Image and specs of upcoming Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM Leaked

kshitijnagar said:

CreeDo said:

Nothing really to say without some sample shots taken with the lens.

If it's 95% as sharp as, say, a Sigma Art 1.4... and delivers nice bokeh to boot... and it costs like $150 instead of $1000... it's a fantastic lens. If you are simply getting $200 performance out of a $200 lens, I don't see any reason to get excited, even if it's noticeably better than the previous generation.

Personally couldn't care less about weight or how much of it is metal vs. plastic. Or even about stabilization. But I know others have different priorities.

My feeling is, buy the best and fastest you can afford for each class of lens, and use it for years, even decades. If I'm going to get a 50mm prime, I'll spend extra to get 1.4 vs. 1.8 and (presumably) better sharpness across the frame. I only need to spend the money once and then try not to drop it

Click to expand...

True. And as far as pricing is concerned, Canon would really be putting off a lot of buyers if they don't price it under 200 USD IMO

Click to expand...

walkaround said:

noflashplease said:

sportyaccordy said:

noflashplease said:

walkaround said:

kshitijnagar said:

Image and specs of next Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM leaked- https://kshitijnagar.wordpress.com/2015/05/06/image-and-specs-of-canon-50mm-f1-8-stm-leaked/

Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

It's as exciting as the current 50/1.8.

What they need to make are some nice fast aps-c primes, like an EF-S 31mm f/1.4 IS STM.

Click to expand...

I'd say it's a lot more exciting than the current "plastic fantastic," depending on the price. At least it has a metal mount. Hopefully, it's priced under Nikon's 50mm F/1.8G DX and nowhere near the ludicrously overpriced 50mm F/1.8 FX.

As far as EF-S, Canon has the new 24mm pancake and while it's not as good as the full frame coverage 40mm, it's priced right for the declining APS-C market. The future belongs to full frame.

If you need a fast 31mm, for whatever reason, there's always Pentax.

Click to expand...

Fast wide primes would rejuvinate APS-C. I hate how big FX DSLRs are. Maybe if they come out with some small ones they can legitimately kill APS-C. But an F/2 16mm, 24mm and APS-C 35mm would be great on APS-C. Other thing is the current gen of APS-C bodies are better than FX cameras of 5-6 years ago. So they are definitely legitimate IQ wise.

Click to expand...

Nikon's "prosumer" D6x0/D750 FX DSLRs are very nearly the same weight and size as the D7x00 series APS-C bodies. The difference is less than a 1/4 inch in each dimension. The Canon 7D II is barely smaller than the 5DIII.

If there's a future for APS-C, it's at the very bottom end, and perhaps in specialized birding and sports applications. Dedicated crop lenses really don't make much sense as a long term investment.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but your post makes it sound like you have little understanding of cameras other than browsing camerasize.com.

APS-C cameras often have af point coverage across the frame superior to any FF camera, 70D has 19 all cross type (good luck finding that on a FF under $5k). The 7D2 has 45-pt AF, full weather sealing, 100% viewfinder, and pro quality speed and build. There are many reasons someone might pick an aps-c body over FF, regardless of price and size. And if you factor in price, you get 1D pro build, speed, and AF in a body under $1800 with the 7D2, again, good luck finding that in FF.

Click to expand...

noflashplease said:

walkaround said:

noflashplease said:

sportyaccordy said:

noflashplease said:

walkaround said:

kshitijnagar said:

Image and specs of next Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM leaked- https://kshitijnagar.wordpress.com/2015/05/06/image-and-specs-of-canon-50mm-f1-8-stm-leaked/

Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

It's as exciting as the current 50/1.8.

What they need to make are some nice fast aps-c primes, like an EF-S 31mm f/1.4 IS STM.

Click to expand...

I'd say it's a lot more exciting than the current "plastic fantastic," depending on the price. At least it has a metal mount. Hopefully, it's priced under Nikon's 50mm F/1.8G DX and nowhere near the ludicrously overpriced 50mm F/1.8 FX.

As far as EF-S, Canon has the new 24mm pancake and while it's not as good as the full frame coverage 40mm, it's priced right for the declining APS-C market. The future belongs to full frame.

If you need a fast 31mm, for whatever reason, there's always Pentax.

Click to expand...

