Why no 20-50 gm ?

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
jbuzzinco Regular Member • Posts: 289
Re: Why no 20-50 gm ?
1

FrenchKiss78 wrote:

After trying multiple combos, 16-35 gm, 24 70, 28 75, 20G, 35gm. I am still finding myself switching with more than I should.

While in vacation visiting I always reach for the 20G in old town & the 28 75 for the rest.

Probably because I learned with a nifty, my prefered focal is 50 & use the zony planar but no can do with it while walking.

Why the hell cant we have a 20-50 gm ? I wouldn t mind loosing above 50 and why not have it a f2 ?

Exept tamron with the 35 150, there are no innovations as to offer new standards better suited for today s needs.

Does such a focal length (or equivalent) lens exist in any mount? Sounds like you should switch to Canon and use the RF 28-70 f2. It weighs 1.4 kilos, takes 95mm filters and costs US$3,000.

Might be cheaper and lighter to get 2 Sony bodies and put a 20mm f/1.8 on one and 50mm f/2 on the other. Or a 35mm f/1.4 on an APS-C body.

There are likely valid optical engineering reasons why we don't see many (or any?) decent zooms wider than 24mm to "normal". That range seems to be difficult to combine successfully. For 99% of shooters, the common zooms cover the common ranges: 16-35, 24-70, 70-200. If you're a one percenter and just can't find your mojo, multiple bodies and/or multiple primes can get you almost any exotic combo you want.

 jbuzzinco's gear list:jbuzzinco's gear list
Sony RX100 VII Sony a7R IV Sony a9 II Zeiss Batis 25mm F2 Zeiss Batis 85mm F1.8 +11 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow