50mm F1.4
Lets put it this way: One of the best low light lens[es] is the 50mm F1.4 canon, nikon has one ,zeiss has one and I think contax has one ! the next low light lens[es] would be the 85mm F1.4 But let me clarify it this way 50mm also comes F1.2 and if you got the money 50mm F1.0 is the largest appeature for the buck< But now comes reason I look at it this most of us will never need anything lower that F1.4 for any kind of work: And a lot of folks swear by it I have own two 50mm F1.4's in my life time the first one for canon 50mm F1.4 FD lens and the 50mm F1.4 EF lens both were very sharp and very usefull for low light shoot-ing with the FD lens I had too run asa 400 or better now I shoot running ISO 4000 or better so nothing has realy changed :Trust me until you have used the 50mm F1.4 and used the 50mm F1.8 then you will understand the difference:: good luck::D
Can anyone explain me that?
THanks for reading and for the feedback.
Byron M.
"Standard" lenses, which include most 50mm lenses from most dSLR (and SLR) manufacturers, are typically variants of a proven lens design, based on the "Tessar" formula. Tessar lenses are remarkably efficient and relatively simple in terms of number of elements and their arrangement.
The 50mm lenses are products of long lines of production, so they tend to be well developed and of large production quantities. This large "economy of scale" helps keep the prices down, and, most recently, the manufacturers have made these lenses even cheaper by putting the optical elements in cheap plastic mounts.
Inexpensive, but high optical quality, makes for a pretty good value, which is why these lenses have such cute names like, "fantastic plastic" and "nifty fifty" and such.
A 50mm requires less thought to get a nice picture. The perspective is very similar to the human eye, in that when you get close to things they don't artificially inflate like a wide angle. You can shoot a person who has their legs splayed out towards you and it looks OK. Not like their legs are ten feet long.
This is why it's called a "normal lens" as well....
In still photography, a normal lens is a lens whose focal length is roughly equivalent to the diagonal of the image projected within the camera. This roughly approximates the perspective perceived by the human vision
and
For a 35 mmcamera with a diagonal of 43 mm, the most commonly used normal lens is 50 mm, but focal lengths between about 40 and 58 mm are also considered normal. The 50 mm focal length was chosen by Oscar Barnack, the creator of the Leica camera, as a compromise between the theoretical value and good sharpness, as lens technology at the time was such that slightly longer focal lengths were able to achieve optimum sharpness
And herein lies the rub. There seems to be a primary reason why a lens is deemed "normal" and that is associated with the "perspective matching human vision". For a 35mm film format this is roughly equivalent to the diagonal of the film format.
OK, now everyone applies the concept of "normal" lens to the diagonal of the film format. That means that if you have an APS-C sized sensor or a large format camera the "normal" lens will vary. However, the film format size just identifies what the "crop" of the image is...it doesn't really drive perspective!! Perspective is associated with the magnification of the lens and the relative distance between you and the subject.
So, only to the extent that you're trying to match the same composition (i.e., relative size of subjects within the image frame) as what you would get with a 35mm format would you then apply this logic to the "effective" focal length (the so called crop factor).
I love how Ziggy's answers always make the rest of us look like chumps....
me:
uh, me like 50, it good
ziggy: "Standard" lenses, which include most 50mm lenses from most dSLR (and SLR) manufacturers, are typically variants of a proven lens design, based on the "Tessar" formula. Tessar lenses are remarkably efficient and relatively simple in terms of number of elements and their arrangement.
I just sold my 50/1.8MK1 last night...NBF (not a big fan)
On a 1.6x body I really think a 30-35mm lens is more useful... which ends up being like what a 50mm would be on a FF body. The 50 on a 1.6x body is more of a headshot lens.
This is true, and why we're seeing new offerings on the market to address the 50 as a "normal" in terms of its focal length. The Sigma 30mm is getting great reviews.
so that brings up the dual "normal" nature - 50's are popular for the normal focal length, but as Ziggy pointed out, even for crop cameras, its a popular lens because its the best optics you can get for the money (due to its popularity and "normalcy").
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
And that's a good reason to use standard full frame lenses (not APS-C versions) on your APS-C / 1.6 crop camera ... you are always shooting through the lens' sweet spot! I prefer and use EF lenses on my APS-C Canons, and do not intend to ever purchase an EF-S. Of course, I use them on my full-frame camera too.
And that's a good reason to use standard full frame lenses (not APS-C versions) on your APS-C / 1.6 crop camera ... you are always shooting through the lens' sweet spot! I prefer and use EF lenses on my APS-C Canons, and do not intend to ever purchase an EF-S. Of course, I use them on my full-frame camera too.
Good point but there are also exceptions like the
60mm/2.8 Macro EFS or the 10-22mm/3.5-4.5 EFS.
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
Good point but there are also exceptions like the
60mm/2.8 Macro EFS or the 10-22mm/3.5-4.5 EFS.
Very true, there are some fine EFS lenses ... but if you have even one full frame body or intend to purchase one in the near future (and I personally think that so-called "full frame" will be the way most dSLR cameras head in the near future starting with prosumer models) and want lens interchangability between bodies ....
The sigma does vingette wide open, but its gone by the time you hit f/2. The 35/2 is everything and more than I want out of a short lens like this, so I saw no reason in spending twice the money on the 30/1.4. My boss has one for his 20D and loves it to death... I have my ef 35/2 and love it to death. I think its just that focal length thats real attractive!
As far as AF-S lenses go... there are some good ones and some bad ones! A great EF-S lens is that 10-22... WOW! A perfect example of a TOTAL flop is the EF-s 17-85 IS. Its a $50 zoom lens with $450 worth of IS slapped in the body.
Very true, there are some fine EFS lenses ... but if you have even one full frame body or intend to purchase one in the near future (and I personally think that so-called "full frame" will be the way most dSLR cameras head in the near future starting with prosumer models) and want lens interchangability between bodies ....
Being an amateur (with amateur budget) I really hope that full frame
will become more affordable in the future. Btw. why do you think that
full frame will be the way to go? On the downside there is higher costs
of lenses and cameras, loss of the sweet spot effect whereas on the
upside there are "better pixels" maybe more, or maybe necause of the
viewfinder? I just realized that a 95% viewfinder with x.95 magnification
(like the pentax K10D has) can't be compared with a full frame camera with
the same specification because of the crop factor. In this respect jumping
from a 10D to a istDs was a leap for me, now that I've seen through the
96% viewfinder of a 5D I'm lusting for it. One suddenly sees things so much
clearer, its amazing.
I'm also very curious if the big brands will implemet in camera shake
reduction (like, again Pentax did) or if they will continue to sell their
expensive VR, OS and IS lenses instead. Now that would be sth supremly
nice, much like affordable full frame cameras!
Anyway, I think we're hijacking this thread right now
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
OK, now everyone applies the concept of "normal" lens to the diagonal of the film format. That means that if you have an APS-C sized sensor or a large format camera the "normal" lens will vary. However, the film format size just identifies what the "crop" of the image is...it doesn't really drive perspective!! Perspective is associated with the magnification of the lens and the relative distance between you and the subject.
Actually, perspective is associated ONLY with the distance between you and the subject. Focal length does not change perspective, it only changes magnification.
Being an amateur (with amateur budget) I really hope that full frame will become more affordable in the future. Btw. why do you think that full frame will be the way to go?
I personally do not understand the full frame kool-aid that many people seem to drink. Film size is arbitrary. Photographers used to make the same gripes about 35mm when it was first introduced. To them "full frame" was a 2-1/4" medium format camera, not some tiny imitator at just over an inch.
Choose full-frame if you need tons of pixels (so that the imaging sites don't get too small and thus noisy). Choose full-frame if you need less depth-of-field. Choose full-frame if you need wide-angle ability. Choose a cropped sensor if you need more telephoto reach or increased depth of field.
The other thing I like about full-frame is the larger view finder. Even a 1.3 crop factor of my 1D Mark II has a noticably better view finder than my 20D. I love the Mark II, but I do miss the extra magnification that 1.6 crop gives me.
Will full frame ever become common in prosumer line? I doubt it myself. No matter how cheap a 24x36mm sensor gets, an APS-C size will always be considerably cheaper. And how many prosumers, honestly, care about sensor size? Nikon hasn't even introduced one for their pros yet, which has to say something. Canon, actually is the only one to do so.
