APS-C Primes

[bfitzgerald]

I see Tamron are touting the 60mm macro as a portrait lens too. Which is fair enough. Though 70mm would be perfect, equivalent to the rather well liked 105mm.

I guess some of this APS appeal might be on price, but we will have to see how it shapes up. I won't disagree with Dr. Harout, in that APS will be around for a good while, if not for always. However, I dislike the idea of a two tier lens system, so I will continue to avoid APS lenses of all types as best I can

Before Don comes in and complains I use film, but that is FF for me at the moment, it makes sense for me to have lenses that are interchangeable on both mediums. It's going to be a while before FF digital is really affordable, we will get there..just now is a bad time Yen exchange rate, global depression etc..few years, we might be back on track. I still think it's possible to do one at semi pro prices, if you chop out the mag alloy body, cut down a few things, less mp..etc etc. Obviously the sensors cost more, but looking at the D3x, well looks very much a minor variant on the A900 one, no way the sensor costs thousands. If I were 100% digital it might not bother me with APS only lenses, but that is not likely to ever happen for me

[Brad Smith]

I've already got one. If I made a move to a 36 x 24mm sensor camera then I'd consider that a format change and would factor that into the decision. Both my zooms would be useless as well so I'd probably just start again. If you bought only 'full frame' lenses for your current APS-C bodies then you are either buying non-optimal focal lenths now or you're buying lenses with non-optimal focal lengths when you make the move! Just get what makes sense now.

[bfitzgerald]

Non optimal for APS-C is really most obvious at the wide end with FF lenses. For example 24mm, 28mm or even 20mm prime etc etc. Your UWA prime is just a normal WA, your others are not really wide anymore at all. But tele end, it's less of a problem..as you get more reach as such. 50mm is more useful to me on a FF body, but it is still of some use on an APS one.

Really depends on where you see things going..and long term (I am talking 5-10 years) I would want to bet FF is much more affordable..possible even very affordable at that. Nothing at all wrong with cheap affordable primes, even could live with APS ones, but 50mm is not optimal for anything other than a FF body, so why bother making a DT APS only one?

[bakubo]

Really depends on where you see things going..and long term (I am talking 5-10 years) I would want to bet FF is much more affordable..possible even very affordable at that. Nothing at all wrong with cheap affordable primes, even could live with APS ones, but 50mm is not optimal for anything other than a FF body, so why bother making a DT APS only one?

This is not directed at you, just some of the people who I have seen state in various places that they will *never* buy an APS-C lens even though they are using APS-C cameras. Sure, long term we may see FF be the norm at reasonable prices, but why deprive yourself of a wide-angle lens (such as 11-18mm, 10-20mm, 10-24mm, etc.) or useful standard zoom (such as 17-50mm, 16-80mm, etc.) for a decade or more (going back to when these lenses first started to appear several years ago)? Spend a decade or more without the wide-angle lens just so many years later you don't have *one* lens that you don't find useful anymore when you finally get a FF body. That $400-500 spent on the lens that is used for a decade and then sold for $200 is never bought is some rather strange thinking, just in my opinion, of course.

[Javelin]

I'm kinda hoping that Sony's next generation of cameras has a 1000-$1500 full frame in it

This is not directed at you, just some of the people who I have seen state in various places that they will *never* buy an APS-C lens even though they are using APS-C cameras. Sure, long term we may see FF be the norm at reasonable prices, but why deprive yourself of a wide-angle lens (such as 11-18mm, 10-20mm, 10-24mm, etc.) or useful standard zoom (such at 17-50mm, 16-80mm, etc.) for a decade or more (going back to when these lenses first started to appear several years ago)? Spend a decade or more without the wide-angle lens just so many years later you don't have *one* lens that you don't find useful anymore when you finally get a FF body. That $400-500 spent on the lens that is used for a decade and then sold for $200 is never bought is some rather strange thinking, just in my opinion, of course.

[bfitzgerald]

2 points to make

1: What if a 1.25 or 1.3x crop factor were to turn up?, I surely wonder if they have much left as we have hit 15mp on APS now..

2: Still does not address the point that 50mm is 75mm on APS, so the DT APS only surely makes more sense for a 35mm giving a "normal" FOV lens. Sure I use my 50mm on APS, but it's a whole lot more use as a real 50mm on a full frame body. Why not follow Nikon?? I could at least understand the logic of that, even if I don't like the APS only aspect.

[Javelin]

actually I think for the APS cameras they should include a 35mm prime as a kit lens instead of a mediocre zoom. it would help a great deal with the wow factor especially on the entry cameras and would almost guarantee people would buy the zoom of their choice later on. most of the posts you see on DPR from new users negative because their first shot was a blurry cat photo. including the 35/F2 would certainly help that. and it would be even better if it was a sharp 35F1.7. that should not be an expensive lens to make for APSc.

[bakubo]

actually I think for the APS cameras they should include a 35mm prime as a kit lens instead of a mediocre zoom. it would help a great deal with the wow factor especially on the entry cameras and would almost guarantee people would buy the zoom of their choice later on. most of the posts you see on DPR from new users negative because their first shot was a blurry cat photo. including the 35/F2 would certainly help that. and it would be even better if it was a sharp 35F1.7. that should not be an expensive lens to make for APSc.

Agreed. My first SLR over 35 years ago came with a 55mm f1.8. If a 35mm f1.7 was not too pricey then I would like it for my A700.

[KevinBarrett]

actually I think for the APS cameras they should include a 35mm prime as a kit lens instead of a mediocre zoom. it would help a great deal with the wow factor especially on the entry cameras and would almost guarantee people would buy the zoom of their choice later on. most of the posts you see on DPR from new users negative because their first shot was a blurry cat photo. including the 35/F2 would certainly help that. and it would be even better if it was a sharp 35F1.7. that should not be an expensive lens to make for APSc.

I disagree--including a prime might only be suitable for a bundled kit. Today's entry-level DSLR consumers probably won't see the appeal of a non-zooming camera immediately, and sales would suffer dramatically. Sure, it would appeal to most of us here, who have an Alpha already and don't want a redundant 18-70 in our back-up A350 bundle, but we don't count. We'll buy the prime lens (if it's any good) separately anyway.

Also, don't expect to see a middle-ground crop factor of 1.2 or 1.3. Sony would need many times more market share than they have to support an extra model for it, and even the market leader Canon is likely to drop their APS-H format.

Bakubo, you have a good point with your post concerning the user who has an APS-C kit today and a FF kit maybe in 5 years.

[Javelin]

I disagree--including a prime might only be suitable for a bundled kit. Today's entry-level DSLR consumers probably won't see the appeal of a non-zooming camera immediately, and sales would suffer dramatically. Sure, it would appeal to most of us here, who have an Alpha already and don't want a redundant 18-70 in our back-up A350 bundle, but we don't count. We'll buy the prime lens (if it's any good) separately anyway.

Bakubo, you have a good point with your post concerning the user who has an APS-C kit today and a FF kit maybe in 5 years.

I think all it would take is to put in the advertising that the prime lens included with Sony DSLRs is sharper and faster than ANY other kit lens bundled today. that's all people would have on their mind when their shopping. I think marketing did a disservice to new users including crappy zooms with their cameras. The reason they included primes especially 50mm ones on film cameras is because they were cheaper and required less skill = happier customers. People already know they are going to want more lenses when they buy an SLR. I'm just afraid that the ones that took a chance on Sony, see soft results, and just wish they had bough Canon instead. on the other hand if their kid/cat pictures turn out sharper then their friends Nikon they may be more inclined to invest in more lenses instead of planing their next purchase around a canon body and they might even get the friend jealous too. Sony is not in the same boat as Canon and Nikon. I think they need to play by their own game rather than trying to compete on an even playing field. Especially since the playing field is owned by others and we already know it's not even. Think of the review sites and sample pics where they just test the kit lens. a little advertising to get word of mouth going, a few of these sloppy review sites reviewing in Sony's favour. and they would gain market share without having to buy it on price alone.

I don't see a downside. if people want the 18-70 Sony could sell it for $99.00 next to the $700.00 16-80 CZ then they will know the difference a cheap zoom and an expensive zoom. because they would compare future purchases to the prime. The A350 is a good example, the 35mm with the electronic zoom on the A350 would almost give them 35-150mm range as it is. just leverage that function vs including a sub par lens against the it doesn;t have a zoom argument. the economy looks better too. if the 35 can be made for about the same cost or less than the zoom. make the customer buy the cheap zoom if he wants. in Canon talk if he wants to buy a second lens at or near the time of purchase it's going to be a lot more expensive than the 18-70 kit lens because the next zoom up is $250.00. So a customer is going to look at Sony with the sharpest kit lens to begin with and another add on lens is only 99 bucks ..if he goes canon in the appropriate camera he's getting a less sharp system unless he spends another 250 bucks and I'll bet that 250.00 canon zoom still isn't as sharp as the 35mm prime (Canons 35mm F2 is also 250.00). even a carefully shopper comparing shots he took himself in the store would choose the Sony. Sony advertizing could also leverage the stabilized prime angle as well. their 35mm F2 is more like an F1 when stabilized.. It ties in to so much of the rest of the system and takes advantage of the competitions weaks points.

[KevinBarrett]

I think all it would take is to put in the advertising that the prime lens included with Sony DSLRs is sharper and faster than ANY other kit lens bundled today. that's all people would have on their mind when their shopping. I think marketing did a disservice to new users including crappy zooms with their cameras. The reason they included primes especially 50mm ones on film cameras is because they were cheaper and required less skill = happier customers. People already know they are going to want more lenses when they buy an SLR. I'm just afraid that the ones that took a chance on Sony, see soft results, and just wish they had bough Canon instead. on the other hand if their kid/cat pictures turn out sharper then their friends Nikon they may be more inclined to invest in more lenses instead of planing their next purchase around a canon body and they might even get the friend jealous too. Sony is not in the same boat as Canon and Nikon. I think they need to play by their own game rather than trying to compete on an even playing field. Especially since the playing field is owned by others and we already know it's not even. Think of the review sites and sample pics where they just test the kit lens. a little advertising to get word of mouth going, a few of these sloppy review sites reviewing in Sony's favour. and they would gain market share without having to buy it on price alone.

