-USA/Canon_2044B002AA_EF_S_55_250mm_f_4_5_6_IS.html

http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/lenses/canon_55-250_4-5p6_is_ii/user-reviews

http://lenstests.com/reviews/canon-ef-s-55-250mm-f4-5.6-is-ii-page-3

 

I've never used Tamron lenses before, however it seems recently they are now stepping up their game just like Sigma did a few years ago by introducing their Art, Contemporary and Sports series of lenses.  Except these new generation of Tamron lenses may not be available yet.

 

By the way, which version of the Sigma 17-70 do you have?

 

Is it the new Contemporary version with the big silver C: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/909806-REG/Sigma_884101_17_70mm_f_2_8_4_DC_Macro.html

 

or the older version: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/17-70mm-f28-4-dc-macro-os-hsm-0

I don't really have a "budget" but I'd say under $200. 

 

The sigma lens I have is the older version. It was given to me about 3 years ago when my uncle bought his new camera and lens, so he just gave me his old Canon XT with the kit lens and the Sigma lens.

[ALwin]

I don't really have a "budget" but I'd say under $200. 

 

The sigma lens I have is the older version. It was given to me about 3 years ago when my uncle bought his new camera and lens, so he just gave me his old Canon XT with the kit lens and the Sigma lens.

 

Ok get the refurbished lens, it will serve you well enough until you save up to upgrade your kit.

 

You can take both bodies with you and keep the 17-70 on one, and the 55-200 on the other.  It will save you the hassle of having to switch lenses.

[bob345]

On a Full Frame camera where 50mm is considered the normal focal length, a 400mm lens is only an 8x zoom magnification.  On an APS-C camera I believe a 35mm is considered the normal focal length so a 400mm lens is a 11.4x zoom magnification lens.  So on his APS-C camera, the 250mm lens is a 7.1x zoom magnification lens.

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00O1Mz

You are looking at magnification in the completely wrong way. No manufacture bases their magnification off of a standard focal length. Every manufacture rates magnification by the difference between the widest angle focal length of the lens to the longest focal length. say you have a 18-55mm lens and a 180-550mm lens. They have an identical magnification multiplier yet the focal lengths differ greatly. The first post in your link sums it up perfectly.

[ALwin]

snip

 

A photo taken with a 400mm lens from 40m is the same as a photo taken with a 50mm lens at 5m, or the 400mm lens covers 1/8th the frame of a 50mm lens at 40m distance or it's enlarging part of that frame 8x to fit the sensor.

 

Now just talking about lenses, yes 2-20mm lens is a 10x lens, just as a 20-200mm lens.  However when you talk about cameras with different sensors you need to standardize them, hence for full frame cameras 50mm is considered normal and for APS-C something around 32-35mm is considered normal.  I'm using the "normal focal length" as a baseline.

[.spider.]

You are looking at magnification in the completely wrong way. No manufacture bases their magnification off of a standard focal length. Every manufacture rates magnification by the difference between the widest angle focal length of the lens to the longest focal length. say you have a 18-55mm lens and a 180-550mm lens. They have an identical magnification multiplier yet the focal lengths differ greatly. The first post in your link sums it up perfectly.

This is Zoom

Magnification is something different.

If you have a magnification of 1x an 1cm long object will appear on the sensor as an 1cm long object.

If you have 0.5x it's 1cm in real life and 0.5cm on the sensor.

The magnification m in which we are interested here is defined as the relation between image size H and real object size G

http://www.mystd.de/album/calculator/magnification.html

[ALwin]

This is Zoom

Magnification is something different.

If you have a magnification of 1x an 1cm long object will appear on the sensor as an 1cm long object.

If you have 0.5x it's 1cm in real life and 0.5cm on the sensor.

http://www.mystd.de/album/calculator/magnification.html

 

That's for macro photography.

 

Oh and isn't zooming in a form of magnification?

[.spider.]

That's for macro photography.

Oh that's interesting please explain.

 

Oh and isn't zooming in a form of magnification?

I don't think so

[bob345]

This is Zoom

Magnification is something different.

If you have a magnification of 1x an 1cm long object will appear on the sensor as an 1cm long object.

If you have 0.5x it's 1cm in real life and 0.5cm on the sensor.

http://www.mystd.de/album/calculator/magnification.html

yes, what i meant was zoom. You're right on magnification

[Swndlr]

What exactly are you photographing at this wedding? People, scenery ???

[General_Led]

What exactly are you photographing at this wedding? People, scenery ???

A little bit of everything. The lens isn't necessarily just for the wedding. The wedding is just the closest event that I'll need my camera for. Currently with my 17-70mm I get an alright range but I'm just not able to get subjects that are further out. I'm more so looking at the Canon 55-250mm because it's inexpensive; I can't really afford something crazy right now. 

