>>445576350mm is way too tight for a lot of things.
Don't listen to nigger faggots telling you to move your feet. That's not an option most of the time. Moving doesn't change your FOV, only perspective. Two different things retards will never grasp.
Another thing these nigger faggots don't like to mention is that 50mm lenses have shallow DOF so if you want deep DOF you have to lose a lot of light by stopping down all the way, and sometimes that's not even enough.
24mm f/2.8 has about the same DOF as 50mm f/5.6 and you can't even get anything similar to 24mm f/22 on most modern 50mm lenses becuse the rarely go down to f/22 and they'd need to go to f/44 to be similar.
50mm is good for photographing flat planar things like art, people where you might want background blur, or stuff with subject isolation (not much or anything in the peripheral) but this makes it pretty niche.
24-70mm is way better for general purpose use but unfortunately zoom lenses don't have the quality of primes.
There's a reason most phones come with 120FOV ultrwide cameras and have their standard cameras around a 24mm-28mm equivalent focal length, people like wider than 50mm and wider than 35mm. 20mm is where things become "extra" wide and 24-28mm is an ideal in-between 20 and 35 for a point & shoot. 50mm is almost telephoto in comparison.
43mm lenses should be more common as they'd give you that little extra you always feel like you're losing out on with 50mm but unfortunately people are suckers for 50mm marketing.
