Andy Westlake nor impressed by the 50mm F1.8 DT concept

[ephankim]

He says 50x1.5=75mm is too short. I kinda agree.

http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2009/03/where-are-the-portrait-lenses.html

 

[fjbyrne]

He says 50x1.5=75mm is too short. I kinda agree.

http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2009/03/where-are-the-portrait-lenses.html

He's dead on here IMO:

"So it seems to me that manufacturers may be misinterpreting the appeal of those 50mm lenses; they’re popular just because they are fast and cheap, not particularly because of their focal length."

--
fjbyrne

 

[tompower53]

Yes he makes a lot of sense here

--
tom power

 

[headofdestiny]

Agreed. 35mm and 60mm or so would be much better APS-C lengths.

 

[Dennis]

EXACTLY what I and others have been saying repeatedly the last couple days.

A 50/1.8 is a normal lens for FF, but the new lens isn't FF. A 50/1.8 for APS-C is a weird compromise; something most people buy because it's the only fast, cheap option.

It's better than nothing, but worse than what it should have been.

It represents poor judgement and a lack of photography-based thinking.

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

 

[cjhacker23]

Total agreement. Absolutely.

 

[moire]

I can agree more! Give us 60 or 70mm 2.0 !!!

--
-
A700 owner - Using the Cream machine - Minolta STF !

 

[ronrubble]

--
Happy shooting!

Byron

 

[dr4gon]

I disagree. I think 50mm on a cropped sensor is just fine....

PopPhoto did a whole cover and article featuring the 50mm prime on a cropped sensor



They make many valid points which work well in practice.
--
http://www.flickr.com/dr4gon

 

[Phixel]

My respect for Andy Westlake just went up a couple of notches, as it takes some guts to challenge the great "50mm for portraits using APS-C myth". I totally agree with him on this, and that is why I went with the Sigma 17-70mm instead of the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. Although not a prime, the Sigma's sharpness and pleasing bokeh make it an excellent portrait lens. Another excellent Sigma lens to consider for portraits would be the superb Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro. I think Sony should just have Sigma make all their lens for them as they are superior to the non-Zeisss Sony lenses in every respect. with well thought out focal length ranges as well.
-Phil

He says 50x1.5=75mm is too short. I kinda agree.

http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2009/03/where-are-the-portrait-lenses.html

 

[Dennis]

Yes, it's "fine".

But let's say every APS-C user who seeks out a used 50/1.7 had the choice between:

DT 50/1.8
DT 65/2

How many do you think would opt for the 50 ?

I guess price might factor in ... 50 might be $129; 65/2 could be made for $199.

And maybe given that this is the Sony system and there's no fast normal, some might choose the 50 for that reason, but if there were a 35/1.8 as well, then I wonder how many have an honest preference for a 75mm equivalent over a normal or a portrait tele.

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

 

[Ronni H]

The 50mm 1.4 is the most frequently used lens on my A700..... Yes it's a little too short to be perfect for normal portraiture. However for shooting my little baby girl it is absolutely fantastic - and it beats my Sigma 17-70, Beercan, Minolta 100mm Macro and 35-105.

However I would have preferred a Sony 85mm 1.8 though.

--
Never bite the Apple...

Ronni

http://www.pbase.com/ronnihansen

 

[Dennis]

Another excellent Sigma lens to
consider for portraits would be the superb Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro.

This 50/1.8 DT thing is a sore point with me because I agonized over the choice of a portrait lens for a couple months.

50 was just too short. Some people make good use of it, but it's exactly as Andy says - a holdover from film days that doesn't work out to a FOV on APS-C that people used in film days. People shot 85 -135 and didn't ask for a 75mm lens.

I tried out the Sigma 70/2.8 and found autofocus (even with the limiter) far too slow to be practical. Ditto the Tamron 90/2.8 (which would have been a bit long anyway).

I ended up using the KM 28-75/2.8 for my people lens for a while.

I explored various manual focus lens & adapter combos.

I wished for an 85/1.8.

Finally someone pointed out an old Minolta 85/1.4 for $500 at B&H ... had to buy a lens shade for it, but that was still a bargain. It's occasionally a tad long on APS-C and the lens is a bit bigger than I'd like (I often skip the shade to keep it from looking too imposing).