[ALwin]

A little bit of everything. The lens isn't necessarily just for the wedding. The wedding is just the closest event that I'll need my camera for. Currently with my 17-70mm I get an alright range but I'm just not able to get subjects that are further out. I'm more so looking at the Canon 55-250mm because it's inexpensive; I can't really afford something crazy right now.

 

A 200-250mm focal length is a good focal length, most photographers use a lens around that range every day.  However don't expect it to reach very far if you are standing in the back of the church and your subject is standing in the front.  You still need to walk back and forth to get a good composition.  A lot of people who have never used a telephoto lens before often have the misconception that they are primarily used like a "telescope" to take photos of distant subjects.  It's partially true, but what they don't realize that long focal length lenses are great to isolate individuals for doing headshots and portraiture, for example if they are standing in a group. Or even if the individual is alone, you can reduce the impact of the background when doing portraiture.

 

FYI, similarly a wide angel lens is not always about capturing a wide field of view.  Try using a wide angle lens indoors.

 

The rule is "telephoto lenses compress, wide angle lenses expand".

 

Additionally, different focal lengths affect perspective and composition.

 

Another fact about telephoto lenses, especially at their longer focal lengths: they are great for taking photos of the Moon.  And I don't mean waiting at night with the lens pointing up.  I mean during the period of a full moon, when it is just coming up over the horizon, using a telephoto lens and a optical illusion caused by the refraction of light through Earth's atmosphere, you can make the Moon appear much larger.  Of course you need a foreground object to have a size comparison.  It works the same for sunsets, especially sunsets that occur over the horizon of the sea.

 

Below is a photo I took a few years back of a full moon coming up over the horizon, it's not a great photo but you can see how the Moon appears larger.

 

Peeking moon by Aung Lwin, on Flickr

And whether you use a wide angle or telephoto, what Robert Capa said is at least 50% true.

“If your photos aren’t good enough, then you’re not close enough” –Robert Capa

[General_Led]

 

A 200-250mm focal length is a good focal length, most photographers use a lens around that range every day.  However don't expect it to reach very far if you are standing in the back of the church and your subject is standing in the front.  You still need to walk back and forth to get a good composition.  A lot of people who have never used a telephoto lens before often have the misconception that they are primarily used like a "telescope" to take photos of distant subjects.  It's partially true, but what they don't realize that long focal length lenses are great to isolate individuals for doing headshots and portraiture, for example if they are standing in a group. Or even if the individual is alone, you can reduce the impact of the background when doing portraiture.

 

FYI, similarly a wide angel lens is not always about capturing a wide field of view.  Try using a wide angle lens indoors.

 

The rule is "telephoto lenses compress, wide angle lenses expand".

 

Additionally, different focal lengths affect perspective and composition.

 

Another fact about telephoto lenses, especially at their longer focal lengths: they are great for taking photos of the Moon.  And I don't mean waiting at night with the lens pointing up.  I mean during the period of a full moon, when it is just coming up over the horizon, using a telephoto lens and a optical illusion caused by the refraction of light through Earth's atmosphere, you can make the Moon appear much larger.  Of course you need a foreground object to have a size comparison.  It works the same for sunsets, especially sunsets that occur over the horizon of the sea.

 

Below is a photo I took a few years back of a full moon coming up over the horizon, it's not a great photo but you can see how the Moon appears larger.

 

Peeking moon by Aung Lwin, on Flickr

And whether you use a wide angle or telephoto, what Robert Capa said is at least 50% true.

“If your photos aren’t good enough, then you’re not close enough” –Robert Capa

I've got another question. If I were to say dial my current lens to 50mm, would that be the same as a standalone 50mm lens?

[ALwin]

I've got another question. If I were to say dial my current lens to 50mm, would that be the same as a standalone 50mm lens?

 

50mm focal length is always 50mm focal length on a lens no matter which camera you put it on.  However the sensor size determines the field of view.

 

When people in the photography community say 50mm being normal for a 35mm full frame camera, we mean that the field of view given by a 50mm lens is roughly the same as the field of view of the human eye.  So for a Nikon APS-C camera which has a crop factor of 1.5 or Canon which has a crop factor of 1.6, a focal length of approximately 31-33mm gives the same field of view as a 50mm lens on a 35mm sensor which is larger.

 

Put it this way, imagine you take a 2 large pieces of cardboard.  In one piece cut out a square hole 1 inch on each side.  In the second piece cut out a square hole 1 cm on each side.  Now take each cardboard piece one at a time, hold it say 12 inches away from your face and look through the holes.  The field of view is how much of the world you can see through those two holes of different sizes.