Fast wide primes would rejuvinate APS-C. I hate how big FX DSLRs are. Maybe if they come out with some small ones they can legitimately kill APS-C. But an F/2 16mm, 24mm and APS-C 35mm would be great on APS-C. Other thing is the current gen of APS-C bodies are better than FX cameras of 5-6 years ago. So they are definitely legitimate IQ wise.

Click to expand...

Nikon's "prosumer" D6x0/D750 FX DSLRs are very nearly the same weight and size as the D7x00 series APS-C bodies. The difference is less than a 1/4 inch in each dimension. The Canon 7D II is barely smaller than the 5DIII.

If there's a future for APS-C, it's at the very bottom end, and perhaps in specialized birding and sports applications. Dedicated crop lenses really don't make much sense as a long term investment.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but your post makes it sound like you have little understanding of cameras other than browsing camerasize.com.

APS-C cameras often have af point coverage across the frame superior to any FF camera, 70D has 19 all cross type (good luck finding that on a FF under $5k). The 7D2 has 45-pt AF, full weather sealing, 100% viewfinder, and pro quality speed and build. There are many reasons someone might pick an aps-c body over FF, regardless of price and size. And if you factor in price, you get 1D pro build, speed, and AF in a body under $1800 with the 7D2, again, good luck finding that in FF.

Click to expand...

The 7DII proves my point about future of APS-C at the high end. It's a huge, heavy and expensive body that's all about autofocus performance with fast telephoto lenses. You buy a 7D II for wildlife and sports. You don't buy it for the image quality, which is very dated. We'll see how 7D II sales hold up in the longer term, since Nikon hasn't bothered to produce a direct competitor, at least not yet.

I am well aware of the distribution of focus points on lower end full frame bodies, such as the D610. If it's a matter of concern, you pay the extra to buy the D810, which has very adequate autofocus point coverage.

The point is that it doesn't make a lot of sense to offer high end, fast primes exclusively for crop bodies. Pentax did it and now they've shifted attention to full frame coverage zooms and an upcoming full frame body.

Click to expand...

sportyaccordy said:

noflashplease said:

walkaround said:

noflashplease said:

sportyaccordy said:

noflashplease said:

walkaround said:

kshitijnagar said:

Image and specs of next Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM leaked- https://kshitijnagar.wordpress.com/2015/05/06/image-and-specs-of-canon-50mm-f1-8-stm-leaked/

Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

It's as exciting as the current 50/1.8.

What they need to make are some nice fast aps-c primes, like an EF-S 31mm f/1.4 IS STM.

Click to expand...

I'd say it's a lot more exciting than the current "plastic fantastic," depending on the price. At least it has a metal mount. Hopefully, it's priced under Nikon's 50mm F/1.8G DX and nowhere near the ludicrously overpriced 50mm F/1.8 FX.

As far as EF-S, Canon has the new 24mm pancake and while it's not as good as the full frame coverage 40mm, it's priced right for the declining APS-C market. The future belongs to full frame.

If you need a fast 31mm, for whatever reason, there's always Pentax.

Click to expand...

Fast wide primes would rejuvinate APS-C. I hate how big FX DSLRs are. Maybe if they come out with some small ones they can legitimately kill APS-C. But an F/2 16mm, 24mm and APS-C 35mm would be great on APS-C. Other thing is the current gen of APS-C bodies are better than FX cameras of 5-6 years ago. So they are definitely legitimate IQ wise.

Click to expand...

Nikon's "prosumer" D6x0/D750 FX DSLRs are very nearly the same weight and size as the D7x00 series APS-C bodies. The difference is less than a 1/4 inch in each dimension. The Canon 7D II is barely smaller than the 5DIII.

If there's a future for APS-C, it's at the very bottom end, and perhaps in specialized birding and sports applications. Dedicated crop lenses really don't make much sense as a long term investment.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but your post makes it sound like you have little understanding of cameras other than browsing camerasize.com.

APS-C cameras often have af point coverage across the frame superior to any FF camera, 70D has 19 all cross type (good luck finding that on a FF under $5k). The 7D2 has 45-pt AF, full weather sealing, 100% viewfinder, and pro quality speed and build. There are many reasons someone might pick an aps-c body over FF, regardless of price and size. And if you factor in price, you get 1D pro build, speed, and AF in a body under $1800 with the 7D2, again, good luck finding that in FF.

Click to expand...