There seems to be a primary reason why a lens is deemed "normal" and that is associated with the "perspective matching human vision". For a 35mm film format this is roughly equivalent to the diagonal of the film format.
Right, and that leads to two answers to "why are 50mm lenses so special," because the answer changed over history.
Analog: Historically, on 35mm SLRs, a 50mm makes perspective looks "natural." No telephoto compression, no wide-angle fisheye effect.
Digital: For digital "full frame," 50mm has the same appeal as it did for 35mm film. But for digital small sensors, 50mm is appealing for different reasons. The perspective isn't the same, so it isn't that. But because 50mm was the bedrock length for 35mm film SLRs, companies got real good at making sharp, fast 50mm lenses. So for small sensor dSLRs, 50mm is appealing because a fast, sharp 50mm is easy to find and not expensive. But it doesn't look the same as a 50mm on a full frame. If you have a small sensor dSLR and you want the same look as a 35mm film SLR, then you actually want something like a fast 35mm lens.
And herein lies the rub. There seems to be a primary reason why a lens is deemed "normal" and that is associated with the "perspective matching human vision". For a 35mm film format this is roughly equivalent to the diagonal of the film format.
OK, now everyone applies the concept of "normal" lens to the diagonal of the film format. That means that if you have an APS-C sized sensor or a large format camera the "normal" lens will vary. However, the film format size just identifies what the "crop" of the image is...it doesn't really drive perspective!! Perspective is associated with the magnification of the lens and the relative distance between you and the subject.
So, only to the extent that you're trying to match the same composition (i.e., relative size of subjects within the image frame) as what you would get with a 35mm format would you then apply this logic to the "effective" focal length (the so called crop factor).
that is what I learned a legacy of 35mm and they were also called 1x lenses 2x were 100 and so forth. this made more sense then the current dig where they either say the focal length or they say the 35mm equivalent.
that is what I learned a legacy of 35mm and they were also called 1x lenses 2x were 100 and so forth. this made more sense then the current dig where they either say the focal length or they say the 35mm equivalent.
But calling a lens a "2X" won't really work these days either. Take a Canon 100mm EF lens on a film body or a 5D and it is indeed a 2X lens. Take that very same lens and put it on a 1D Mark II and its a 2.6X lens. On a 30D its a 3.2X lens. However, in all cases it is a 100mm focal length lens. Its the only constant. Its the only way you can actually label the lens and be correct.
Actually, perspective is associated ONLY with the distance between you and the subject. Focal length does not change perspective, it only changes magnification.
So, the point is that a lens is "normal" if the focal length is close to the diagonal of the focal plane frame AND if the intended use is to come up with the same compositional arrangement you would've gotten if it was "full-frame" (i.e., 35 mm).
Otherwise, if you just want closer portraits with APS-C than you would've gotten with a 35mm then stick with the 50mm lens and you'll get a zoomed in version of the same perspective you got before. That would mean that for you the "normal" lens is actually a longer focal length than the diagonal of the focal plane frame (by the ratios of the diagonals).
I personally do not understand the full frame kool-aid that many people seem to drink. Film size is arbitrary. Photographers used to make the same gripes about 35mm when it was first introduced. To them "full frame" was a 2-1/4" medium format camera, not some tiny imitator at just over an inch.
Hooray! I'm not alone!
I don't get the mad rush to "FF" and the automatic assumption that the 5D having a sensor approximately the same size as 35mm film is automatically superior. Here's a heretical statement: I have no interest in the 5D as I consider it a downgrade from my 20D for my use. How about that?:hide
So, the point is that a lens is "normal" if the focal length is close to the diagonal of the focal plane frame AND if the intended use is to come up with the same compositional arrangement you would've gotten if it was "full-frame" (i.e., 35 mm).
Otherwise, if you just want closer portraits with APS-C than you would've gotten with a 35mm then stick with the 50mm lens and you'll get a zoomed in version of the same perspective you got before. That would mean that for you the "normal" lens is actually a longer focal length than the diagonal of the focal plane frame (by the ratios of the diagonals).
