Reading mode: Light Dark

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

Go to last post
liquid stereo said:
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?
Click to expand...
No. The perspective characteristics and depth of field of a lens differs as a function of the focal length and distance to subject, not the size of the image alone. I suggest you take a class in photography to help you understand some of the basics of optics and photography. There is more to photography then you think you know.
  • Phil
 
liquid stereo said:
What happened to all the extra cropping power? You can take your
12-14MP image and crop it a 8MP 85mm image. no?
Click to expand...
Sure. So nobody needs their desired focal lengths ... just shoot something close and crop ? No need for long teles ? Why do we need a 17-50 when you could use a 17-35 and crop ? Low light shots see even MORE noise, but that's ok ... our sensors are so noise free now ;)
liquid stereo said:
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?
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean by "only useful" ... yes, it's equivalent to a 52mm lens on film and if it's useful, it's useful because the photographer likes that FOV.
liquid stereo said:
75mm is near 85mm. Wasn't 85mm useful years ago?
Click to expand...
85 was useful to some; 100 to others, 135 to others still. 85mm is at the short end of a 1.6X range of focal lengths popular for portraits. 75mm is shorter than the shortest part of that range.

Yeah it's close. In the words of someone else, it's "fine". You can use it. People do & people will.

If you're Nikon or Canon and already have a 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 you have to weigh the benefits of designing an APS-C portrait prime from scratch. But if you're designing an APS-C short tele from scratch, why not 60 or 70 ? Lots of people see that as the blindingly obvious thing to do - I don't get what's so hard to understant that people would rather a portrait length tele than a 75mm equivalent given that Sony (or someone they contracted to) took the time to design a lens from scratch.

Look at it another way ... what if there were no 85mm lens available at all. And no 100mm lens at all. Not even used. None. Maybe some manual focus thing you could rig with an adapter. And maybe a slow focussing macro lens. Your only choices for portraits are the slow focussing macro lens or the manual focus with an adapter option. And then, say Sony comes out with a 75/1.8.

It's basically the same thing. You can use an 85mm (albeit an expensive f/1.4) on APS-C and get nearly a 135. Want 85 or 100 ? You can use the Sigma 70/2.8 macro or an old 58mm lens.

It could have been a nice selling point for Sony - something Nikon & Canon don't offer.
  • Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
Dennis said:
It could have been a nice selling point for Sony - something Nikon &
Canon don't offer.
Click to expand...
You are right. But just because Sony launches a 50mm prime does not mean they will never make a 70mm sort of lens. They have to start somewhere and I guess Sony (based on these forums) felt there was a market for a cheap and fast 50mm prime.

Personally I would have preferred a 70mm too and maybe we will see that later.
--
Never bite the Apple...

Ronni

http://www.pbase.com/ronnihansen
 
Ronni H said:
Dennis said:
It could have been a nice selling point for Sony - something Nikon &
Canon don't offer.
Click to expand...
You are right. But just because Sony launches a 50mm prime does not
mean they will never make a 70mm sort of lens. They have to start
somewhere and I guess Sony (based on these forums) felt there was a
market for a cheap and fast 50mm prime.
Click to expand...
You may be right but I think Sony missed what people were wanting - a cheap fast prime. The 50mm was just historical.
Ronni H said:
Personally I would have preferred a 70mm too and maybe we will see
that later.
Click to expand...
True. Maybe we won't end up seeing this "mock up" come out as something other than 50mm.
Ronni H said:
--
Never bite the Apple...

Ronni

http://www.pbase.com/ronnihansen
Click to expand...
--
fjbyrne
 
No 60mm/75mm/80mm/62.5mm prime...
Keep it up whiners
 
The 50mm is historical and so too is full-frame. But for someone to say/suggest that 60mm is "better"... that is complete b.s.

It may be better for what I have in mind or for what you have in mind, but there is no objective better, and I doubt there is even a consensus.

Cheers!
fjbyrne said:
Ronni H said:
Dennis said:
It could have been a nice selling point for Sony - something Nikon &
Canon don't offer.
Click to expand...
You are right. But just because Sony launches a 50mm prime does not
mean they will never make a 70mm sort of lens. They have to start
somewhere and I guess Sony (based on these forums) felt there was a
market for a cheap and fast 50mm prime.
Click to expand...
You may be right but I think Sony missed what people were wanting - a
cheap fast prime. The 50mm was just historical.
fjbyrne said:
Personally I would have preferred a 70mm too and maybe we will see
that later.
Click to expand...
True. Maybe we won't end up seeing this "mock up" come out as
something other than 50mm.
fjbyrne said:
--
Never bite the Apple...

Ronni

http://www.pbase.com/ronnihansen
Click to expand...
--
fjbyrne
Click to expand...
 
liquid stereo said:
The 50mm is historical and so too is full-frame. But for someone to
say/suggest that 60mm is "better"... that is complete b.s.
Click to expand...
I'm not an old school shooter so others can chime in. But from what I have read the effective 75mm on the APS-C 50mm is a sort of "dead spot" in the focal length. FF 50mm gives you the classic "normal" lens and 85-135mm is a classic portrait lens range. I've done most landscape and sports shooting so I can't directly comment on portraits. The last good one I took was with my 70-200G and it was in the classic portrait range.

I think a 35/1.8 DT would make more sense since it would give an effective
52.5mm and put you right at the "normal" range. This is what Nikon has done.

I have an idea. Why doesn't Sony just release a 35/1.8 DT too and that would shut us all up ;)
liquid stereo said:
It may be better for what I have in mind or for what you have in
mind, but there is no objective better, and I doubt there is even a
consensus.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for consensus but I think things evolved to give the "classic" focal lengths for a reason. I don't think is was as arbitrary as some here seem to think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_Portrait_Lenses
liquid stereo said:
Cheers!
Click to expand...
--
fjbyrne
 
Dennis said:
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.
Click to expand...
Canon make a 60mm macro which if I were a Canon user on aps-c I'd gave in my bag already.

My standard lens is a Minolta 28mm F2. It's focal length is close to the diagonal of the sensor and it delivers exactly what I want of a standard lens.

For a portrait lens I would like the equivalwnt of a 100 or 105mm FF lens.

If Sony brought out a 70mm F2 DT lens I'd buy it in a shot. I have no interest in a 50mm DT lens in the same way I'd have never bought a 75mm lens when I shot 35mm film.

Dave
 
This post is all about DOF and out of focus.

A 70mm lens would equal a 107mm lens.(comparing the A900 to A700).

It would probably have nicer backgrounds and would more easily seperate the subject from the background. The problem is just that. You have to factor inn the crop factor.

DT 70mm f2.8 = 107mm f4.3 (Sigma has one)
DT 70mm f2.4 = 107mm f3.7
DT 70mm f2.0 = 107mm f3.1
DT 70mm f1.8 = 107mm f2.8
DT 70mm f1.4 = 107mm f2.1

The thing is that once you crop, you loose subject seperation. You gain DOF. (aperture disc stays the same, but angle of view changes).

DT 50mm f1.8 = 77mm f2.8.

The aps-c format is way different than the FF one:

DT 30mm f2.8 macro = 46mm f4.3 (where is the fun in that?)

These lenses need to be great wide open on aps-c, or else, much of the fun is lost. The 50mm f1.7 is not.

The poblem is costs. But a 70mm f1.8 would probably be of more use than a 50mm f1.8. If the prize is just slightly higher, it should have a wider marked.

Frode
 
Obvious you never did macro. Most of the time one needs to stop down to f8-13 to get a decent DOF in order to have the whole subject in focus. Yes indeed a lot of people would like to have a deep DOF rather seas of bokeh. Certain types of photography require this (think jewelery, watches and other small objects). This is were a 30mm macro could be useful. Off course it is not suitable for photographing insects but there is a whole world with static subjects out there.
FrodeNilsen said:
DT 30mm f2.8 macro = 46mm f4.3 (where is the fun in that?)
Click to expand...
--

http://frenske.zenfolio.com/
 
Added DOF is the flip side of the coin. When you want more DOF, the smaller format has the advantage.

This is a bonus if you shoot group portraits.

The problem occurs if you want subject seperation with aps-c. The fun at normal angles starts below FF f2.8, so making a lens that lets you in on the fun is not all that easy. And no, I do not need to shoot macro to know that, quite the contrary.

Frode
 
liquid stereo said:
The 50mm is historical and so too is full-frame. But for someone to
say/suggest that 60mm is "better"... that is complete b.s.

It may be better for what I have in mind or for what you have in
mind, but there is no objective better, and I doubt there is even a
consensus.

