Why on earth a DT ? An inexpensive 50 is a fine thing to have in the lineup for both FF and APS-C users; not an ideal FL for APS-C where it's neither "normal" nor "portrait" ... so why limit it to APS-C ?
Not sure what they're thinking here; they have 50mm macro and 28/2.8 which is already too slow for most people wanting a prime over a zoom.
Reasonable since they needed to have a more competitive kit lens and it pairs up with 55-200 nicely.
Tamron rebadge ? If so, I'm surprised to see it in a lineup where they're trying to sell the CZ24-70. The KM was a nice lens (I still own mine - actually, my second copy because after I sold my first, I missed it
Probably a cheap alternative to the CZ. The Tamron is no slouch, really, and it may be the case that Tamron sells more 28-75s for the Alpha mount than Sony with their CZ 24-70. Perhaps they just want in on the action.Tamron rebadge ? If so, I'm surprised to see it in a lineup where
they're trying to sell the CZ24-70. The KM was a nice lens (I still
own mine - actually, my second copy because after I sold my first, I
missed it
--
- Dennis
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
I get this. The Sony 50 1.4 isn't exactly expensive anymore - the price has come way down. If you want an a900, which is a lot of money, you simply spend a bit more on your 50. Considering the fact that you've already spent a lot more on making sure that your other glass and your PC are up to the job, cutting costs for the benifit of APS-C users is fine by me.
Yeah - this one's odd... Still, if it's good it'll win fans - it's a 50 macro
Any news on reproduction? 1:1? 1:2? 2:1? :EGood stuff.
Wait - maybe it's not a Tamron rebadge. Even if it is the KM version went down very well - good price, light-weight, good optics, fully compatible (Lens ID etc). A slightly tweaked Sony version is the same and would even serve as a replacement for a 24-105/4 SSM for some - especially if the price is right.Tamron rebadge ? If so, I'm surprised to see it in a lineup where
they're trying to sell the CZ24-70. The KM was a nice lens (I still
own mine - actually, my second copy because after I sold my first, I
missed it
Why? Why is a 50mm equivalent focal length more worthy than a 75mm equivalent focal length? Personally I loved using a 50 as a short telephoto on my Minolta 7D - now I've got an a900 I hardly put my 50 on anymore, my Zeiss is sharper and I find the focal length really dull. And releasing a 30 1.8 and a 30 2.8 on the same day - does that REALLY sound like a great idea to you? Even if one is a macro?
----
-Davie T
My final thoughts there ... the FF user probably doesn't mind spending a bit more on the 50/1.4 to get the brighter VF image & bayonet shade ... but a new 50/1.8 could be an easy match for the 50/1.4 and the 50/1.4 is awfully soft wide open, so the slightly brighter VF image and the bayonet shade (and maybe use of 55mm filters that you might already have) are the only reasons to go for the more expensive lens.
Right. Make it FF or make an APS-C lens that people really want. A 35/1.8, a 60 or 70/1.8 (or f/2) ... people use 50mm on APS-C because there are no other options. Lots of people are intrigued by Sigmas 70/2.8 but it's a lousy low light portrait option. As it stands, it's a lousy choice that people will buy because there's nothing else (and apparently Sony mistakenly thinks that all the recommendations to run out and buy a used 50/1.7 on eBay for low light is because it's somehow ideal for the job).
50's standard. They're cheap to produce and make good. 60/70mm? It's a bit oddball - not Sony's style - especially not with the 85 already kicking around. The 35/1.8 is something else - again, why should a normal take precedence over a portrait prime? I'm not alone in hating 50mm focal lengths - I just find them really dull. When I did all primes I went from 35mm straight to 85mm then 200mm - 50 didn't get a look in. A DT 50 makes perfect sense, assuming there's decent savings to be made from dropping the FF design.My final thoughts there ... the FF user probably doesn't mind
spending a bit more on the 50/1.4 to get the brighter VF image &
bayonet shade ... but a new 50/1.8 could be an easy match for the
50/1.4 and the 50/1.4 is awfully soft wide open, so the slightly
brighter VF image and the bayonet shade (and maybe use of 55mm
filters that you might already have) are the only reasons to go for
the more expensive lens.
My bigger objection, though, is if you're going to make it DT, why
not make it a 60 or 70mm lens ? (Or gives us that 35/1.8
Nope - not missing the point at all. People shouldn't whine (very much) because the 50 1.8 isn't FF - there's already a 50 1.4 that is FF and which isn't very much if you're looking to put down the cash for an a900, FF zooms, memory cards, a PC to deal with the files..... So FF users lose out to the tune of $100 or so.
