Photoclubalpha

This is not a really big deal, but just a bit of a head scratcher for me. Why did Sony choose to make the macro a 30mm and the regular lens a 35mm?

The 35mm f1.8 is okay, giving a 52mm fov, but actually as a general purpose small, fast lens 24-30mm would have been better.

30mm for an APS-C macro is quite short, 45mm fov. Even 35mm (52mm fov) would have been better and the same as many FF 50mm macro lenses. Actually, on FF I find 50mm to be too short also because the shooting distance is often too close. Something more like 50-65mm for APS-C would be more useful.

If Sony, for some reason, has a special love for the 30mm and 35mm focal lengths it would have been better to make these APS-C lenses instead:

35mm f2.8 macro
30mm f1.8

I'll probably get a 35mm f1.8, but would much rather have a 30mm f1.8 or 28mm f1.8 or 24mm f1.8.

That 30M28 produces a rather strong loCA in OOF objects at all apertures. It's hopefully not so with the general purpose lens design...

I'd be excited to have either. On one hand, the 30/3.8 macro is not a big financial commitment if you just want to try out macro, and the 35/1.8 would take me back to the good ol' days of running around air shows with my brother's 7000i and 50/1.7. I can see the sense in swapping the focal lengths as Henry suggested, but Sony had to distance their baby macro from their existing 50/2.8 macro. As for changing the 35/1.8 to a 24 or 28, they already have a fairly inexpensive 28mm prime--albeit, at f/2.8, though it is just as compact, and there was a fast 24mm in the pipeline, too. How long had we users cried out for a more affordable alternative to the 35/1.4 G?

Needless to say, I put both lenses onto my Christmas wishlist--pending the announcement of a metal-bodied Alpha with main sensor live-view and a flash sync of 1/250 or greater.

KevinBarrett wrote:I'd be excited to have either. On one hand, the 30/3.8 macro is not a big financial commitment if you just want to try out macro, and the 35/1.8 would take me back to the good ol' days of running around air shows with my brother's 7000i and 50/1.7.

The 35mm gives a 52.5mm fov. That is fine, but 30mm would have given 45mm and, at least, I would prefer slightly less than a 50mm fov rather than a slightly longer fov. Either way, it isn't a real big deal.

KevinBarrett wrote: I can see the sense in swapping the focal lengths as Henry suggested, but Sony had to distance their baby macro from their existing 50/2.8 macro.

Well, I suppose that could be it. The fact that Sony chose 30mm for the macro isn't that important to me since I doubt if I will get one. I don't use macro much and I still have my Sigma 90mm macro that I bought in 1991. Much nicer macro focal length to use than 30mm.

KevinBarrett wrote: As for changing the 35/1.8 to a 24 or 28, they already have a fairly inexpensive 28mm prime--albeit, at f/2.8, though it is just as compact, and there was a fast 24mm in the pipeline, too. How long had we users cried out for a more affordable alternative to the 35/1.4 G?

Good point. I have my 24mm f2.8 and I like to use that sometimes while walking around since it gives me a 36mm fov.

bakubo wrote:I have my 24mm f2.8 and I like to use that sometimes while walking around since it gives me a 36mm fov.

I love my 24/2.8 too, such a nice walk-around lens!

I agree that 30mm is strangely wide for a macro lens, but you have to admit, it is unique, and it's not like there aren't other options. The price isn't bad either.

What do you think of the 85/2.8?

30mm is short for a macro lens. 35mm f1.8 is perfectly logical for a fast near 50mm fov ish lens.
As 50mm is a popular focal length (equivalent) I see no problems with that side of it I find it pretty useful on 35mm FF. I believe HCB said it was his favourite focal length.
Out of the 2 the 35mm f1.8 is more interesting to me purely on lens speed.