I've never really understood the concept of landscape photography with the nifty fifty. Those two things just don't fit in the same sentence for me. It's great for portraits and stuff, though, but I've been thinking about changing mine to a 35mm so I don't have to take my photos ten meters from my subject. Thoughts?
Yeah the 50mm lenses are just so great when it comes to bang for buck. They're so cheap and can be very sharp and give nice results for the price. For low light, portraits and shallow DOF, they are fantastic but for landscapes, I wouldn't even consider a 50mm. I would use it, if that's all I had and I have been in that situation where it's all I had and I'm guessing that's why most people would use them for landscape: necessity/no choice.
Up until recently I've been using a 40mm pancake as my main lens. It's priced slightly more than the 50 but it's very sharp and you can get wonderful results. It gives you all the fun benefits of a 50mm but the extra 10mm is so worth the 40 or 50 bucks extra. Using it exclusively as my main lens, it forced me to make the best of it in all situations and I can say it's versatile. To give you context, I mostly used it in low-light, nightclub stuff but for street photography and portraits, I would rated it highly. I also used it for a little bit of video. However, for video, it's much more work as you would expect.
Here's a recent example of it I may have posted these before, so apologies in advance. (on a Canon 6D)