I think the Nifty Fifty is overrated.

My one actually-marked 50mm lens is a Sigma f/2.8 Macro EX DG which I use on a 1.7 crop camera.

I wonder how such macro work differs, if at all, from the copious Real World examples posted so far in this thread.

Do the same criteria apply? If not, what is significantly different?

So, to normalize the discussion, that 50mm lens on a 1.7 crop camera would be equivalent to an 85mm lens on a full-frame camera. To my bear-of-little-brain thinking, that'd be the low end of the so-called "portrait lens" class, so there you go...

Now, I think for macro work that focal length can be a little short in almost any format. That's based on my limited macro experience with the AF-S Micro Nikkor 40mm, others with more macro chops should weigh in. For my work documenting small 3D-printed parts, I've got to put the lens almost right upon the part to get reasonable magnification...

No significant difference in your view then.

My own work was wristwatches for sale on ebay and generally the watch's 30mm or so body width was about half the frame - about 10mm on the sensor. Which prompts me to think more about your afore-mentioned magnification - 1:0.333 in this case ... significantly different to shots posted in this thread so far.

Once again, the pleasure is all mine 😁😁
It's simply great fun for me, taking photographs has to be a relaxing, enjoyable experience, or I simply won't do it. Grabbing a small camera and wandering around a car/bike show on a warm summers day, perhaps with a beer in hand, a hamburger or bucket of chips, eyeing off subjects at various angles and distances has to be one of life's greatest pleasures. To me.

For sure. I find the 50-60mm equivalent FOV about spot on for wandering around vehicle shows/displays. The field of view is such that you can isolate your subject, without requiring huge working distances that are required for your 85-100mm FOV equivalents. When I say huge, that's relative to the confines of your typical/average car show.
50-60mm is also a long enough focal length that even on a smaller sensor camera, you can still soften up the background a little even when framing your whole subject, using larger apertures. And then shoot a few detail shots. Quite versatile.
For example

You get the picture. Pun intended 😁

If not photographing wildlife, people or macro, somewhere around 50mm has always been my most used focal length. First a 58 f/2.0 Zeiss Biotar, then a 50 f/2.0 Leica Summicron-R, and for quite some time now a 55/1.4 Zeiss Otus. I just move in or out til I see what I like with my naked eye, and more often than not 50mm or so will give me the field of view I want. I have 4 zoom lenses that cover those focal lengths and when using them select 50mm or so most of the time. That's my opinion, for what little it's worth.
Edit: I shoot mostly 6 x 7 - the above pertains to 35mm full frame.

The focal length works well for the chosen subject distance - much closer or farther would require a shorter or longer lens.

Certain types. If you are at a busy car show trying to get a shot, 50mm has you backing up far enough that people wont notice you taking a shot and will walk right into the scene.

I do not have any negative issues with "normal" lenses for whatever format is in use. Whether a "50" is "nifty or not depends on what and how you are shooting, what kind of visual perspective you want to achieve in any given image, how much space you have to work in, and more. If you are just collecting lenses for the sake of having them, well, that's a differet sorry! Saying it is overrated or somehow inferior is like saying a wrench is bad because it can't be used effectively as a screwdriver. Different tools for differet jobs.

I was hoping this new forum would be less "negative" as many online photo forms have been in the past. Perhaps by chance, the first few threads I randomly clicked on were bashing various theories and "myths" and became prolonged arduous, protracted, and short-tempered debates. It's difficult to learn or teach and share under these conditions. I admit I am turned off weh the first paragraph contains words like "poppycock, balderdash, nonsense, BS, garbage, etc. Yes, there is a lot of mythology, old wives' tales, folklore, misconceptions, and misinformation in photography, but it isn't neurosurgery or nuclear physics. There are more positive ways of discussing or disproving many of the inaccuracies or misconceptions.

So, back to the Fabulous 50s, in more ways than one! I started my day job in professional photography in the late 50s in a portrat and wedding studio. During that era, the industry standard for weddingg, press, and event shooters was the 4x5 press camera with a "normal" 135mm or 127mm lens. The lenses were interchangeable but were rarely changed, When the trend leand toward medium for, camers list the Rolleiflex with a 75mm or 80mm lens as popular among pors. I am not suggesting that we should go back ot the past and use old film camers. My point is, however, there were many greati mages produced with these basic cameras and lenses in the hands of savvy shooters. We had to improvise, work around shortcomings, and learn to maxainze the utility of a single lens.

Back to the future! Of course, in my portrait work, I will use a longer lens for so-called headshots but a "normal lens: is perfect for a 3/4 or full-length shot or a group portrait. There are situations where I do not want to shoot an environmental portrait witheh "bokeh": effect and want to see detail in the background- I might even go to a moderate wide-angle on a 3/4 lengh portrait.

Don't mind me, for a while I thought a "pancake lens" was for shooting food! What the heck is a walk-around lens? It depens on where you are walking around and what you are shooting.

Lenses are tools. There are many criteria for selecting the type and focal lenght, such as speed, aperture range, DOP potential, angle of view, perspective issues, "bokeh" rendition, acutance, performance, and application. So artists can create masterpiece painings with one brush, some artists will need several brushes, pallete knives, and paper stomps to create their style or vision.

Some folks perceive many aspects of film photography as obsolete. The only thing that is kinda becoming somewhat absolute is the film itself. Camers are still just camera but with more bells and whistles. The popular fomats are still similar, and although many of the modern lenses are more acute, optical properties as to aesthetics, effect, perspective, and magnification the illusion of compression and elongation have not changed.

It's like the old silly question, "if you could only listen to one song...read one book, 0r use one lens(?!) what would it be??? Why is that silly? Unless you are isolated and marooned on a desert island, you can have all he lenses that you can afford. Anyway, if you were marooned on a desert island, how would you recharge you newfangled digital camera? Well, after a while you would run out of the film too! Don't forget your solar panel on your nex transcontinental trip!

Car shows are not exclusively devoted to photographers getting shots. So you have to be a bit patient, and you won't get every shot you'd like to. And you might have to get a bit creative. Whatever way, it's still a lot easier than an 85-100mm FOV. And also the reason I take a 16-20mm FOV equivalent with me

I'm more interested in the people looking at the car than I am of the car, but "that's just me."

I have a 45mm that is close to the 50mm that once came bundled with SLR cameras. I mostly see it labeled as a boring focal length.

But actually It is a good focal length when you want neutral perspective effects.

I'm interested in both. Variety is good 😊

I am well aware of what car shows are and are not. We have two within 5 miles of my house that combined draw 20,000 cars. I have also been in the automotive industry for 45 years, and shoot at SEMA for 30 years running, which draws 125,000 people.

24-28mm is the balance between getting shots and getting shots with people between you and the subject at shows of this scale. I have zero interest in having a guy with a cell phone in the middle of my shot. Not trying to be a snob about all this, my point was merely that shooting a 50mm at a crowded car show will be a bit of a surprise to those that have never tried it, as spectators can't tell you are shooting in a lot of cases.

For macro, it opens the can of worms that is lens breathing - angle of view for a given focal length is calculated at infinity, and you get a different angle of view at MFD. The difference between these varies with different lens designs

Personally, I prefer 35mm or 40mm over 50mm for „normal perspective“ shots. This, of course, is my long-standing prejudice; but to test any basis for it, I went out at lunchtime today with the RF50mm that I have hardly ever felt a need to use. I also took my RF24-240mm, but resisted using it for all but one shot, which needed 24mm to get the whole of a church in frame, though in truth, I would have been happier using the RF16 for this shot, in order to give more opportunity for perspective correction.

To get the framing that I wanted, I moved back and forth as much as I could and took some 25 photos while walking through the city in bright sunlight — another challege!. Some of these were duplicates of the same scene, made in order to improve the framing or to exclude tourists from the shot.

I was still dissatisfied with the restrictions on composition offered by the 50mm, and it was only after I arrived home and took four photos of my dog with it that I had something that really satisfied me.

By comparison, I have often been out with just my RF35mm lens, and experienced none of the dissatisfaction described above. This is not to say that the photos were uniformly brilliant, but it was not the fault of the lens when they were mediocre!

I have posted photos illustrating my opinion here.

David