Photoclubalpha

Trying out various lenses on the NEX-7 I have been surprised to find how much I am enjoying using the Zeiss C-Sonnar 50/1.5 with its 75mm equivalent focal length. This is partly down to the rendition, which is warm, contrasty and quite dimensional although it does suffer fron soft corners at wider apertures. However it is also a product of the 75mm angle of view, which I find surprisingly convenient. Obviously, certain lenses may be optimal for specific subject areas - macro, architecture, landscape, portraiture, sports, wildlife - but for general purposes, say you only were able to use one focal length (35mm equivalent), which would you choose? Note, I am asking about focal length, not a specific lens/aperture combination.

Mmm. A tricky decision. I am torn between 75mm and 24mm equivalent focal lengths. I would have to make a call between never wanting to go wide, or never wanting a close-up. If you forced me to chose then I'd go for 75mm. Great for people shots, flowers, etc. with some cropping you can zoom in, and not too an extreme tele that you could never get a whole scene / landscape in.

I think the perfect match for the NEX 7 (I should receive it this week...). Is to bring in your pocket the 16mm 2.8 (24mm), and the 50mm 1.x . Up to know that what I`m doing with the NEX 5. and If I can, I bring also the Wide angle adapter for the 16mm 2.8, with that you have a killer setup.

The sensor of the NEX 7 will be so dense that I don`t think there is need to bring a 100mm in the kit where cropping the 50mm should be enough.

Regards,

Frank

I would choose a 50mm equivalent focal length. It's wide enough to do landscapes and architecture, but long enough to get torso shots without too much distortion. If you choose the lens wisely, you also could do close-ups with it with a short MFD or by cropping. I shot whole holiday's with a 35mm on APS-C.

InTheSky wrote: The sensor of the NEX 7 will be so dense that I don`t think there is need to bring a 100mm in the kit where cropping the 50mm should be enough.
Frank

I think this is a very important point, and one I meant (but forgot) to include in my original post. Sensors are now at levels of resolution which permit quite aggressive (and easy) cropping which allows today's digital photographer the possibility of a considerably smaller lens kit-bag than would have been the case for the film photographer.

I'm the most unoriginal of all with my 37mm eqv preference. And then cropping some 19mm to 24mm turns a 24Mp into a quite adequate 15Mp. So I'm waiting for that newly announced 19mm e-mount Sigma.
Then I'd like to see some smallish 85/2.8 made for the Nex.
And I already have a SEL18200 that easily brings a Nex at SLR dimensions.

If I need more lenses, there's the whole lot to use with adapters.

I'd happily keep a 24mm lens on an APS-C sensor all day long--if it was fast enough. Right now I use a 35/1.8 but if I had a 24/1.8 that was as portable or more-so, I'd be using that instead.

Of course, that is difficult to choose just one. Anytime someone asks to choose only one of something from a range of possibilities it is tough! I suppose if I was forced to choose it would be a lens of about 50mm fov. Isn't there a 35mm f1.8 for NEX? If I couldn't get a 50mm fov, especially if it wasn't fast, then my second choice would be a lens with about a 35mm fov. That would be the 24mm f1.8 or whatever it is that was recently released. Keep in mind though that size/weight/cost are also a consideration for some people so that might need to be factored in. For me, the 50mm fov and 35mm fov are the most general purpose focal lengths and although I would often wish for wider or longer I would feel less constrained than if my only lens was wide or long.

+1

50/1.4 is the most used lens on my A900. I´d like a 35mm eq. also though, especially as general purpose for street photography, but unfortunately it doesn´t exist yet (that is, matching my expectations). Right now, I´m using a Sigma DP2x for it with its 41mm eq., soon to be complemented with a Fuji X-Pro1.

If I had too choose only one focal length for the APS-C format it would have to be one that’s as close to 1X perspective as possible, i.e. a standard lens just like in the old days when a 50mm prime was always considered a standard lens for 35mm film cameras a 75mm was the standard lens for 645 format, and 100mm was standard for 6X7 etc.
Probably a 30 or 35 prime on APS-C would be quite ok for me as a do everything lens, a standard lens is not wide enough usually for indoors but you can still get shots if your ingenious enough.
So yeah I’d go with a 30mm prime, preferably, if Sony or Sigma made/makes a good one, I haven’t really been keeping track of A-mount primes lately so I’m not sure what would fill the slot the best.
Greg

Greg, there's a near-perfect SAL35/1.8 DT. Its image quality is practically impeccable. And it's priced as a disposable item.

Thanks agorabasta, long time no see.
Yep one should lash out on one of those at the price, about $200 at B&H, I suppose the construction is cheapish but if the optics are good I guess it’s a plus to have. Thinking of value for money primes for a sec the other one I’ve heard of in dispatches now I think of it was the 85 SAM, that one was supposed to be pretty good for the money as well, it’s about $250.
I also found a Sigma just now, a 30 /1.4 but it’s a much more expensive lens at $489 I don’t know how it stacks up in the optics department but the reviews all seem very positive. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/4 ... EX_DC.html
Greg

That really is a loaded question. For indoors, I like wide angles. In film days it was the 28, as i never had a 24, and my one 21 was stolen and never replaced soon after I bought it.

For most outdoors, a 50, but if I'm sightseeing something far off, I needed a tele. When I was taking shots of the water-skiers from the boat the 135 was perfect to capture them at the end of the rope. If I had to pick only one, I couldn't! When I was doing photo-journalism, I had 3 cameras, all with different lenses on my neck and shoulders, and another in the bag w/ high speed film for the indoors stuff.

Dusty

Greg Beetham wrote:I also found a Sigma just now, a 30 /1.4 but it’s a much more expensive lens at $489 I don’t know how it stacks up in the optics department but the reviews all seem very positive.

Hi, Greg!
I have/had that Sigma, it's now in exile in a country I frequent, so that I don't need to carry it with me in travel. I actually preferred the Sony 35f1.8 to that SIgma.
The Sigma has a stronger barrel distortion, a more noticeable CA and a very hard nut-shaped rendering of the OOF speculars. But Sigma is the only lens I ever had that was capable of showing a real diffraction pattern in the images, that's how sharp and clear it really is. And its CA is more noticeable only because it's 'surgically' sharp all across the frame.
So technically, the Sigma is mostly better. But the results from the Sony are more ready-to-use, the OOC JPEGs are really usable with the Sony 35f1.8.

I have gone through a couple of Sigma 30's last year, but found the lack of mid and corner sharpness a big disappointment, even stopped down, considering the price. The bokeh however was buttery smooth on all of them. However, due to the sharpness issues, I traded my last one in for a Nex3 + 16mm.

Also had the Samyang 35. Terrific lens, but it became too heavy and big to take along traveling besides the 70-400. Looking for a Sony 35 sam now. Would fit the bill I suppose.

Mark