jmooney
Guy with a camera
Throughout the years the "normal" lens for anyone who picked up a camera was either the 35mm or the 50mm. I never got on with the 50 and through a wierd circumstance discovered that I was a closet 35mm fan. My Leica had a 35 stuck to it and I made some of the best photos I ever had with it.
Lots of manufacturers make a 50mm equiv. for crop cameras. Why the hell can't SOMEONE come out with a fast (F2 or F1.
prime lens that is 35mm equiv. on crop cams?
I know you can run a 24mm but that only gets you 2.8, and yes there is a 24L prime but I'm talking a $200 - $300 lens.
I know there is no answer but it is extremely frustrating and I needed to vent.
Anyone else feeling this pain?
Lots of manufacturers make a 50mm equiv. for crop cameras. Why the hell can't SOMEONE come out with a fast (F2 or F1.
I know you can run a 24mm but that only gets you 2.8, and yes there is a 24L prime but I'm talking a $200 - $300 lens.
I know there is no answer but it is extremely frustrating and I needed to vent.
Anyone else feeling this pain?
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Sigma makes a 24mm f/1.8, but I don't know how good people find it.
This really is a job for Pentax--one of their DA Limiteds would be great for this.
This really is a job for Pentax--one of their DA Limiteds would be great for this.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I had a 24mm f/2 Nikkor years ago. It wasn't as good as the 2.8, but it was pretty good.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I was never big fan of the 35 until I started using Leicas and I guess because it was the default lens due to the framelines. I have adapted and not the other way around.
ZeissFan
Veteran
One of the issues is the crop factor varies between makes. So while it would be nice if lens makers catered to my needs, there's the entire market to consider, especially when it comes to independent lens makers.
1) The crop factor. 1.3x with some cameras. 1.5x with others. 1.6x with others. Do you design a lens for just Canon? Nikon? Pentax? Admittedly, the difference with wide lenses is much less than with telephotos (except for the Olympus E-Volt system).
2) In the days of film, you just switched mounts. These days, you also have to worry about electronics, which adds to the cost of production. As well, some lenses have anti-vibration reduction built in. Other dSLR makers now have it in the body.
3) It's all about profit. Zooms sell a lot more than single focal length lenses. It's not as simple as deciding to produce a lens in a particular focal length. You have to create a production line, create the lens elements and barrels and then sell enough to not only recoup production costs but to turn a profit. And this partly explains why we see so few third-party lenses for the Olympus E-Volt system.
1) The crop factor. 1.3x with some cameras. 1.5x with others. 1.6x with others. Do you design a lens for just Canon? Nikon? Pentax? Admittedly, the difference with wide lenses is much less than with telephotos (except for the Olympus E-Volt system).
2) In the days of film, you just switched mounts. These days, you also have to worry about electronics, which adds to the cost of production. As well, some lenses have anti-vibration reduction built in. Other dSLR makers now have it in the body.
3) It's all about profit. Zooms sell a lot more than single focal length lenses. It's not as simple as deciding to produce a lens in a particular focal length. You have to create a production line, create the lens elements and barrels and then sell enough to not only recoup production costs but to turn a profit. And this partly explains why we see so few third-party lenses for the Olympus E-Volt system.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Would that be a 22-23 mm lens with an f stop of 12.4 or 2? Nikon has a dandy 24mm/f2 AIS lens.
Dingo
Well-known
Throughout the years the "normal" lens for anyone who picked up a camera was either the 35mm or the 50mm. I never got on with the 50 and through a wierd circumstance discovered that I was a closet 35mm fan. My Leica had a 35 stuck to it and I made some of the best photos I ever had with it.
Lots of manufacturers make a 50mm equiv. for crop cameras. Why the hell can't SOMEONE come out with a fast (F2 or F1.prime lens that is 35mm equiv. on crop cams?
I know you can run a 24mm but that only gets you 2.8, and yes there is a 24L prime but I'm talking a $200 - $300 lens.
I know there is no answer but it is extremely frustrating and I needed to vent.
Anyone else feeling this pain?
100% second! That's also why i didn't consider th R-D1 since it makes those excellent ultra wides CV lenses much less tempting (imagine the 25/4 becomes a 38/4...)
My solution on my D200 is using the Sigma 24/1.8, but the combination is so HUGE you won't take it out for street work.
Right now i am looking for a nice 2nd CV 28/1.9 for my M8, i think this is the best combination in terms of size, money and picture quality.
Dingo
Well-known
BTW, i really looking forward to a fast 24 from CV which becomes a perfect 35 on M8!
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
This is one of the big reasons I sold off my Nikon D90. Too difficult to get a fast wide for those APS-C sensor-ed bodies. I understand how frustrating it is. I see now that I have to wait until full-frame bodies come WAY down in price, probably another 5 years!
Shoot full frame now using film, 25 megapixels with a pro lab scan, and as wide as you need it to be. 
Far cheaper than a full frame digital.
Far cheaper than a full frame digital.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
#1 reason why I don't use crop body dSLRs for much work - and currently don't own a full-frame digtal. Ditto MF digital... I like my wide angle lenses too much.
jmooney
Guy with a camera
It's a total catch 22 though, with the further availability of the full frame DSLRs the cost of the wide primes goes up. I shoot Canon now but still keep tabs on Nikon prices and I can't believe how they've shot up since the introduction of the D3/D700.
For the money I could get and M6 with a 35 and a 90. I'm really thinking I might do just that.
jmooney
Guy with a camera
My point exactly. It's a basically $1500 lens and I'd venture to say it's very nice but not appreciably better than a CV 35/1.4 Nokton which runs $549 new.
Several posters have mentioned MF primes that are affordable but I don't see why I have to sacrifice AF to get an affordable lens. That goes against the cry of SLRs are a tool for action photography.
Again, I know there is no easy answer but I figured it would do us all good to discuss/vent/commeiserate. I knew I wasn't the only one afflicted by this situation.
:bang::bang::bang::bang::bang:
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Lots of manufacturers make a 50mm equiv. for crop cameras. Why the hell can't SOMEONE come out with a fast (F2 or F1.prime lens that is 35mm equiv. on crop cams?
Cost, and a limited market. Except for 4/3 no DSLR lines were downscaled to the point that they reduced the register distance over FF cameras so significantly that a 24mm could be done with a normal rather than wide design. For most systems, a 24mm 1.4 DX lens is not much cheaper to design and build than a FF one, and would be priced well above 97% of all DSLRs and lenses.
Nikon and Canon have gone FF with their top of the line, and will hardly release a pro niche market lens with limitations that mate it only to their consumer camera lineup - but expect a new or updated fast FF 24 from them, at a price, once the economy makes that feasible. And the other manufacturers probably aren't that convinced that they have a pro market at all that they'll venture into releasing exotic items priced above their top camera+kit zoom set - few of them have released any new primes in recent times.
Sevo
Last edited:
jmooney
Guy with a camera
^ Indeed, fast, good glass costs. Compare to the cost of the 1,4/35 Summilux... The 24L seems like a bargain by comparison.
True but in my (probably biased) opinion the 'Lux is worth it.....
I guess this partly stems from the frustration that I feel at the hands of digital. I know that there are always compromises to be made when it comes to cost and gear but I feel like I have had to make too many lately. I feel like instead of re-engineering cameras they are trying to re-engineer photography and it's starting to resemble the Edsel....
user237428934
User deletion pending
It's more an almost perfect 30 or am I calculating wrong.
user237428934
User deletion pending
Do you think so just because no company offers a rather cheap lens that matches exactly 35mm on a crop camera?
With film I felt more comfortable with 50mm than with 35mm. Now I can't complain because I have a lot of options with a crop camera.
jtzordon
clicking away
The Sigma 24mm 1.8 is pretty good. Sharper and focused better on my Minolta 5D than my Minolta 24mm 2.8. Wish I had never sold it.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Not definitive, but close:
http://43rumors.com/four-more-prime-lens-from-olympus/
I'd love a 35mm (equivalent) f2 lens for my Olympus E-620.
http://43rumors.com/four-more-prime-lens-from-olympus/
I'd love a 35mm (equivalent) f2 lens for my Olympus E-620.
jmooney
Guy with a camera
No, this is just another example. Compare family snapshots from today with those taken 20 years ago. What people accept as decent images today are poor in a lot of cases. I've seen parents documenting graduations using their cellphone camera.
I say what I said because it seems like we are losing things that were available to us before. A 35mm prime is one example.
Lest it be said that I'm an old fogey who needs to get with the times, I'm 32 and I'm an IT manager so technophobia isn't it either.
I'm afraid for our cultural history. Life is documented in cellphones. I can't fathom the though of personal family histories being erased by a hop from a belt loop to a toilet.
Being a 50mm comfortable shooter is a good thing as you do have many options available but those of us that see in a 35mm frame are being left out.
I really have come to appreciate RFF even more during this discussion. I posted this same question on another forum and some were helpful and came to the same conclusion some of you have suggested in that it doesn't make money for the company so they won't do it. Here are some of my favorite answers I got:
1 - I was told I was being a whiny bitch basically and live with it.
2- Just use one of the F2.8 zooms. (one stop slower that I wanted, a large heavy zoom in place of a small prime)
3 - 35mm was an "old film focal length" and no one needs it any more.
Ugggghhhh.