Is there any benefits to owning a 50mm lens when I already own a 24 to 105 mm?

[sotann]

I'm just perusing the storefront for lenses as I have just acquired a Canon R8. I'm looking at the Canon official lenses there's a 50 mm f 1.8 and a 24 to 105 mm f4 to 7.

Technically the 24 to 105 lens has 50 somewhere in its range, so is there any point in getting the 50 mm?

[wq9nsc]

Ernie,

Best was a poor choice of words, the lens in question at 50mm is f5.6 wide open.  I was trying to avoid the words wide or maximum with reference to aperture, it creates the same sort of confusion when describing the driving axle in a car as having a high or low ratio.

Rodger

[stevet1]

Just for the heck of it, I hauled out my 50mm f1.8 and was surprised (again) by how sharp it is.

Steve Thomas

[Tronhard]

One way to approach this is to ask  yourself what your 24-105 fails to deliver that a 50mm lens would for your shooting needs - given all the info I gave on the differences.

[ebiggs1]

"One way to approach this is to ask  yourself what your 24-105 fails to deliver that a 50mm lens would for your shooting needs"

Bottom line. If you need, it you need it.

[ebiggs1]

"...  those of us who's first "real camera" came with a 50mm "standard" lens ..."

Absolutely, I have no doubt nostalgia has a big part in this. However truth be known a 50mm prime is a difficult FL to live with if it is all you have. A 35mm would have been and is a better FL, but the 50mm is seen to be closer to the human eye perspective and I guess that is why it was/is so popular.

Of course there are two ways to zoom. One is with your lens and the other is with your feet. Zoom lens does it for you and feet do it for a prime. I think folks tend to forget that sometimes.