Photoclubalpha

In light of Nikon's newly announced DX-only 35mm f/1.8 lens, would you ever purchase a prime lens specifically designed for cropped sensor D-SLRs? Do you use full-frame primes for their "sweet spot?" Are you going full-frame later? What if there were no full-frame counterparts offering that focal length and speed?

I voted no. I am covered in focal length now from 10-300mm (+ TC). Anything else I would buy now is considered as a long term investment (fix or zoom). 5 years, 10 years horizon. And if I buy another DSLR in 5 years, there is a high chance it will be FF.

I voted 'no' as well. I wouldn't want to be limited to an APS-C lens with a good-quality prime lens.

Yildiz

I voted no as I don't have an APS size camera any more

My goal is ultimatly have a FF camera this would be a waste. at least it's only 200 bucks

Another yes vote here. Since I skipped AF film, and went from MD to Alpha lenses, I have no fast primes. I also can't afford to get into FF until the price comes down quite a bit, so I don't see an APS-C prime as only an interim investment. A fast 35MM will be used just like my old fast 50's. I could also use a fast, inexpensive wide lens and medium tele. Something to match my old 28 2.8 and 135 2.8. It's too bad that department stores no longer offer inexpensive re-branded lenses!

Dusty

The only APS-C prime lens I would buy is something like the new Nikon 35mm f1.8. I don't use my 50mm f1.7 much because it is too long for general use on my A700. I more often use a 24mm f2.8 when I want something small and more general to carry around. That is a bit wide though for this use so I would like a 28mm f1.8 or 35mm f1.8 or something in between *if* the price is good. I wouldn't pay a lot for it, but if it was less than $200 I would get it. I paid $59 in 1991 for my new Minolta 50mm f1.7.

It's a focal length thats well coverd by my 17-35 and 28-135. my 50 1.7 does really well in canle and lamp light so I might not even be interested in that lens at all even on FF. But I do think 200 bucks is a fair price for it, I have other things that 200 could go for.

Regardless of being covered by a zoom, I would definitely buy one... I mean one in a specific mm, and then one more in another coverage.
I think APS-C will always be there, regardless of FF.

I voted "no," because the real value (to me) of primes on the APS-C format is getting the sweet spot of a full-frame lens. It isn't hard to get FF primes in the "normal" range, and they're already as small and light as can be hoped for. If I could be tempted at all, it would be on the ultra-wide end, say, 10 to 14mm, without being a fish-eye.

Sonolta wrote:Generally speaking the greatest value of a typical prime (not specialty) is lens speed, subject isolation/bokeh ability, optical quality, as well as providing coverage for a needed focal length. I suspect you have never used as Sigma 20, 24, or 28 1.8 prime as they are neither small or particularly light.

-Sonolta

Nope! Haven't used the Sigma primes (though I want to!), I just have those tiny Minolta twins, the 24/2.8 and the 50/1.7.

I voted no as well.

I don't see a significant cost or size advantage, and long term FF lenses are a more logical choice.

Don as ever you are about as subtle as a brick crashing through a window!

Please do show me these "massive" short focal length FF primes? Bar maybe the oversized (and overpriced) sigma 50mm, I suspect even you would manage to lug a hefty bag filling 35mm FF prime around! Do you find the 50mm a struggle?

APS primes is IMO a short term strategy. No need to tell folks that I do some film as well, and no need to suggest I wouldn't fancy a bag full or non FF lenses, for obvious reasons.
Oh and wake me up when those APS only Zeiss primes turn up..and I bet they aint half as cheap as you think they would be.

A lot of hot air was bashed about when 4/3 came alone, smaller, cheaper lenses..well some are a bit smaller, but they are not cheaper!
Just for reference, the KM 18-70mm copy I have is perfectly satisfactory, the 2 sony ones were not, for whatever reason.

You work off of the basis I have not used other makers cameras and lenses, whilst I am no hardcore reviewer, I have handled a few.

You forgot about the 35mm f2 canon, it's hardly big, and the weight is just 10 grams more than the NIkon DX. Ok, add a bit for the bit of extra speed..we still do not have a massive lens!

APS only lenses are great now, but they will be suck eggs in 10 years time, if not sooner. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind APS..but I prefer to have lenses that work on FF too. So will most down the road

I am sure NIkon will sell a ton of them, but if sony offered an APS only 35mm prime, I would turn my nose up and ignore it

It's ok just ignore the Canon 35mm f2 why don't you?

You seem to forget there are advantages to FF lenses. Aside from the obvious, they work on FF and APS-C. Can you say a 1.25 crop camera will never appear at the semi pro price point? And will an APS only lens have enough coverage for it???

If you want a bag full of APS only lenses, knock yourself out.

As for the last lime, I don't really give a damn what I don't pack in my camera bag, because results count..and as you might be able to see, I have been having fun with the cheapo 50mm lens. If you are into gear snobbery, join the luminous landscape, rub shoulders with the Phase one MF digital back crowd I don't concern myself with high end lens collections, sure I would not say no, but you have to "use the things" As a photographer you should know, you get judged on the results you produce, not if you look good with with the gear!

Oh BTW What's 35mm to you? to me it's "full frame"