sony 24mm

Started Feb 6, 2013 | Discussions thread
Contributing MemberPosts: 953
Re: sony 24mm
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Feb 8, 2013

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Tom2572 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Tom2572 wrote:

Anyway, I happen to agree with the OP that a 24mm/2.8 lens is sorely needed and is a giant hole in the lineup. I'm actually a bit surprised that Sigma went with a 19mm lens which becomes a respectable 28mm on Sony but an odd 38mm on MFT instead of a 24mm lens which would be 35mm on Sony and nifty-fifty on MFT.

I don't see a point for 24mm lens as well, with 20mm around the corner. I would rather see a fast 85mm lens instead.

As for Sigma, it appears to have chosen the classic rangefinder equivalences with its trio of prime lenses: 19mm (28mm equivalent), 30mm (45mm equivalent) and 60mm (90mm equivalent). That is practically the Contax G trio: 28, 45 and 90. Occasionally, we saw 24-50-90 trio (in APS-C world, that would be 16, 35 and 60mm).

With 16-50/2.8 at hand for A55, I never cared for 16mm E-mount, and sold my Sigma 24/2.8 after getting 35/1.8. Now that there is a 20mm, to me, 20-35-50 trio makes a lot more sense.

-- hide signature --

Sony A55, Sony NEX-3, Sony F828

So you're saying 35mm not a classic rangefinder focal length? How do you explain the Leica Summarit, Summicron and Summalix, Zeiss Biogon, Voigtlander Nokton Classic and Color Skopar, and the Leitz Summaron to name just a few?

Here's a riddle for you, if 35mm isn't a classic focal length (IMO THE classic focal length), why do the RX1, X100 and Leica X1 all have a fixed 35mm equivalent lens and not a 28mm????????????

18, 21, 35 are generally fill-in focal lengths. Leica, for example, offered a 16-18-21mm Tri-Elmar lens. That doesn't mean we should expect manufacturers to produce primes at each of these focal lengths or we would be looking at more lenses than buyers as in, however about 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 28, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 52, 55, 58, 60... primes? 24-50-90 or 28-50-90 provided a good spread of focal lengths back in the day, as it would do today. My personal choice, given the focal lengths I use for specific purpose today would be 20, 35 and 60mm equivalents, not 24-35-50, as long as 20mm is capable of overcoming distortions. For that matter, a lens being marketed as a 20mm may actually be 19 or 21 or 22mm lens.

As for the riddle, the fixed focal length lens systems need to address a compromise between need to go wider or narrower. During 35mm film days, 50mm was pretty much the guaranteed kit lens, no?

OK, we'll respectfully disagree. IMO though, the classic focal lengths were 35, 50, 90 and 135, and if you search out the history of Leica those were the lenses of the early 1930's. Only later did the 28 and then the 24, then the 21 arrive, and by then all heck breaks loose.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow