There's something that's been troubling me a bit recently, and I want to get it off my chest. It's an irritation about the photographic equipment available today, and its fitness for the purpose for which it's most likely to be used. It has germinated over the course of testing an array of 50mm prime lenses, developed further with the recent arrival at the dpreview offices of an array of new fast primes, and finally crystallized with the relative lack of interesting new products and ideas at PMA. And it's this; most manufacturers seem be be thinking very conservatively, treating digital as though nothing's changed from the days of 35mm film, and simply aren't making the right lenses for photographers today.
My line of reasoning goes like this. Through the long history of photography, there's always been one constant; the most popular subject is people. The hardware, materials and techniques may have changed beyond all recognition, especially in the past decade, but when all is said and done our lenses are overwhelmingly trained on our family, friends and loved ones. And possibly the biggest advance over those ten years is the ability of the latest breed of DSLRS to operate effectively in low light, with such remarkable high ISO capabilities that it's now perfectly feasible to shoot indoors without the potentially ruinous effects of flash. This is in marked contrast to the days of film, as anyone who shot even ISO 800 colour negatives will attest; we can now use ISO 1600 or 3200 as a matter of course and achieve previously undreamed-of quality (remember Ilford Delta 3200 anyone?). Just throw on a fast prime, and Bob's your uncle.
The problem is though, which fast prime? The new age of the DSLR has certainly seen a resurgence in popularity of 50mm lenses, mainly because they are relatively cheap and gather lots of light. And the manufacturers appear to have cottoned on to this, with a new breed of 'fast fifties' appearing recently from Sigma, Nikon and Pentax (likewise Sony has been showing a 50mm F1.8 DT ‘concept lens’ at PMA).
But really, why 50mm? On an APS-C imager, that's equivalent to around 75mm-80mm in full frame terms. Problem is that this is a strange focal length, too long to be considered ‘normal’ yet just a bit too short for portraits (few manufacturers ever made a 75mm prime for film). The portrait range has classically been considered as being between 85mm and 135mm for comfortable 'head and shoulders' shots; personally in my book, 100mm counts as 'about right'. So it seems to me that manufacturers may be misinterpreting the appeal of those 50mm lenses; they’re popular just because they are fast and cheap, not particularly because of their focal length.
![]() |
With a classic portrait lens you can shoot indoors in low light, and blur the background to oblivion |
It’s not just the focal length that’s a problem, though, there's another issue with those 50mm primes, and that's the much-misunderstood concept of 'bokeh'. Now contrary to popular belief, a mere ability to blur the background is not enough; the concept of ‘bokeh’ refers to the aesthetic quality of that blur, which ideally needs to be smooth and attractive, not harsh and fussy as rendered by many 50mm lenses (a by-product of the traditional design goal of the 'standard' lens for maximum sharpness). True portrait lenses need a different optimisation, for attractive imaging at large apertures that balances sharpness against bokeh. And quite simply they need a large physical aperture, to achieve both that background blur and proper selective focus; 60mm F2.8 macro lenses don’t quite cut it I'm afraid.
Now the longer end of the portrait range can still be served quite reasonably on APS-C by 85mm lenses designed for full-frame, and at the lower end the Pentax DA* 55mm F1.4 looks like a step in the right direction. The problem is though that there's nothing much in the middle, in that 'just right' 65-70mm region. The only really convincing offering comes from Pentax (the one company, I think, that really understands primes right now, as evidenced by the new 15mm F4 ED AL), in the shape of the 70mm F2.4 AL Limited, although its compact design results in arguably too much compromise over speed.
So what I'd like to see is the other manufacturers join in on the act, and produce a new breed of 70mm lenses optimized for shooting portraits on APS-C. These could perhaps come in two flavors, a ‘cheap and cheerful’ F2 and higher-end F1.4. No need for the manufacturers to obsess over pure sharpness or minimal vignetting wide open; let's just have something small, light and discreet to work in harmony with the new capabilities of our DSLRs.
So Sony, if you're listening; scrap that 50mm F1.8 DT, it's just 'old think' and a hangover from the days of the film. If you're really serious about making an APS-C prime, start afresh and offer something more suited to the digital era. The world will be a better place.


Or just go full-frame and be happy ;)
I love the Canon 100 f/2 on full frame; fast, sharp, great bokeh, and cheap too!
I assume there is something inherent to optical design that make 50mm the cheapest to make fast. Compare the prices of 50 f1.4s with those of 85, 35 and 24 f1.4s and there is a remarkable difference.
Posted by: brett maxwell | 5 Mar 2009 17:21:43
Good article! It's floating in the air(read that "forums") for some time now. It was time someone gathered all the complaints.
PS: How about the 40mm F2.8 from Pentax? Not exactly there but much closer than the others.
Posted by: Cristian Bohanita | 5 Mar 2009 17:37:24
Good post. Its not a coincidence that Pentax is the company doing primes well. They do zooms well too. They are able to do this because they decided to standardize on the APS format. Canon, Nikon and Sony are trying to cater to two different formats, hence cannot build a complete, coherent range for both. The other single format brand is Olympus, I am surprised you did not mention the ZD 50mm f2. Of course it is not a dedicated portrait lens, a 50mm f1.4 would be a much better solution.