Erich
Since we're being a bit pedantic here, you mean a cropped version of the same perspective. The 50mm lens is the same perspective, same image circle, etc. However, on the APS-C sensor you are getting approximately the same FOV as an 80mm lens.
I don't get the mad rush to "FF" and the automatic assumption that the 5D having a sensor approximately the same size as 35mm film is automatically superior. Here's a heretical statement: I have no interest in the 5D as I consider it a downgrade from my 20D for my use. How about that?:hide
I'll trade ya
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
I don't get the mad rush to "FF" and the automatic assumption that the 5D having a sensor approximately the same size as 35mm film is automatically superior. Here's a heretical statement: I have no interest in the 5D as I consider it a downgrade from my 20D for my use. How about that?:hide
With the 20D and other crop sensors you'll never be able to go as wide as a FF
Lets put it this way: One of the best low light lens[es] is the 50mm F1.4 canon, nikon has one ,zeiss has one and I think contax has one ! the next low light lens[es] would be the 85mm F1.4 But let me clarify it this way 50mm also comes F1.2 and if you got the money 50mm F1.0 is the largest appeature for the buck< But now comes reason I look at it this most of us will never need anything lower that F1.4 for any kind of work: And a lot of folks swear by it I have own two 50mm F1.4's in my life time the first one for canon 50mm F1.4 FD lens and the 50mm F1.4 EF lens both were very sharp and very usefull for low light shoot-ing with the FD lens I had too run asa 400 or better now I shoot running ISO 4000 or better so nothing has realy changed :Trust me until you have used the 50mm F1.4 and used the 50mm F1.8 then you will understand the difference:: good luck::D
Well just today I got my 50mm f/1.8 II, and I still don't know the difference (empirically) because I don't have a f/1.4 hahaha, but I have to say that the f/1.8 is pretty sharp, I like it, even when making distances right can be kind of anoying.
This is my firts prime lens, and here's a photo I took a couple of hours ago, I'm happy with this lens, even though it's pretty simple I think I can make a good use of it, thanks for all the explanations, but practice is the best teacher, see you around!
I don't get the mad rush to "FF" and the automatic assumption that the 5D having a sensor approximately the same size as 35mm film is automatically superior.
My understanding is that depending on the factors that interest you, FF can actually be automatically superior to FF. I'm thinking of three:
1. If you keep the pixel size constant, FF obviously gives you more pixels.
2. If you keep the number of pixels constant but you use the larger FF sensor size, each pixel is larger. This is supposed to result in higher sensitivity and lower noise, all other things being equal.
3. It is easier to get a very wide angle lens.
Of course, if you don't care about any of those factors, going FF brings you no advantage.
#1 can be negated by already having enough pixels on the small sensor and not needing more. #2 can be negated by better sensor technology, as Canon has done. #3 can be negated if you care more about telephoto than wide angle.
Verdict: Like all other things photographic, there is no wrong choice unless you make a choice that doesn't fit your needs and style.
Verdict: Like all other things photographic, there is no wrong choice unless you make a choice that doesn't fit your needs and style.
I suggest that you could conclude there is no single camera and/or lens (flash, tripod, etc.) that can fulfill all requirements for all photographic assignments, projects and tastes.
Different strokes for different folks. (Give me choices, lots and lots of choices.)
But calling a lens a "2X" won't really work these days either. Take a Canon 100mm EF lens on a film body or a 5D and it is indeed a 2X lens. Take that very same lens and put it on a 1D Mark II and its a 2.6X lens. On a 30D its a 3.2X lens. However, in all cases it is a 100mm focal length lens. Its the only constant. Its the only way you can actually label the lens and be correct.
In over 50 years in photography I have never heard a prime lens refferred to as 1x or 2x. 100mm lens for 35mm is a "normal" lens for 6X9 format. It is certainly not a 2x lens. The only use I have ever heard for 1X, 1.4x, 2X, etc is for lens converters. When applied to any focal length lens they multiply the focal length by the factor.
If you are going to call a 100mm lens a 2X then you have to stipulate in which format. A 50mm lens in 110 format is a telephoto and as a result is a factor of the normal lens ( I think 25mm is normal but not sure), if 25mm is normal for that format then 50mm is a 2x lens?. Using that nomenclature would get very confusing very rapidly. I think you either misread or misunderstood what was written, or the author was wrong. After all focal length is the measure of the distance from the front lens element to the film plane. That being so, then any 50mm lens is the same length.Now, how can one 50mm be "normal" or 1X and another 50mm be a 2X? I guess that being the case, a 50mm could be called a .5X also, right? Just remember that all the stuff in the wikipedia was written by people such as you and I and are just as prone to error. If you see it there doesn't mean it is right.
Now, here is what Ansel Adams has to say about the so called "normal" lens:
"(a) The "normal" focal lengths are 50mm for 35mm cameras, 80mm for 2¼X2¼, and 6½" for 4X5. The old "rule" that the focal length of the lens should be about equal to the diagonal of the negative covered at infinity focus is not really not important; in my opinion this "normal" focal length can be somewhat inhibiting in that it does not give sufficient depth of field for near-far compositions and is not long enough to give good "drawing" for portraits.
(b) for near-far compositions with great depth of field a relatively short focal length is indicated ( 50mm on a 2¼X2¼, 90 to 120mm on a 4X5, etc). Wide field or wide angle lenses permit extensive camera adjustments ( on a view camera)
(c) For portraits a relatively long lens is indicated (150+ on a 2¼X2¼, 8 to 12 inches on a 4X5)"
* exerpted from "Camera And Lens" By Ansel Adams
He goes on but that is what is pertinent to this discussion. From the way I read his statements, he says that the "normal" lens is a more or less useless lens for any camera. I have to say that I concur with him on the basis of my own experience over a 50 year career as a photographer. I do not now, nor have I had, in the past 30 odd years, a "normal" lens in my kit. My normal lens is a 75/80mm to 100mm lems and for wide I prefer a 28mm or even a 24mm lens ( for35mm work). The 50mm lens is cheap because the camera companies have drummed it into our heads over the years that a 50mm is of the utmost necessity. Thence they can make them by the truckload and of inferior materials and sell them for $50 each. If you can only have one or two lenses in your kit, I think either a 28/35 or a 80/100 would be ideal, depending on what you like to shoot. For one lens, I would prefer the 100mm. I have shot much "available" light photography and found the best lens I had to shoot was a 75mm f2.8 Canon with my old Canon RF.
Photography: the art of seeing the uncommon in the common.
+++++++ CANON EOS XT- 350D - Sigma 28 - 80 mm macro, MC Zenitar EF 3.5/16MM CANON F1n, Canon FD 28mm 2.8 SC, Canon FL 200mm 3.5 Jupiter 9 2.8/85mm used on bellows for EOS & F1 Bellows is M42 thread with adaptors for both cameras. Tair 135mm 2.8 Kiev 88 6x6 camera - Mir 38B 3.5/65mm, Arsat B 2.8/80mm, J26V 250 mm tele
16 various FSU & German cameras
He goes on but that is what is pertinent to this discussion. From the way I read his statements, he says that the "normal" lens is a more or less useless lens for any camera. I have to say that I concur with him on the basis of my own experience over a 50 year career as a photographer. I do not now, nor have I had, in the past 30 odd years, a "normal" lens in my kit. My normal lens is a 75/80mm to 100mm lems and for wide I prefer a 28mm or even a 24mm lens ( for35mm work). The 50mm lens is cheap because the camera companies have drummed it into our heads over the years that a 50mm is of the utmost necessity. Thence they can make them by the truckload and of inferior materials and sell them for $50 each. If you can only have one or two lenses in your kit, I think either a 28/35 or a 80/100 would be ideal, depending on what you like to shoot. For one lens, I would prefer the 100mm. I have shot much "available" light photography and found the best lens I had to shoot was a 75mm f2.8 Canon with my old Canon RF.
So, there is my take on "normal" lenses.
I tend to agree with this last comment. I have a 20D with a "1.6X" crop factor and I'm hardly ever in the 35mm "normal" focal length range with the images I take. I'm usually in the 17-20 mm for wide-angle, 50mm for portrait/indoor shots, and then 70-200mm for outdoor telephoto.
Comments
Lets put it this way: One of the best low light lens[es] is the 50mm F1.4 canon, nikon has one ,zeiss has one and I think contax has one ! the next low light lens[es] would be the 85mm F1.4 But let me clarify it this way 50mm also comes F1.2 and if you got the money 50mm F1.0 is the largest appeature for the buck< But now comes reason I look at it this most of us will never need anything lower that F1.4 for any kind of work: And a lot of folks swear by it I have own two 50mm F1.4's in my life time the first one for canon 50mm F1.4 FD lens and the 50mm F1.4 EF lens both were very sharp and very usefull for low light shoot-ing with the FD lens I had too run asa 400 or better now I shoot running ISO 4000 or better so nothing has realy changed :Trust me until you have used the 50mm F1.4 and used the 50mm F1.8 then you will understand the difference:: good luck::D
“the farther back we look the farther forward we see.”—A. Theodore Kachel
http://www.lauren-macintosh.com
"Standard" lenses, which include most 50mm lenses from most dSLR (and SLR) manufacturers, are typically variants of a proven lens design, based on the "Tessar" formula. Tessar lenses are remarkably efficient and relatively simple in terms of number of elements and their arrangement.
The 50mm lenses are products of long lines of production, so they tend to be well developed and of large production quantities. This large "economy of scale" helps keep the prices down, and, most recently, the manufacturers have made these lenses even cheaper by putting the optical elements in cheap plastic mounts.
Inexpensive, but high optical quality, makes for a pretty good value, which is why these lenses have such cute names like, "fantastic plastic" and "nifty fifty" and such.
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
This is why it's called a "normal lens" as well....
Here's the Wikipedia entry explaining why. It's a reason that's pretty much agreed-to in the photographic community: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens
Excerpts from wikipedia article:
and
And herein lies the rub. There seems to be a primary reason why a lens is deemed "normal" and that is associated with the "perspective matching human vision". For a 35mm film format this is roughly equivalent to the diagonal of the film format.
OK, now everyone applies the concept of "normal" lens to the diagonal of the film format. That means that if you have an APS-C sized sensor or a large format camera the "normal" lens will vary. However, the film format size just identifies what the "crop" of the image is...it doesn't really drive perspective!! Perspective is associated with the magnification of the lens and the relative distance between you and the subject.
So, only to the extent that you're trying to match the same composition (i.e., relative size of subjects within the image frame) as what you would get with a 35mm format would you then apply this logic to the "effective" focal length (the so called crop factor).
Erich
A couple of other references:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t12652.html
http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml
me:
uh, me like 50, it good
ziggy:
"Standard" lenses, which include most 50mm lenses from most dSLR (and SLR) manufacturers, are typically variants of a proven lens design, based on the "Tessar" formula. Tessar lenses are remarkably efficient and relatively simple in terms of number of elements and their arrangement.
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
On a 1.6x body I really think a 30-35mm lens is more useful... which ends up being like what a 50mm would be on a FF body. The 50 on a 1.6x body is more of a headshot lens.
so that brings up the dual "normal" nature - 50's are popular for the normal focal length, but as Ziggy pointed out, even for crop cameras, its a popular lens because its the best optics you can get for the money (due to its popularity and "normalcy").
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
I read high vignetting and poor border performance here:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_30_14/index.htm
― Edward Weston
And that's a good reason to use standard full frame lenses (not APS-C versions) on your APS-C / 1.6 crop camera ... you are always shooting through the lens' sweet spot! I prefer and use EF lenses on my APS-C Canons, and do not intend to ever purchase an EF-S. Of course, I use them on my full-frame camera too.
Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est.
Good point but there are also exceptions like the
60mm/2.8 Macro EFS or the 10-22mm/3.5-4.5 EFS.
― Edward Weston
Very true, there are some fine EFS lenses ... but if you have even one full frame body or intend to purchase one in the near future (and I personally think that so-called "full frame" will be the way most dSLR cameras head in the near future starting with prosumer models) and want lens interchangability between bodies ....
Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est.
