Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Has crop factor changed lens perception
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 3:24 pm    Post subject: Has crop factor changed lens perception Reply with quote
Hi All

In the old days everyone carried a 50mm with their 35mm camera and can I be bold enough to say this seemed to be the most popular lens(please correct me if wrong)

In affordable DSLR days(crop sensor) this equates to a 75mm(1.5/1.6) which is telephoto.

So these days to get the same FOV(39.5Deg) as a 50mm one would need 33mm(30 to35) MF lenses.

So I guess my question is, why hasn't 30 to35mm lens become more sought after by DSLR users to get this previously perceived great FOV.

There seems to be much more interest in the 50 to 85mm.

I see Sony have just brought out an Emount 30mm (45mm equiv) which seems to target this 50mm FOV(40deg) im talking about.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sigma makes 1:1.4/30 for years now, designed specifically as normal lens for APS-C sensor.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:12 pm    Post subject: Re: Has crop factor changed lens perception Reply with quote
saffersteve wrote:
So I guess my question is, why hasn't 30to35mm lens become more sort after by DSLR users to get this previously perceived great FOV.


My opinion? Because practically everyone who has a DSLR also has a high quality 18-55 kit zoom which covers that focal length.

It is almost hard to find a "bad" 50mm lens. There are some great gems too- fast AND cheap AND easy to find. But 28mm lenses, which many prefer as DSLR normals, are a real minefield. Sad if the 28 mm primes have worse IQ than the kit zoom, then why bother?


PostPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:31 pm    Post subject: Re: Has crop factor changed lens perception Reply with quote
Scheimpflug wrote:

My opinion? Because practically everyone who has a DSLR also has a high quality 18-55 kit zoom which covers that focal length.

It is almost hard to find a "bad" 50mm lens. There are some great gems too- fast AND cheap AND easy to find. But 28mm lenses, which many prefer as DSLR normals, are a real minefield. Sad if the 28 mm primes have worse IQ than the kit zoom, then why bother?



Interesting....I worked on the assuption that prime lens would always have better IQ especially round the distortion area than a zoom kit lens.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:44 pm    Post subject: Re: Has crop factor changed lens perception Reply with quote
saffersteve wrote:
Scheimpflug wrote:

My opinion? Because practically everyone who has a DSLR also has a high quality 18-55 kit zoom which covers that focal length.

It is almost hard to find a "bad" 50mm lens. There are some great gems too- fast AND cheap AND easy to find. But 28mm lenses, which many prefer as DSLR normals, are a real minefield. Sad if the 28 mm primes have worse IQ than the kit zoom, then why bother?



Interesting....I worked on the assuption that prime lens would always have better IQ especially round the distortion area than a zoom kit lens.

it is zoom time, and those zoom have been computed for crop
on FF it is another story


PostPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:48 pm    Post subject: Re: Has crop factor changed lens perception Reply with quote
saffersteve wrote:
Scheimpflug wrote:

My opinion? Because practically everyone who has a DSLR also has a high quality 18-55 kit zoom which covers that focal length.

It is almost hard to find a "bad" 50mm lens. There are some great gems too- fast AND cheap AND easy to find. But 28mm lenses, which many prefer as DSLR normals, are a real minefield. Sad if the 28 mm primes have worse IQ than the kit zoom, then why bother?



Interesting....I worked on the assuption that prime lens would always have better IQ especially round the distortion area than a zoom kit lens.


The primes WILL give better results. But convenience is what the masses crave these days.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Everybody wants fast lenses. And really fast 1.4/35mm lenses are very, very expensive. Where fast 50s are still cheap (some) and fast portrait lenses not so cheap, but still significantly lower prices than 35mm. Actually is probably better idea to get used FF 5D and good 1.4/50 than crop camera and 1.4/35.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BRunner wrote:
Everybody wants fast lenses. And really fast 1.4/35mm lenses are very, very expensive. Where fast 50s are still cheap (some) and fast portrait lenses not so cheap, but still significantly lower prices than 35mm. Actually is probably better idea to get used FF 5D and good 1.4/50 than crop camera and 1.4/35.


+1


PostPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've seen the manufacturers are coming out with fast 35mm lenses now.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BRunner is right.

The reason why 50mms still are sought after by APS-DSLR users is their performance-price-ratio.

Besides that, some think that shooting with 50mm was "boring".
Beginners very often are first amazed by the long teles: "Wow! Look at that! How close that gets!". Then they discover superwide lenses: "Wow! Look at that! There is so much in this image!".
Later they realize that most subject can be best shot with something between 55° and 25° horizontal FoV which on fullframe (24x36) equals 35 to 85mm FL lenses. Wider lenses (with more than 60° FoV) get too much in the frame easily and longer lenses (with less than 20° FoV) seem to condense the perspective already.

The "normal" kit lens for APS provides an horizontal FoV range of approx. 70° to 25° which is pretty versatile.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Back in the day, everyone's SLR had a 50 because that was the kit lens. If zooms had been available at competitive prices, everybody would likely have had a 28-80 -- that became the kit lens eventually. (I may have one soon!)

