Reading mode: Light Dark

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

Go to last post
bobfloyd said:
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.
Click to expand...
I believe that the focal length is always expressed in terms of a FF lens. So a 35/1.8 DT becomes an effective 52.5mm. This is why Ultra-wide lenses had to be introduced for APS-C sensors. A Sony 11-18 DT lens has an effective focal length range of about 17-27mm.
bobfloyd said:
Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/bobfloyd
Click to expand...
--
fjbyrne
 
fjbyrne said:
bobfloyd said:
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.
Click to expand...
I believe that the focal length is always expressed in terms of a FF
lens. So a 35/1.8 DT becomes an effective 52.5mm. This is why
Ultra-wide lenses had to be introduced for APS-C sensors. A Sony
11-18 DT lens has an effective focal length range of about 17-27mm.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm...very possible. This is all getting confusing now. So DT means that it is designed for APS-C only and will not work on FF but the size is still expressed in FF terminology?

I used to think I knew what I knew. Now I am not so sure...

Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/bobfloyd
 
bobfloyd said:
Hmmmm...very possible. This is all getting confusing now. So DT
means that it is designed for APS-C only and will not work on FF but
the size is still expressed in FF terminology?
Click to expand...
Exactly. So the 50/1.8 is just like the old MInolta 50/1.8 except that you can't use it on FF. You can only use it on APS-C (or cropped FF) and then it gives you the same FOV as a 75mm on FF.

The 30 is a 30, and the DT means small image circle. So it gives you the same FOV as a 45mm on FF.
bobfloyd said:
I used to think I knew what I knew. Now I am not so sure...
Click to expand...
It's easy. Interchangeable lenses always specify actual focal lengths whether they're for 4/3, APS-C, FF and you always have to use the "crop factor" (if you want to know what the 35mm/FF equivalent is).
  • Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
Cyrus84 said:
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
Click to expand...
And you don't think calling Andy Westlake's reasoned argument on lens choices, "Complete BS" is NOT rude?

If you think cropping your images is the same as using a different lens for your photography, then by all means do it, and you will no doubt save a fortune in lenses! I guess the professional photographers are all fools for buying all those "unnessary" lenses when all they need is one lens and just crop for their perfect image. Good idea! I just wish I had thought of it first!
--Phil
 
Jogger said:
Just buy a 85 1.4 .. if you cant afford it, then how serious are you
really about portraits? Not really? Then make do with something else.
Click to expand...
There you go folks. If you can't spend $1300 on a lens to take portraits, don't get into photography :)

Or ... buy Nikon or Canon ... like most people do anyway.

Not sure why this isn't blindingly obvious, but I'm a long-time enthusiast who shoots mostly candids, but don't make a penny off my photography and have zero interest in $1300. Fortunately the "pro" brands (Nikon & Canon) offer options for "not serious" photographers.

Not sure why the 50/1.8 is needed ... just buy a 50/1.4. If you can't afford it (it's only $350, not $1300), how serious are your pictures ?
  • Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
Dennis said:
Jogger said:
Just buy a 85 1.4 .. if you cant afford it, then how serious are you
really about portraits? Not really? Then make do with something else.
Click to expand...
There you go folks. If you can't spend $1300 on a lens to take
portraits, don't get into photography :)
Click to expand...
I attended the "Nikon School" seminar some years back. The instructors did a 15-minute presentation on use & results from the 600/4. They prefaced it by saying they'd been criticized in the past for "wasting time" talking about a lens that "costs as much as a small car". Their reply: do you need a small car ? They went on to say it all depends on how important your wildlife photography is.

Fortunately, they recognize that it's not that important to everyone, and sell cheaper options.
  • Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
everything that Sony decides to do or doesn't do is hacked to pieces on this forum.There are always two sides of the issue yet we mainly only hear one of those.

Seems Sony can never do anything right based on comments here, with the negative comments outweighing the positive consistently 2-1 (being objective and fair).

All I can say on this subject is that I don't find 50mm useless on my APS-C sensors at all. I like the 75mm FOV for certain applications and find that it makes a versatile 150mm 3.5 lens with 2x convertor (for portraits).

Apparently many agree with that sentiment or the 50mm focal length wouldn't still be as popular as it is.

Funny, price nor performance has yet to be revealed yet judging on all these comments here the lens is doomed from the outset. Both of those parameters do have to account for something yet, we don't know either.

If I have any complaints it is with vignetting on the smaller image circles, but that is correctable so I don't worry about it much.

-Carl

Carl

--
http://www.CarlGarrardPhotography.com
 
cgarrard said:
Apparently many agree with that sentiment or the 50mm focal length
wouldn't still be as popular as it is.
Click to expand...
Its popularity implies that (a) it's not useless. That's about it. The lack of other options prevent you from drawing much else in the way of conclusions.
Member said:
Funny, price nor performance has yet to be revealed yet judging on
all these comments here the lens is doomed from the outset.
Click to expand...
Not at all. It will likely sell well, likely perform well. Just a shame it wasn't a 60/70.

The lenses (50/1.8 & 30/2.8) aren't bad in and of themselves; the only thing that's bad is the potential lost opportunity (how much better could the lineup have looked; how much more appealing the system if they were 35/1.8 ala Nikon and 65/1.8).
  • Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
Btw, kids do benefit from being photographed with shorter focus distance lenses. Their faces become more rounded on pictures and cute :)

--
Hertz
 
n/t
 
Phixel said:
Cyrus84 said:
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
Click to expand...
And you don't think calling Andy Westlake's reasoned argument on lens
choices, "Complete BS" is NOT rude?
If you think cropping your images is the same as using a different
lens for your photography, then by all means do it, and you will no
doubt save a fortune in lenses! I guess the professional
photographers are all fools for buying all those "unnessary" lenses
when all they need is one lens and just crop for their perfect image.
Good idea! I just wish I had thought of it first!
--Phil
Click to expand...
Not sure why you need to attack me regarding this.

I can definitely see your point that a 60mm (which would be 90mm) would be more useful, as that is close to the 85mm of FF.

At the same time, the point he made was that 75mm is not that much different from 85mm... I have a 200mm lens, you don't see me griping that it isn't 220mm. With such a trivial difference between the two lenses, why can't you just walk back two feet and crop if thats what you want?

I agree with whoever said that no matter WHAT Sony did, it would be ripped apart on this forum. Your reaction to me is indicative of what is wrong here... you can clearly see from my lenses that I have filled in the range with a bunch of nice gear, so don't think me a fool and that I don't know the difference.

But I think you are a fool for getting so worked up about the difference between 75mm and 90mm. Its trivial in the grand scheme of things. Both lenses would have similar perspective and distortion. You can argue with me about it, but it isn't like I told you to use a 50mm to crop for a 135mm... its using a 75mm instead of 90mm.

(I am more bothered by the lens being DT... I don't get why you would introduce a full frame camera and then make a DT prime.)
--
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
 
I feel ashamed of using the 50mm f1.7 on my APS-C camera quiet a lot. It apparently does not belong there. I must be some kind of freak or something like that using that lens on this format.

I'm a creep, I'm a weirdo.
What the hell am I doing here?
I don't belong here.
--

http://frenske.zenfolio.com/
 
This fellow often does not make sense :)
ck3 said:
Barry Fitzgerald said:
Really, go out and ask folks what they think. 50mm APS dumb idea
Click to expand...
So that cheap 50/1.7 you so passionately demanded from Sony one year
ago was for all the future A900 owners then, financially crippled by
the high price of that camera?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=27031025&q=Fitzgerald+cheap+50&qf=m

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=27044730
Click to expand...
--

Illusion is the first of all pleasures.

Lenses: 24/2.8, 50/1.7, CZ 85/1.4, 100/2.8 Macro, 200/2.8 APO G, 17-35/2.8,4, 28-
70/2.8 G, 70-210/4, 70-300 SSM G; 2x TC APO G.
Camera: A700
 
ck3 said:
Barry Fitzgerald said:
Really, go out and ask folks what they think. 50mm APS dumb idea
Click to expand...
So that cheap 50/1.7 you so passionately demanded from Sony one year
ago was for all the future A900 owners then, financially crippled by
the high price of that camera?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=27031025&q=Fitzgerald+cheap+50&qf=m

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=27044730
Click to expand...
Whats amazing about you linking to that?
Barry Fitzgerald said:
Member said:
1.7 competing against each other would be foolish in a business sense.
--
Click to expand...
I can see the protests on the street right now..."please don't give
us good value, decent 50mm lenses"

Foolish is not offering a new f.17

--



Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)
Click to expand...
We actually ARE seeing the protests on the street right now. Not picking on Barry here, it is just amazing how negative people are.
--
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
 
Member said:
So that cheap 50/1.7 you so passionately demanded from Sony one year
ago was for all the future A900 owners then, financially crippled by
the high price of that camera?
Click to expand...
Sigh you are having real problems getting it.

I asked for a 50mm f1.7 FF lens, not a 50mm DT f1.8 with a cheapo plastic mount

The only way the 50mm f1.8 might do ok is if it sell for £80, which it won't of course..
 
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