The 7DII proves my point about future of APS-C at the high end. It's a huge, heavy and expensive body that's all about autofocus performance with fast telephoto lenses. You buy a 7D II for wildlife and sports. You don't buy it for the image quality, which is very dated. We'll see how 7D II sales hold up in the longer term, since Nikon hasn't bothered to produce a direct competitor, at least not yet.

I am well aware of the distribution of focus points on lower end full frame bodies, such as the D610. If it's a matter of concern, you pay the extra to buy the D810, which has very adequate autofocus point coverage.

The point is that it doesn't make a lot of sense to offer high end, fast primes exclusively for crop bodies. Pentax did it and now they've shifted attention to full frame coverage zooms and an upcoming full frame body.

Click to expand...

How does 1 camera or 1 failed lens line define APS-C's trajectory on the high end? Heck, what fast high end primes did Pentax sell? As far as I know none of them were wide angle or particularly fast.

How do you reconcile this theory with the continued success and profitability of the Fuji X line? Or MFT?

There is plenty of room in the APS-C world for faster primes. They don't (and IMO shouldn't) be high end either- there is no need. The Nikkor 35 1.8 is fast, sharp, light, cheap and its continued success speaks to the model ALL non pro primes should follow. There is a real need for wide crop primes as well because the smaller the FL the bigger the disparity in design across different formats. 16mm APS-C is a totally different animal than 16mm FF. Seems silly for the big companies to let APS-C wither on the vine via lack of lenses when Fuji X, MFT and even Sony E show people are willing to invest into APS-C systems beyond tourist superzooms. LLike I said before there's no reason we should have to spend 4 figures to out together a system with more than just a body and kit zoom. A ~$300 24/2 for Canikon crop would be a game changer.

Click to expand...

meland said:

A game changer for whom? I fear you are making the classic mistake of assuming that perhaps because you would like a $300 24/2 for Canon / Nikon that the rest of the market would too?

Click to expand...

sportyaccordy said:

There is plenty of room in the APS-C world for faster primes. They don't (and IMO shouldn't) be high end either- there is no need. The Nikkor 35 1.8 is fast, sharp, light, cheap and its continued success speaks to the model ALL non pro primes should follow.

Click to expand...

sportyaccordy said:

meland said:

A game changer for whom? I fear you are making the classic mistake of assuming that perhaps because you would like a $300 24/2 for Canon / Nikon that the rest of the market would too?

Click to expand...

I'm not just shooting from the hip here. There's plenty of real world evidence of this demand. The resurgence of old wide primes via MILCs + adapters, for example, and the fact that Metabones was able to build a business model out of focal length reducers which really only benefit wide angle lenses. The recent surge of fast wide FF primes from Sigma and Sony. Fujifilm X. The continued success of the Nikkor 35/1.8. Canon's new 24mm STM EF-S pancake. Etc. etc.

You look at Canikon.... all of their current gen wide primes are at least $500, and very large/heavy. DX primes covering the same focal lengths would be and are smaller. Canikon is hoping to force people up to FX, but instead what is happening is people who can't afford to just leave for other small sensor systems that are still growing and are more affordable. They are leaving money on the table.

Click to expand...

joejack951 said:

sportyaccordy said:

There is plenty of room in the APS-C world for faster primes. They don't (and IMO shouldn't) be high end either- there is no need. The Nikkor 35 1.8 is fast, sharp, light, cheap and its continued success speaks to the model ALL non pro primes should follow.

Click to expand...

Is it really all that cheap? Nikon's 50/1.8G covers a much larger sensor and sells for roughly the same price. I don't see particularly great value in that lens but it is nice that Nikon made it. Given the lack of a big price difference from an FX prime to DX at that field of view, I can't see how going wider would change things much.

Click to expand...

kshitijnagar said:

Yes. I think it will, considering that it has the STM motor as compared to the micro motor in the "old" nifty fifty

Click to expand...

acer8er said:

kshitijnagar said:

Yes. I think it will, considering that it has the STM motor as compared to the micro motor in the "old" nifty fifty

Click to expand...

So is the STM motor going to focus faster and smoother, slower and smoother, or about the same focusing speed and smoother and is it going to focus more accurately or about the same as the micro motor in the current nifty fifty/plastic fantastic? Also how do STM motors compare to the USM motors in some L glass?

Click to expand...

joejack951 said:

sportyaccordy said:

There is plenty of room in the APS-C world for faster primes. They don't (and IMO shouldn't) be high end either- there is no need. The Nikkor 35 1.8 is fast, sharp, light, cheap and its continued success speaks to the model ALL non pro primes should follow.