And back in the day, RF's probably outsold SLR's, and most RF's had lenses around 45mm, closer to the 'normal' 43mm for 135/FF. Those 50-55-58's were more like short teles, or at least wide portrait lenses. The popular Pentax DA40/2.8 (based on the subnormal M40/2.8) has FOV almost exactly the same as the Helios-44 58/2, but rather different DOF.

Ah yes, DOF. A 30-35/1.4 just doesn't approach the thin DOF of a 50-55/1.4, no matter the frame size. My fastest aren't in that class -- I have 24-28-35/2 lenses -- but DOF on my 35/2 is equivalent to that of a 53/3.5, not exactly mind-blowing. To match my 50/1.2 on with a crop-sensor lens would take a 33/0.8. Yeah, sure...

Besides being supplanted by zooms, maybe 30-35's aren't sought after is because those are still short tele on a crop sensor. 'Normal' is closer to 30mm. My Pentax K20D's sensor has a diagonal of 28.1mm, and the Komine CFWA 28/2 has become my favorite walkaround prime. I never much liked 50-55mm on 135/FF and I don't get too excited by 35-37mm on my dSLR.

So on a crop sensor, 85-90-100-105mm make a good headshot portrait / medium tele; 50-55-58mm are great torso portrait / short tele; 28-30mm are most 'normal'; 18-21-24mm are good street lengths; and 35-40mm are just an odd niche, tighter than normal, longer than portrait. I confess, I rather like my F35-70, but don't use it much at the wider end. YMMV.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 12:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Although kit zooms of the range 18-55mm for DSLRs are very common, quite a few of them are not high quality at all.

The original Canon 18-55mm was a bad lens, with very poor corners and edges. The newer 18-55mm IS is very much better.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
dnas wrote:
Although kit zooms of the range 18-55mm for DSLRs are very common, quite a few of them are not high quality at all.

The original Canon 18-55mm was a bad lens, with very poor corners and edges. The newer 18-55mm IS is very much better.

Yes, you should have had a Pentax SMC-DA 18-55, a much better lens.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Kit zoom lens are generally cheaper than a 50mm or 30/35mm, and though the quality of the prime is better the kit zoom is still very capable (look at dpchallenge.com for good samples) In the kit zoom you already have the focal length of wide and standard and auto ISO setting that goes high enough to take indoor photos without the need for a fast lens, so compared to the film days the only reason to get a fast prime now is to get more artistic with narrow DOF.

So I don't think it's because of the crop factor but the convenience of digital makes fast primes for the masses a thing of the past.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 10:11 am    Post subject: maybe in 25 years .... Reply with quote
maybe in 25 years people will be scouring ebay and garage sales looking for a rare mint 18-55 kit zoom lens!

kit lens are cheap nowadays and some of them - canon & sony have kit zoom lens that really takes vibrant and sharp pictures. i find kit lens under good lighting conditions to be quite sharp.

most kit lens nowadays are being replaced by users after buying a new camera. because they are widely available no one wants to buy them or sell them. look at ebay and try to search for a kit lens. every new dslr has 1 but there are very few used ones being sold.

people have the notion that a kit lens is of lower quality and as such they are not properly kept or taken care.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
RioRico wrote:
dnas wrote:
Although kit zooms of the range 18-55mm for DSLRs are very common, quite a few of them are not high quality at all.

The original Canon 18-55mm was a bad lens, with very poor corners and edges. The newer 18-55mm IS is very much better.

Yes, you should have had a Pentax SMC-DA 18-55, a much better lens.


The Canon 18-55 IIS is as good or better, imho, better than some primes, likely because it is designed specifically for APS-C coverage.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well IMHO, the canon 18-55 is not so good. It vignettes, focuses crappy and manual focus is nearly impossible. Nothing works smoothly on it.
I'm happy i have my takumars.

though on a crop sensor, the 55mm is my most used lens.

but just yesterday i received my SMC 3.5/28, maybe it will be my favorite soon....


PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Good thread !
I had a Sigma 30/1.4 and was happy with it. But I sold it and got the NEX3 with wich I am happy again ! I am waiting for Sigma to produce their 30/1.4 in Sony Emount version .
Until then , I am looking in the "1.5crop normal field" for 28 and 35 primes. I've got some very good and cheap 28/2.8 (Yashica ML and Rokkor) .I love them because they are sharp wide open good colors and bokeh .But they're not enough fast for some situations. I've just received today a 28/2 from Kiron .Unfortunately , the adaptor isn't here yet .I am very curious about its performance. Still in the market for a fast 35mm /2 ( can't afford a 1.4)
But the bulk /performance is ok for the 28-35mm primes , for me.
Now , probably the performance of the wide zooms perverted in a way the preferences of the buyers ,wich tend to go towards the wide end .I admit that I often prefere a 36mm equivalent (the 24mm primes) and sometimes even the 30mm equivalent ( 20mm prime)
At last, this week my Vivitar 17mm (Tokina ) came to meet my NEX , so that is going to be a 25.5 mm equiv.
But for every focal length there is a use and a situation wich suits better.
We were used with the convenience of the zoom , but , if one wants the performance and compactness of the primes it has to accept the trade.
For my EOS XTi I used the Tamron 17-35 wich performes extremely well on crop. But I don't like the bulk of the combo .
NEX+prime suits me much better.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Willem wrote:
Well IMHO, the canon 18-55 is not so good. It vignettes, focuses crappy and manual focus is nearly impossible. Nothing works smoothly on it.
I'm happy i have my takumars.

though on a crop sensor, the 55mm is my most used lens.

but just yesterday i received my SMC 3.5/28, maybe it will be my favorite soon....

the 18-55 II IS (came on EOS 450 and newer) is much better than 18-55 first version


PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BRunner wrote:
Everybody wants fast lenses. And really fast 1.4/35mm lenses are very, very expensive. Where fast 50s are still cheap (some) and fast portrait lenses not so cheap, but still significantly lower prices than 35mm. Actually is probably better idea to get used FF 5D and good 1.4/50 than crop camera and 1.4/35.


right! would love to have a FF camera for my legacy glass, if they weren't that more big and expensive.
compared to fast portrait, 85mm lenses, fast 50s are not only rel. cheap but also smaller and lighter..besides minuses for me a definite plus of an APS-C camera Wink


PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Willem wrote:
Well IMHO, the canon 18-55 is not so good. It vignettes, focuses crappy and manual focus is nearly impossible. Nothing works smoothly on it


Are you referring to the original EF 18-55 or the second IS version? The original is generally recognized as not being a very good optic, while the 2nd version is generally recognized as being excellent. I have the second version. It does not vignette. It takes amazingly sharp photos for what it is, namely a "cheap kit zoom."

Over at POTN, there is a thread that is now 96 pages long of folks sharing images they've taken with their 18-55s. Have a look and then come back and tell us how crappy that lens is.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=445986


As for the subject of the thread, crop factor has not changed my sense as to what a normal focal length should be. To me, using my crop body Canon, "normal" is around 30mm. Heh. My 18-55 even has a spot marked on the zoom ring indicating where the normal focal length should be. I've spent too many years shooting 35mm not to have a ingrained notion of what normal should be. A 50mm on my DSLR is, to me, a decent portrait lens, or short telephoto. An 85mm is closer to a 135mm, which is actually the portrait focal length I prefer, so I especially like the 85mm focal length on my DSLR for shooting portraits.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
yinyangbt wrote:

Still in the market for a fast 35mm /2 ( can't afford a 1.4)
...
I admit that I often prefere a 36mm equivalent (the 24mm primes) and sometimes even the 30mm equivalent ( 20mm prime)
...
NEX+prime suits me much better.


Well, Zuiko's can be used on both XTI and NEX and are good performers..
I can recommend: Zuiko 28 f/2 and 35 f/2. Also very good ones and highly recommend the Zuikoa 21 f3.5 and 24 f/2, but they are expensive.

The Canon FD's 24, 28 and 35 with f/2 aperture are also good, and maybe cheaper than Zuikos but they lack in compatibility to be used on XSI..


PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Willem wrote:
Well IMHO, the canon 18-55 is not so good. It vignettes, focuses crappy and manual focus is nearly impossible. Nothing works smoothly on it


Are you referring to the original EF 18-55 or the second IS version? The original is generally recognized as not being a very good optic, while the 2nd version is generally recognized as being excellent. I have the second version. It does not vignette. It takes amazingly sharp photos for what it is, namely a "cheap kit zoom."

Over at POTN, there is a thread that is now 96 pages long of folks sharing images they've taken with their 18-55s. Have a look and then come back and tell us how crappy that lens is.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=445986


As for the subject of the thread, crop factor has not changed my sense as to what a normal focal length should be. To me, using my crop body Canon, "normal" is around 30mm. Heh. My 18-55 even has a spot marked on the zoom ring indicating where the normal focal length should be. I've spent too many years shooting 35mm not to have a ingrained notion of what normal should be. A 50mm on my DSLR is, to me, a decent portrait lens, or short telephoto. An 85mm is closer to a 135mm, which is actually the portrait focal length I prefer, so I especially like the 85mm focal length on my DSLR for shooting portraits.


i have the second version as well. maybe mine has damage or something, as it was already second hand when i got it. And i still have a lot to learn, so maybe i will get better results with it as i learn.
Still i feel that my takumar primes give a way better image then this kitlens.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I must admit I find the 50mm boring. It's the FOV we see all the time through our eyes, so 24 & 90 are my preference.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Canon kit lens image quality is "good enough" if you stop it down a bit. Unfortunately it's already pretty slow, if you're stopping it down even farther, shooting handheld inside is frustrating and probably won't give good results.

My Takumar 50/1.4 will give me handheld shots the kit lens could never dream of, but if you're outside at f/8 the kit lens isn't that bad, it's by far my widest lens and has it's uses.

In it's day my Tak 50/1.4 was a Cadillac. People talk about the kit lens like it's a dead donkey, but it's more like a 5 year old Chevy minivan. Unglamorous, clunky, cheap, but if it's all you've got it is definitely usable.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2