I think the Nifty Fifty is overrated.

It's funny this should come up because I was just discussing it on another (film) forum. I found with my digicam that, without thinking about it, I was primarily shooting at the focal lengths I used in film (18, 35 and 55 on APS-C, so basically 28, 50 and zoomed all the way out). But then I picked up a 35 (FL of a 35mm point-and-shoot I love) and I think it's just a magnificent focal length. I like it a lot more than 50, where like you I find it puts me too close or too far away, but never in the right spot.

Aaron

I remember "approximates what the human eye sees" or some verbiage like that. I always assumed that meant field of view but that never seemed right to me. I think now it talks more about (for lack of a better word) the perspective, ie not as "compressed" as a longer lens (let's not start an argument over verbiage) nor as artificially rounded as a wide-angle. I guess FOV is different for everyone (think Marty Feldman) but the 35 or 28 seems closer to what I see.

Aaron

If it is the Canon nifty-fifty, it is overrated because of its optical qualities.

I own both great 35mm and 50mm fast primes. Since I got my latest 50, I use it more often. I never got used to 85mm. When I need a longer FL, I grab my 135/2.

same sold my 85 1.8 kept my 45 1.8 for a compact walk around lens, bought a 28 75 2.8 and 70 180 2.8 for my studio and out door portrait sessions

This an assumption made in order to support a conclusion the author wanted to get.

The only experiment I know which tested this measured a somewhat longer viewing distances, roughly speaking corresponding to 55-60mm lenses for larger prints (1.3*diagonal + 25cm). In the case above, it would be around 18-19 inches.

Yeah, I've thought about this since posting, there might be a objects' relative size correlated to distance from lens or somesuch, but I've got other projects to occupy my time. FWIW, I think the article is an interesting read on what people were thinking regarding lens design back in the day...

Ha, I remember now why I had a 50mm for my film kit: f1.4. In 1975, you could get Nikkor 50mm in three flavors, f1.8, f1.4, and f1.2. Low light capture, at the price point I could afford.

I really really like it. Prime lenses are my favourite by far, early on I shot Canon APSC and they refuse to make a crop specific FOV equivalent, so I got used to 60mm FOV. Via the 40mm pancake. Fabulous little lens that punches well above its weight. When I moved to full frame it was a no brainer to buy the 50 STM.
Moving to m4/3 I got a free Lumix 25, liked it so picked up the PL 25. Sigma had a sale on the 30 f1.4 so I grabbed that as well. They both just work, and work really well, for my favourite subjects.

I think that if you don't like that focal length, don't use it - your opinion ought not to influence anyone who does their own thinking. (Nor should my opinion, of course.)

No, but I'd like to hear your opinion.

It's a focal length, like any other. If the scene or subject calls for it, then it's the right choice; 90% of time (a number I just made up) a different focal length will be more appropriate, and (again) you can say that about any focal length.

I think it's popular because it is often a quite affordable prime with a relatively wide aperture.

I have a 50 for the FF Sony as well as a 25 for the MFT's but I admit that they don't get a lot of use considering the other glass I own.

Great shots! And indeed, this FL fits the car photography well. Thank you for sharing.

the pleasure is all mine, believe me. Surprisingly, my other favourite focal length for vehicles is an ultrawide. Somewhere between 8-10mm. Great fun to shoot. A few samples

And one of my all time favourites, at 8mm. I think it has everything. Class, style, attitude, vanishing point in the clouds, what's not to like :)

I love it. You've got to get up that close you've got to watch you don't get your toes run over :) Fabulous fun

Great eye! Great pictures! Just wiewing these is a great learning point for me. ❤️