As far as AF-S lenses go... there are some good ones and some bad ones! A great EF-S lens is that 10-22... WOW! A perfect example of a TOTAL flop is the EF-s 17-85 IS. Its a $50 zoom lens with $450 worth of IS slapped in the body.
will become more affordable in the future. Btw. why do you think that
full frame will be the way to go? On the downside there is higher costs
of lenses and cameras, loss of the sweet spot effect whereas on the
upside there are "better pixels" maybe more, or maybe necause of the
viewfinder? I just realized that a 95% viewfinder with x.95 magnification
(like the pentax K10D has) can't be compared with a full frame camera with
the same specification because of the crop factor. In this respect jumping
from a 10D to a istDs was a leap for me, now that I've seen through the
96% viewfinder of a 5D I'm lusting for it. One suddenly sees things so much
clearer, its amazing.
I'm also very curious if the big brands will implemet in camera shake
reduction (like, again Pentax did) or if they will continue to sell their
expensive VR, OS and IS lenses instead. Now that would be sth supremly
nice, much like affordable full frame cameras!
Anyway, I think we're hijacking this thread right now
― Edward Weston
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Choose full-frame if you need tons of pixels (so that the imaging sites don't get too small and thus noisy). Choose full-frame if you need less depth-of-field. Choose full-frame if you need wide-angle ability. Choose a cropped sensor if you need more telephoto reach or increased depth of field.
The other thing I like about full-frame is the larger view finder. Even a 1.3 crop factor of my 1D Mark II has a noticably better view finder than my 20D. I love the Mark II, but I do miss the extra magnification that 1.6 crop gives me.
Will full frame ever become common in prosumer line? I doubt it myself. No matter how cheap a 24x36mm sensor gets, an APS-C size will always be considerably cheaper. And how many prosumers, honestly, care about sensor size? Nikon hasn't even introduced one for their pros yet, which has to say something. Canon, actually is the only one to do so.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Right, and that leads to two answers to "why are 50mm lenses so special," because the answer changed over history.
Analog: Historically, on 35mm SLRs, a 50mm makes perspective looks "natural." No telephoto compression, no wide-angle fisheye effect.
Digital: For digital "full frame," 50mm has the same appeal as it did for 35mm film. But for digital small sensors, 50mm is appealing for different reasons. The perspective isn't the same, so it isn't that. But because 50mm was the bedrock length for 35mm film SLRs, companies got real good at making sharp, fast 50mm lenses. So for small sensor dSLRs, 50mm is appealing because a fast, sharp 50mm is easy to find and not expensive. But it doesn't look the same as a 50mm on a full frame. If you have a small sensor dSLR and you want the same look as a 35mm film SLR, then you actually want something like a fast 35mm lens.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Otherwise, if you just want closer portraits with APS-C than you would've gotten with a 35mm then stick with the 50mm lens and you'll get a zoomed in version of the same perspective you got before. That would mean that for you the "normal" lens is actually a longer focal length than the diagonal of the focal plane frame (by the ratios of the diagonals).
Erich
Hooray! I'm not alone!
I don't get the mad rush to "FF" and the automatic assumption that the 5D having a sensor approximately the same size as 35mm film is automatically superior. Here's a heretical statement: I have no interest in the 5D as I consider it a downgrade from my 20D for my use. How about that?:hide
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
Since we're being a bit pedantic here, you mean a cropped version of the same perspective. The 50mm lens is the same perspective, same image circle, etc. However, on the APS-C sensor you are getting approximately the same FOV as an 80mm lens.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
I'll trade ya
― Edward Weston
With the 20D and other crop sensors you'll never be able to go as wide as a FF
Canon 40D
Canon EF-S 17-85 IS
http://www.flickr.com/trevaftw
Well just today I got my 50mm f/1.8 II, and I still don't know the difference (empirically) because I don't have a f/1.4 hahaha, but I have to say that the f/1.8 is pretty sharp, I like it, even when making distances right can be kind of anoying.
This is my firts prime lens, and here's a photo I took a couple of hours ago, I'm happy with this lens, even though it's pretty simple I think I can make a good use of it, thanks for all the explanations, but practice is the best teacher, see you around!
Here's a review on differences between f/1.4 and f/1.8 EF:
http://photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/
IMG_9502 123.jpg
Byron M.
My understanding is that depending on the factors that interest you, FF can actually be automatically superior to FF. I'm thinking of three:
1. If you keep the pixel size constant, FF obviously gives you more pixels.
2. If you keep the number of pixels constant but you use the larger FF sensor size, each pixel is larger. This is supposed to result in higher sensitivity and lower noise, all other things being equal.