[General_Led]

50mm focal length is always 50mm focal length on a lens no matter which camera you put it on.  However the sensor size determines the field of view.

 

When people in the photography community say 50mm being normal for a 35mm full frame camera, we mean that the field of view given by a 50mm lens is roughly the same as the field of view of the human eye.  So for a Nikon APS-C camera which has a crop factor of 1.5 or Canon which has a crop factor of 1.6, a focal length of approximately 31-33mm gives the same field of view as a 50mm lens on a 35mm sensor which is larger.

 

Put it this way, imagine you take a 2 large pieces of cardboard.  In one piece cut out a square hole 1 inch on each side.  In the second piece cut out a square hole 1 cm on each side.  Now take each cardboard piece one at a time, hold it say 12 inches away from your face and look through the holes.  The field of view is how much of the world you can see through those two holes of different sizes.

So is a 50mm lens something I should get? I've heard a lot about how it's something everyone should get. I'm using a t4i.

[ALwin]

So is a 50mm lens something I should get? I've heard a lot about how it's something everyone should get. I'm using a t4i.

 

Warning, it's going to be a long post.

 

That's a good question and one that is not easy to answer. Often people will say Yes you should get a 50mm lens.  You will also hear a lot of "photographers" saying a 50mm lens is something they carry in their pockets.  However if you already have a 18-55mm lens or any other lens that covers the focal length, and you are happy with the quality of images produced by that lens, the answer is NO.  Do not get a 50mm lens.  Especially if you are considering the cheap 50mm f/1.8 lens.

 

A 50mm lens without any zoom in it is a prime lens, such as the 85mm or 20mm or 35mm lenses.  In terms of image quality prime lenses tend to be better because they tend to have fewer glass elements.  Zoom lenses require more glass elements in their bodies and as light passes through multiple glass elements its quality can be negatively affected.

 

Now aside from the fact that image quality tends better on a prime lens (keep in mind image quality also depends on the photographer) there is another reason that makes them wonderful lenses to use.  Most prime lenses tend to have wider apertures, a.k.a fast lenses.  As you know aperture is the ratio between the focal length of a lens and the diameter of the aperture's opening.  In a zoom lens it is expensive to keep the widest aperture constant throughout the entire focal length because it requires several different types of glass elements.  In a prime lens that has only a single focal length manufacturers can implement super wide apertures such as f/1.2, f/1.4 which provide at least 1-stop of light faster than the fastest aperture on a zoom lens which is normally f/2.8.  Though Sigma now has designed a f/1.8 zoom lens for APS-C cameras.

 

With wider apertures come the ability to use "slightly" faster shutter speeds on low light conditions, even shallower depth of field to make those beautiful portraits where the background is blurry, and if you have a good number of iris blades for the aperture opening you can have beautiful bokeh.

 

So now that I have explained some things to you, the question is do you need a 50mm lens?

 

I don't know what kind of photographer you are or where you plan to go with photography.  Do you like taking portraits?  Are you a street photographer? Do you work as an event photographer?  Do you work more in a studio like setting in your home?  Do you know how to use your lenses effectively?

 

Don't just blindly go buy a lens because some people believe you should get one.  Ask yourselves those questions and more before you start making investments.

 

Here are some tips if you want to grow as a photographer and still unsure about quite a few things.

• Join a photography club if one exists near where you live.  You will get to share knowledge and experiences and perhaps fellow club members will loan you their gear to try out.
• If any established photographer starts a "meet up" or "photo walk" near where you live or in places where you can travel to easily, join them.
• As for the 50mm lens, take your zoom lens that covers the focal length, set it to 50mm and tape it down.  Then go about for a day or two just taking photos with your lens, without ever touching the zoom ring to change the focal length, and see if you feel you can work with a 50mm field of view.  You will certainly have to take a few steps backwards or forwards to get a proper composition. (Note: 50mm lens on your camera will translate to 80mm field of view on a full frame camera.)

 

I have several prime lenses.  24mm 1.4 and a 24mm tilt-shift lens, 50mm 1.8 (gave the 1.4 to my brother and haven't bought a new one yet), 60mm macro, 85mm 1.4 and 85mm tilt-shift, 105mm macro and 105mm defocus lens, 135mm defocus... all of these lenses stay on the shelf as they are designed for specialized purposes and not for everyday use.

 

As a photographer I tend to use two types of lenses the most.  A wide angle and a telephoto.  My working bag always have the 16-35 and 70-200 lenses. The only time I would ever use a 50mm is when I want to carry something very light for walking around the city and hoping to see something interesting to photograph, but even then I more often choose to use my 24-85 lens instead of the 50.