Click to expand...

Is it really all that cheap? Nikon's 50/1.8G covers a much larger sensor and sells for roughly the same price. I don't see particularly great value in that lens but it is nice that Nikon made it. Given the lack of a big price difference from an FX prime to DX at that field of view, I can't see how going wider would change things much.

Click to expand...

sportyaccordy said:

joejack951 said:

sportyaccordy said:

There is plenty of room in the APS-C world for faster primes. They don't (and IMO shouldn't) be high end either- there is no need. The Nikkor 35 1.8 is fast, sharp, light, cheap and its continued success speaks to the model ALL non pro primes should follow.

Click to expand...

Is it really all that cheap? Nikon's 50/1.8G covers a much larger sensor and sells for roughly the same price. I don't see particularly great value in that lens but it is nice that Nikon made it. Given the lack of a big price difference from an FX prime to DX at that field of view, I can't see how going wider would change things much.

Click to expand...

Yes, the 50/1.8G and I'm sure Canon's new 50/1.8 STM are the same price or even cheaper, but then you have to spend at least $1200 on a new body, as opposed to $300-500 for an entry level APS-C body.

Click to expand...

sportyaccordy said:

And going wider requires a totally different lens design, especially as you get close to or under the flange distance (42-44mm for Canikon). This is why the EF 35/2 costs and weighs like 3-5x what the 50/1.8 does. It's a retrofocal design. It's possible the retrofocal aspect may be why wide APS-C DSLR primes never came to be (though again the 35/1.8 is retrofocal, but also small and cheap).

Click to expand...

NetMage said:

Those who shoot more than just the wide end. Total system cost matters too.

Click to expand...

joejack951 said:

sportyaccordy said:

joejack951 said:

sportyaccordy said:

There is plenty of room in the APS-C world for faster primes. They don't (and IMO shouldn't) be high end either- there is no need. The Nikkor 35 1.8 is fast, sharp, light, cheap and its continued success speaks to the model ALL non pro primes should follow.

Click to expand...

Is it really all that cheap? Nikon's 50/1.8G covers a much larger sensor and sells for roughly the same price. I don't see particularly great value in that lens but it is nice that Nikon made it. Given the lack of a big price difference from an FX prime to DX at that field of view, I can't see how going wider would change things much.

Click to expand...

Yes, the 50/1.8G and I'm sure Canon's new 50/1.8 STM are the same price or even cheaper, but then you have to spend at least $1200 on a new body, as opposed to $300-500 for an entry level APS-C body.

Click to expand...

To truly be the equivalent of a 50/1.8 on full frame, the APS-C lens would need to be f/1.2. Even a 35mm f/1.4 lens would significantly narrow the price gap between full frame and APS-C, unless equivalence isn't being considered here. If it isn't, the whole 'value' proposition of any lens falls apart.

joejack951 said:

And going wider requires a totally different lens design, especially as you get close to or under the flange distance (42-44mm for Canikon). This is why the EF 35/2 costs and weighs like 3-5x what the 50/1.8 does. It's a retrofocal design. It's possible the retrofocal aspect may be why wide APS-C DSLR primes never came to be (though again the 35/1.8 is retrofocal, but also small and cheap).

Click to expand...

Ok, we seem to be agreeing here. A wide DX prime is going to be just, or close to, as expensive as a full frame prime for an equivalent field of view and same f-stop (thus slower in true equivalence). Where is the value in that? Why would Nikon bother making a bunch of expensive wide primes costing way more than their DX bodies? Who would buy them aside from a small group of enthusiasts who, for some unknown reason, are ignoring the value that full frame provides at the wide end?

Click to expand...

sportyaccordy said:

I don't think complete equivalence is necessary.

Click to expand...

sportyaccordy said:

And truthfully, as far as speed goes, lenses on digital sensors can't get more than T/2 anyway.

Click to expand...

sportyaccordy said:

So that's a reasonable floor in my opinion. Samyang's 12/2 has shown fast wide retrofocal lenses for APS-C can be small, affordable and deliver good IQ. And obviously Samyang, being a much smaller company, felt there was a market, and staked way more to make that lens than Canikon would have.

Click to expand...

sportyaccordy said:

So I don't think Canikon fast wide primes would cost more than the bodies or whatever. And Canikon's most popular APS-C lenses cost more than their bodies anyway (those tourist megazooms), and they keep making + updating them. I don't think that's a barrier, and as the lenses I discussed show those primes wouldn't have to be very expensive.

Click to expand...

joejack951 said:

sportyaccordy said:

I don't think complete equivalence is necessary.

Click to expand...

Ok, but then there are plenty of really small alternatives to a DSLR if true equivalence isn't necessary.

Click to expand...

joejack951 said:

joejack951 said:

And truthfully, as far as speed goes, lenses on digital sensors can't get more than T/2 anyway.

Click to expand...

Interesting conclusion you have there. That's not what I'd conclude but I'm also curious to see how DXOMark came up with those numbers anyway. How much of that deltaEV is simply due to vignetting at larger apertures? And what, if any, is the effect on DOF control? There's charts don't convince me of much.

Click to expand...

joejack951 said:

joejack951 said:

So that's a reasonable floor in my opinion. Samyang's 12/2 has shown fast wide retrofocal lenses for APS-C can be small, affordable and deliver good IQ. And obviously Samyang, being a much smaller company, felt there was a market, and staked way more to make that lens than Canikon would have.

Click to expand...

That lens is only for mirrorless cameras, though, right? That makes a huge difference (and I also think it's true that whatever deltaEV you see with DSLRs is even worse with mirrorless camera due to the sharper light angles). Samyang, being a small company going up against giants, needs to play in the niche markets where Canon and Nikon are nowhere to be found if they want to be successful. It is no surprise to me that they made a wide, fast aperture prime. They shouldn't expect it to sell like a Canon/Nikon 18-55 though.

Click to expand...

joejack951 said:

joejack951 said:

So I don't think Canikon fast wide primes would cost more than the bodies or whatever. And Canikon's most popular APS-C lenses cost more than their bodies anyway (those tourist megazooms), and they keep making + updating them. I don't think that's a barrier, and as the lenses I discussed show those primes wouldn't have to be very expensive.

Click to expand...

Add autofocus and a major name (and all that comes with it) on those lenses and they won't be so cheap any more. Those 'tourist megazooms' have one huge thing going for them that a wide prime doesn't and that should be obvious.

Click to expand...

sportyaccordy said:

joejack951 said:

sportyaccordy said:

I don't think complete equivalence is necessary.

Click to expand...

Ok, but then there are plenty of really small alternatives to a DSLR if true equivalence isn't necessary.

Click to expand...

None of those small alternatives come as close in equivalence. Just because you can't match a FF 100% doesn't mean you have to abandon it altogether.

Click to expand...

sportyaccordy said:

sportyaccordy said:

sportyaccordy said:

And truthfully, as far as speed goes, lenses on digital sensors can't get more than T/2 anyway.

Click to expand...

Interesting conclusion you have there. That's not what I'd conclude but I'm also curious to see how DXOMark came up with those numbers anyway. How much of that deltaEV is simply due to vignetting at larger apertures? And what, if any, is the effect on DOF control? There's charts don't convince me of much.

Click to expand...

Well it seems like you don't want to be convinced. If you believe DxOMark's test results I don't see why you wouldn't believe this. These losses are measured on top of all the vignetting.

Click to expand...

sportyaccordy said:

sportyaccordy said:

sportyaccordy said:

So that's a reasonable floor in my opinion. Samyang's 12/2 has shown fast wide retrofocal lenses for APS-C can be small, affordable and deliver good IQ. And obviously Samyang, being a much smaller company, felt there was a market, and staked way more to make that lens than Canikon would have.

Click to expand...

That lens is only for mirrorless cameras, though, right? That makes a huge difference (and I also think it's true that whatever deltaEV you see with DSLRs is even worse with mirrorless camera due to the sharper light angles). Samyang, being a small company going up against giants, needs to play in the niche markets where Canon and Nikon are nowhere to be found if they want to be successful. It is no surprise to me that they made a wide, fast aperture prime. They shouldn't expect it to sell like a Canon/Nikon 18-55 though.

Click to expand...

Ah, yes the 12/2 is MILC only. Pentax array of wide primes, Canon's 24/2.8 and Nikon's 35 1.8 aren't though.

Click to expand...

sportyaccordy said:

sportyaccordy said:

sportyaccordy said:

So I don't think Canikon fast wide primes would cost more than the bodies or whatever. And Canikon's most popular APS-C lenses cost more than their bodies anyway (those tourist megazooms), and they keep making + updating them. I don't think that's a barrier, and as the lenses I discussed show those primes wouldn't have to be very expensive.