3. It is easier to get a very wide angle lens.
Of course, if you don't care about any of those factors, going FF brings you no advantage.
#1 can be negated by already having enough pixels on the small sensor and not needing more. #2 can be negated by better sensor technology, as Canon has done. #3 can be negated if you care more about telephoto than wide angle.
Verdict: Like all other things photographic, there is no wrong choice unless you make a choice that doesn't fit your needs and style.
I suggest that you could conclude there is no single camera and/or lens (flash, tripod, etc.) that can fulfill all requirements for all photographic assignments, projects and tastes.
Different strokes for different folks. (Give me choices, lots and lots of choices.)
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
If you are going to call a 100mm lens a 2X then you have to stipulate in which format. A 50mm lens in 110 format is a telephoto and as a result is a factor of the normal lens ( I think 25mm is normal but not sure), if 25mm is normal for that format then 50mm is a 2x lens?. Using that nomenclature would get very confusing very rapidly. I think you either misread or misunderstood what was written, or the author was wrong. After all focal length is the measure of the distance from the front lens element to the film plane. That being so, then any 50mm lens is the same length.Now, how can one 50mm be "normal" or 1X and another 50mm be a 2X? I guess that being the case, a 50mm could be called a .5X also, right? Just remember that all the stuff in the wikipedia was written by people such as you and I and are just as prone to error. If you see it there doesn't mean it is right.
Now, here is what Ansel Adams has to say about the so called "normal" lens:
"(a) The "normal" focal lengths are 50mm for 35mm cameras, 80mm for 2¼X2¼, and 6½" for 4X5. The old "rule" that the focal length of the lens should be about equal to the diagonal of the negative covered at infinity focus is not really not important; in my opinion this "normal" focal length can be somewhat inhibiting in that it does not give sufficient depth of field for near-far compositions and is not long enough to give good "drawing" for portraits.
(b) for near-far compositions with great depth of field a relatively short focal length is indicated ( 50mm on a 2¼X2¼, 90 to 120mm on a 4X5, etc). Wide field or wide angle lenses permit extensive camera adjustments ( on a view camera)
(c) For portraits a relatively long lens is indicated (150+ on a 2¼X2¼, 8 to 12 inches on a 4X5)"
* exerpted from "Camera And Lens" By Ansel Adams
He goes on but that is what is pertinent to this discussion. From the way I read his statements, he says that the "normal" lens is a more or less useless lens for any camera. I have to say that I concur with him on the basis of my own experience over a 50 year career as a photographer. I do not now, nor have I had, in the past 30 odd years, a "normal" lens in my kit. My normal lens is a 75/80mm to 100mm lems and for wide I prefer a 28mm or even a 24mm lens ( for35mm work). The 50mm lens is cheap because the camera companies have drummed it into our heads over the years that a 50mm is of the utmost necessity. Thence they can make them by the truckload and of inferior materials and sell them for $50 each. If you can only have one or two lenses in your kit, I think either a 28/35 or a 80/100 would be ideal, depending on what you like to shoot. For one lens, I would prefer the 100mm. I have shot much "available" light photography and found the best lens I had to shoot was a 75mm f2.8 Canon with my old Canon RF.
So, there is my take on "normal" lenses.
http://www.tabblo.com/studio/view/tabblos/mikeb380/
========
CANON EOS XT- 350D - Sigma 28 - 80 mm macro, MC Zenitar EF 3.5/16MM
CANON F1n, Canon FD 28mm 2.8 SC, Canon FL 200mm 3.5
Jupiter 9 2.8/85mm used on bellows for EOS & F1 Bellows is M42 thread with adaptors for both cameras.
Tair 135mm 2.8
Kiev 88 6x6 camera - Mir 38B 3.5/65mm, Arsat B 2.8/80mm, J26V 250 mm tele
16 various FSU & German cameras
I tend to agree with this last comment. I have a 20D with a "1.6X" crop factor and I'm hardly ever in the 35mm "normal" focal length range with the images I take. I'm usually in the 17-20 mm for wide-angle, 50mm for portrait/indoor shots, and then 70-200mm for outdoor telephoto.