With all the APS-C lenses that Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Pentax, Nikon, Canon, Sony have put out on the market in the last few years, including new ones that imply a commitment to APS-Cs future, it's astounding that nobody is doing a portrait tele ! This could have been a coup by Sony - IS in the body and a portrait lens for APS-C. (Just as the 16-80 was unique until Nikon came out with their very good VR 16-85). Sony would have picked up a few sales for that lens alone.

What'd we get ? A 50/1.8 that might be a bit sharper than the old 50/1.7 but some people will shy away from because it's DT.

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

 

[liquid stereo]

Do you really know? If so can you share with us?

 

[fjbyrne]

Do you really know? If so can you share with us?
--

"In photography and cinematography a normal lens is a lens that generates images that generally look "natural" to a human observer under normal viewing conditions, as compared with lenses with longer or shorter focal lengths. Lenses of shorter focal length are called wide-angle lenses, while longer focal length lenses are often referred to as telephoto lenses.

A lens with a focal length about equal to the diagonal size of the film or sensor format is known as a normal lens; its angle of view is similar to the angle subtended by a large-enough print viewed at a typical viewing distance equal to the print diagonal;[1] this angle of view is about 53 degrees diagonally."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens

--
fjbyrne

 

[Barry Fitzgerald]

Andy is spot on..50mm is less useful on APS, as a standard lens on FF ..it's good.

It is popular because they are fast and cheap, and usable for portraits..but

70mm on APS=105mm, which is widely considered one of the finest focal lengths for portrait work.

But 85mm will do..using a FF lens

As with have FF bodies..and a few film users ;-) It's def worth keeping the 50mm's around, but it is a poor show by sony IMO..by making a crop 50mm only lens. If they want to make DT only primes, least do them for focal lengths that are far more useful

Some makers don't "get it"

 

[Dennis]

Do you really know? If so can you share with us?

It's the 50mm lens that's been labelled "normal" on 35mm film cameras for the last 20, 30 years. And whether you'd prefer a 58mm or a 40mm, whether you believe normal is based on FOV of human vision, diagonal of sensor or the fact that it's cheap to build is largely irrelevant ... 50mm lenses are normal lenses on film/FF and they've been popular for years despite wider and longer options (on systems where wider and longer options are affordable, unlike Sony).

Portrait lenses range from 85 to 135mm (on 35mm/FF) as Andy states. People shoot portraits with WAs and long teles, but these lenses are "portrait lenses" just as a 50mm is a "normal lens".

Just common use labels.

50mm on APS-C seems like a mistake. You could say that it is what it is; that 75mm was never popular because nobody made 75mm (someone pointed out that they've been made for RFs) and therefore 50mm on APS-C is something new & different and not an arbitrary mistake caused by the lack of better options. And that's fine.

But I don't believe it. I'm firmly convinced that given the choice, people want WAs, they want normals and they want portrait lenses and few would choose a 75mm equivalent if those others were available.

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

 

[roweraay]

He says 50x1.5=75mm is too short. I kinda agree.

http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2009/03/where-are-the-portrait-lenses.html

A 50mm has served for decades as a "normal" on FF cameras but is in reality an oddball on APS-C, even though you can stretch it to function as a portrait lens.

A 50mm DT is a mistake, IMO, especially when a Full-frame 50mm f/1.8 is one of the cheapest of lenses to build/sell ($150 ?) and weighs very little, and doing a "DT" build is not going to save a hill of beans, either cost-wise or weight-wise, while making it incompatible for current and future FF cameras. Even an APS-C purchaser would think twice before buying this odd-ball.

 

[liquid stereo]

This argument is so specious its incredible.

What happened to all the extra cropping power? You can take your 12-14MP image and crop it a 8MP 85mm image. no?

What about all the people who were buying 35mm lenses before? Today, on APS-C that's a 52mm. Is that useful only because its near 50mm?
75mm is near 85mm. Wasn't 85mm useful years ago?

 

[Frenske]

Strange, a couple of months ago many people wanted to have a cheap alternative to the 50mm f/1.4 and now it is here everybody is complaining about it. I have a KM 50mm f/1.7 and I use it quiet a lot.
--

http://frenske.zenfolio.com/