Click to expand...

Add autofocus and a major name (and all that comes with it) on those lenses and they won't be so cheap any more. Those 'tourist megazooms' have one huge thing going for them that a wide prime doesn't and that should be obvious.

Click to expand...

They won't be more than the bodies though. Where are you basing that on? The only two wide APS-C primes from Canikon are both much less than any of their bodies. As is Canon's retrofocal UWA APS-C zoom.

Click to expand...

joejack951 said:

sportyaccordy said:

joejack951 said:

sportyaccordy said:

I don't think complete equivalence is necessary.

Click to expand...

Ok, but then there are plenty of really small alternatives to a DSLR if true equivalence isn't necessary.

Click to expand...

None of those small alternatives come as close in equivalence. Just because you can't match a FF 100% doesn't mean you have to abandon it altogether.

Click to expand...

An RX100 MkIII is a little more than one stop slower at 24mm field of view than a full frame f/2.8 prime at that focal length. You could get a little faster using an Olympus 12mm f/2 on a Panasonic GM1 with a slight size increase.

Click to expand...

joejack951 said:

joejack951 said:

joejack951 said:

joejack951 said:

And truthfully, as far as speed goes, lenses on digital sensors can't get more than T/2 anyway.

Click to expand...

Interesting conclusion you have there. That's not what I'd conclude but I'm also curious to see how DXOMark came up with those numbers anyway. How much of that deltaEV is simply due to vignetting at larger apertures? And what, if any, is the effect on DOF control? There's charts don't convince me of much.

Click to expand...

Well it seems like you don't want to be convinced. If you believe DxOMark's test results I don't see why you wouldn't believe this. These losses are measured on top of all the vignetting.

Click to expand...

I'd like to see a chart for deltaEV at f/2 since they are claiming such big losses at f/1.2-f/1.4, though rarely is it a full stop as you've claimed. FWIW, my most used camera with wide aperture lenses (D3S) loses very little light.

Click to expand...

joejack951 said:

joejack951 said:

joejack951 said:

joejack951 said:

So that's a reasonable floor in my opinion. Samyang's 12/2 has shown fast wide retrofocal lenses for APS-C can be small, affordable and deliver good IQ. And obviously Samyang, being a much smaller company, felt there was a market, and staked way more to make that lens than Canikon would have.

Click to expand...

That lens is only for mirrorless cameras, though, right? That makes a huge difference (and I also think it's true that whatever deltaEV you see with DSLRs is even worse with mirrorless camera due to the sharper light angles). Samyang, being a small company going up against giants, needs to play in the niche markets where Canon and Nikon are nowhere to be found if they want to be successful. It is no surprise to me that they made a wide, fast aperture prime. They shouldn't expect it to sell like a Canon/Nikon 18-55 though.

Click to expand...

Ah, yes the 12/2 is MILC only. Pentax array of wide primes, Canon's 24/2.8 and Nikon's 35 1.8 aren't though.

Click to expand...

We've discussed the Nikon 35/1.8 already. Pentaxes wide primes aren't really fast and the Canon 24/2.8 can barely be considered fast, too (38mm f/4.5 equivalent).

joejack951 said:

joejack951 said:

joejack951 said:

So I don't think Canikon fast wide primes would cost more than the bodies or whatever. And Canikon's most popular APS-C lenses cost more than their bodies anyway (those tourist megazooms), and they keep making + updating them. I don't think that's a barrier, and as the lenses I discussed show those primes wouldn't have to be very expensive.

Click to expand...

Add autofocus and a major name (and all that comes with it) on those lenses and they won't be so cheap any more. Those 'tourist megazooms' have one huge thing going for them that a wide prime doesn't and that should be obvious.

Click to expand...

They won't be more than the bodies though. Where are you basing that on? The only two wide APS-C primes from Canikon are both much less than any of their bodies. As is Canon's retrofocal UWA APS-C zoom.

Click to expand...

The Nikon 35mm f/1.8 isn't a wide prime. The Canon 24mm f/2.8 isn't fast and neither is their UWA APS-C zoom. A Nikon 35mm f/1.8 FX is $600 while a Nikon 24mm f/1.4 is $1600, and equivalently slower than the 35mm f/1.8 on full frame when used on an APS-C camera. $1000 will buy you a nice APS-C body.

Click to expand...