I don't see a downside. if people want the 18-70 Sony could sell it for $99.00 next to the $700.00 16-80 CZ then they will know the difference a cheap zoom and an expensive zoom. because they would compare future purchases to the prime. The A350 is a good example, the 35mm with the electronic zoom on the A350 would almost give them 35-150mm range as it is. just leverage that function vs including a sub par lens against the it doesn;t have a zoom argument. the economy looks better too. if the 35 can be made for about the same cost or less than the zoom. make the customer buy the cheap zoom if he wants. in Canon talk if he wants to buy a second lens at or near the time of purchase it's going to be a lot more expensive than the 18-70 kit lens because the next zoom up is $250.00. So a customer is going to look at Sony with the sharpest kit lens to begin with and another add on lens is only 99 bucks ..if he goes canon in the appropriate camera he's getting a less sharp system unless he spends another 250 bucks and I'll bet that 250.00 canon zoom still isn't as sharp as the 35mm prime (Canons 35mm F2 is also 250.00). even a carefully shopper comparing shots he took himself in the store would choose the Sony. Sony advertizing could also leverage the stabilized prime angle as well. their 35mm F2 is more like an F1 when stabilized.. It ties in to so much of the rest of the system and takes advantage of the competitions weaks points.

I would love to believe that this could work, but I think you drastically overestimate the buying public. They think in numbers and absolutes, and what most of them understand is cars. There, the rule is that what a car does well at 120mm it does even better at 60mph. In lens terms, the reasoning would go "More zoom = better lens," and it would lead them to believe that a 15x lens is better at 18mm than a 3x or 5x lens at the same. Please understand that we're talking about average people here, not you and me. In a previous job, I sold very good cell-phones to people who literally asked me "How much gig does it have?" These are the people who are buying a D-SLR to have a bigger and nicer-looking camera than their friends, and any system's camera sales depend on a frighteningly high number of them.

[bakubo]

These are the people who are buying a D-SLR to have a bigger and nicer-looking camera than their friends, and any system's camera sales depend on a frighteningly high number of them.

Sadly, I think you are probably right. Here is a true story. A few years ago I was at the annual shareholders meeting for a company I worked at many years ago. When I started there were only 20 employees (now several thousand all over the world) so everyone knew everyone very well. Anyway, at the meeting I got to talking with the CEO/founder and he asked me what kind of digital camera I was using. At the time I was using either the 6mp KM 7D or 6mp Canon DRebel/300D. He told me he had a much better camera because it was 8mp. It was an 8mp digicam with a tiny sensor. I didn't try to explain the differences between the tiny sensor and the much larger APS-C sensor. I just let him continue to think that going for the highest mp even in a digicam was all he needed to know. By the way, this person is *very* intelligent, the CEO/founder of a very successful high-tech company that he has run for 32 years, he has a PhD in electrical engineering, is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, before starting this company he ran a research lab at a major university, etc. He is very high-tech savvy, but digital cameras are not one of the things he knows much about. He is not a photographer, just a typical snapshooter and goes for the high numbers.

[Javelin]

But do you think that guy would spend double the money on a DSLR without knowing a little bit of why he wants it even if it's mis information. I don't see any of the current camera companies using the kitlens as a selling point at all. Thats a void where Sony could intoduce some dialog or plant the thought at least that the lens makes a diference. I think all the camera compnmaies are expecting the customer to know too much as it is. they are not spelling out enough of what selling points are doing for you as it is. Sony included.

[bakubo]

But do you think that guy would spend double the money on a DSLR without knowing a little bit of why he wants it even if it's mis information.

I don't know, but spending a few thousand on a DSLR and lenses for him would be about like most of us buying a cup of coffee or a diet coke.

By the way, in about 1998 when Microsoft was flying high and Bill Gates was worth about $100b I was talking with my co-worker. I told her that Bill Gates could spend a $1m with about as much thought as we would spend $0.65 for a diet coke in the machine down the hall. Not saying he would so cavalierly spend $1m. Just saying that blowing $1m for him was not much different than for us to spend $0.65. Neither of us spent much time agonizing over whether to go buy a diet coke if we wanted one.

[Javelin]

Maybe. Cameras can be just a tool because everyone else has one. but I think SLR's in particulare are being bought up by the soccer moms I see standing in ankle deep water in a ditch to get a shot of the wildflower at the side of the road with their point and shoot (I see them everyday when the weather is good), they don't seem like people that would drop 1k on a decent meal without thinking twice about it... my neighbor went canon then olympus in about 2 months time because all his canon shots were blurry the oly not so much so he's happy but jealous of some of my prints too. It would be interesting to see the research as to who it is exactly thats buing DLSR's nowadays. My take is that it's not people who just want a camera but people who want photography