Cheers!
Click to expand...
Hmm 50mm is historical as a "normal lens"

Something like this

Standard lens: 35mm
Normal: 50mm
Portrait: Probably about 85mm-135mm (like Andy says)

These are all on FF cameras.

So he said what point making the 50mm's and touting them as really useful? I use my 50mm f1.7, but it's a bit short for portrait shooting..I can use it..but not ideal

APS users would be far better served, by specific lenses for their needs "If" that is what makers want to do.

I might not dig DT lenses, but a 35mm gives you near 50mm fov, aka the "normal lens), Sony have just scored an own goal with a 50mm DT lens. Even then, a 35mm lens is useful to both FF and APS users. So simply make a fast (f1.8-f2 ish) FF 35mm lens.

Make an 85mm f1.8 FF lens useful to both FF and APS users

No problems them making the 50mm ones..useful on FF, not as useful on APS (simply get the other 2)

Someone clearly fell asleep at sony hq on this one, they really don't get it at all, and obviously you didn't either!
 
Frenske said:
Obvious you never did macro. Most of the time one needs to stop down
to f8-13 to get a decent DOF in order to have the whole subject in
focus. ... This is were a
30mm macro could be useful. Off course it is not suitable for
photographing insects but there is a whole world with static subjects
out there.
Click to expand...
DOF is the same with any macro lens if magnification of the subject is the same.

The only reason you choose different FLs is to shoot from closer of farther.
  • Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
Phixel said:
liquid stereo said:
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?
Click to expand...
No. The perspective characteristics and depth of field of a lens
differs as a function of the focal length and distance to subject,
not the size of the image alone. I suggest you take a class in
photography to help you understand some of the basics of optics and
photography. There is more to photography then you think you know.
  • Phil
Click to expand...
This was quite rude, I think.

Nothing you said is inconsistent with cropping the image for the same perspective. Stand the same distance with either lens, the perspective should be the same.
--
Gear:

A700, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 28-75, Beercan, 50 f/1.7, 85 f/1.4 G, Tamron 90mm Macro, Minolta 135mm 2.8, 200mm 2.8, 3600
 
We're not lucky to have as smart a person as you among us but you certainly are fortunate to have someone who "gets it" around you all the time..

I remember when 28-75 was very useful. So much so that everyone made an expensive 28-75/2.8. Now we have a 50/1.8 and its not useful.

I guess all those folks who purchase that extremely affordable CZ 24-70/2.8 don't get it either. Or maybe they do, and don't use above 50mm.

You're such a genius, maybe you can round them up and explain it to them.
 
liquid stereo said:
We're not lucky to have as smart a person as you among us but you
certainly are fortunate to have someone who "gets it" around you all
the time..

I remember when 28-75 was very useful. So much so that everyone made
an expensive 28-75/2.8. Now we have a 50/1.8 and its not useful.

I guess all those folks who purchase that extremely affordable CZ
24-70/2.8 don't get it either. Or maybe they do, and don't use above
50mm.

You're such a genius, maybe you can round them up and explain it to
them.
Click to expand...
The general vibe of this forum tells you all you need to know..aka most think hmmmmm

Really, go out and ask folks what they think. 50mm APS dumb idea

35mm APS logical
35mm FF even better

Not hard to work out that a 50mm on FF is more useful overall
 
liquid stereo said:
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?
--
Click to expand...
I guess I am old school but I like to use the right tool for the job and do my cropping "in camera" rather than in processing. The more of that frame I can use for my final shot, the better that shot will be. To that end, a portrait lens in the range Andy is talking about would be helpful.

I thinks zooms, Photoshop and digital in general have created a lot of lazy photographers (which I am certainly guilty of at times). For snap shots its no big deal but when I am doing something serious for myself or the occasional customer I go back to my roots and do as much as possible with the camera to make the shot the best it can be.

For that, give me the right lens for the job I am doing please.

Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/bobfloyd
 
fjbyrne said:
I think a 35/1.8 DT would make more sense since it would give an
effective
52.5mm and put you right at the "normal" range. This is what Nikon
has done.
Click to expand...
Except that a 35/1.8 DT would be just a 35mm on an APS-C camera, would it not. That is what the DT means or so I thought.

If this is true than the 50/1.8 DT is just a 50mm lens and gives you the POV of a 50mm on FF rather than the 75mm POV that the current 50mm FF lens give.

Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/bobfloyd
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top