Posted by: beuler | 5 Mar 2009 18:20:15
Thanks Andy ! A few of this have been saying this on Sony SLR Talk and getting accused of being "anti-APS-C". Silly as I shoot APS-C. I bought a 50/1.4 before getting an APS-C DSLR in anticipation of using it as a portrait lens. Turns out I loved it on film and hated it on APS-C. It was always too short or too long. If Sony wanted to do an APS-C only short tele, it should have been 60 or 70mm. The 50/1.7s are only popular because they're cheap, fast, and nothing else is available. Then there's the 30/2.8 macro ... why not a 30/2 or 30/1.8 ?
Posted by: Dennis | 5 Mar 2009 18:33:47
85mm-e is my favorite focal length for portraits. I've shot at 100mm-e and 135mm-e, and I found the 100's were better for headshots, but worse for everything else, and 135's require more distance to shoot than I like. This is all shooting indoors.
On full frame I used the Canon 85/1.8, which was outstanding, unless you happened upon a busy background, which it doesn't do a good job of smoothing out. Interestingly, my Tamron 28-75 did a better job with backgrounds, and I used it constantly when paired with bounce or off-shoe flash.
On APS-C I use my Sigma 50/1.4. This is exactly the lens you are calling for.
As a fast 50 it's good; it's sharp even at wide apertures. Its AF is fast and silent. Its build quality is excellent. Its only downsides are its big-for-a-50 size, a tendency to show purple/green defocus fringing on highlight edges in front of or behind the point of focus (similar to Canon's 85/1.2), and some reports of copies with front focus problems.
But if you judge this lens as a portrait lens, it REALLY shines. The lens is essentially an APS-C version of the famed Canon 85/1.2. Even busy backgrounds fade into a silky smooth blur, and the transitional areas of focus have a gradual softening that doesn't call attention.
I bought the Sigma 50/1.4 purely to shoot portraits. I've been very happy with it for that task; it's an excellent portrait lens. As a bonus, it's a pretty good general-purpose 50, too, despite its bulk and the occasional appearance of purple/green defocus fringing. The lens has a certain look, and that signature is very appealing to me.
Posted by: Chris K | 5 Mar 2009 18:42:56
Andy... I have to say that there's another lens in the Pentax line that is better for the task you are needing. That would be the FA 77 1.8 limited.
I know... it's a film design... but it's still one of the best lenses ever made.
Posted by: alanschamber | 5 Mar 2009 19:10:37
Good points. Look at the 50mm Zuiko Olympus 2.0 for a fast portait lens. dpreview even reviewed the lens.
Posted by: Valentin | 5 Mar 2009 19:12:21
Check out the Pentax 70mm f/2.4 DA Limited lens. Fantastic for portraits. Longer than the 50 but shorter than the 85. Not super fast ("only" f/2.4") though but I'm happy with it so far. Fantastic optics, superb sharpness wide open.
Posted by: Diego | 5 Mar 2009 19:53:46
Don't be so quick to write off the FA 43mm F1.9 Limited either. Beautiful lens, even more beautiful shots.
Posted by: Jeff | 5 Mar 2009 22:55:31
This is just a little funny... it seems like a Pentax advertising: "If you want to go APS-C... there is no one better than Pentax... as we are the only ones that can give you the lenses you need" LOL.
But... the truth is that there is something there: anyone else have focused in that market, no matter how big it is. It's the biggest of DSRL... and we still cannot find an ultra wide angle prime(where is a 10mm??? 11??? 12???), where is the fast portrait lens? Where are the standard zooms that are designed thinking about the users??? (I mean... the big two, doesn't offer a fast starting at 24mm equivalent zoom). Hope this article makes one of two: realize the brands that they need to think a little more about the customer, and make people realize that if they are not going to buy a FF camera anytime soon... why should just stick with the brands that has that, when their offerings are not as good as others???
Alan.
Posted by: alanschamber | 5 Mar 2009 23:20:12
Canon's 24-70 does make for a great APS-C portrait lens on the long side (though you could ask for a little more Bokeh than 2.8 gives).
Posted by: Michael | 6 Mar 2009 00:34:51
The Sigma 50mm 1.4 seems a promising development for 4/3.
Jan
Posted by: Jan Chelminski | 6 Mar 2009 00:41:08
Michael... we are talking about portraits dedicated lenses. You can also use the Sigma 18-250 if you want... but it's not a special designed lens, as are Pentax Limited lenses, or the DA*55 1.4... or the Canon EF 85 1.2 for FF.
Those are lenses designed specially for portraits, as the DA 35 macro is specialized in macros... as well as the Nikon and Sigma 105 2.8.
And no... it's not the same.
Posted by: alanschamber | 6 Mar 2009 01:16:50
I agree with the comment above about the Pentax FA 77mm f/1.8. this lens was designed specifically for portraits and is in the range needed. A fabulous lens that serves other purposes as well.
I also like the Pentax DA*50-135 f/2.8 as a portrait lens.
Posted by: Lawson Stone | 6 Mar 2009 02:05:51
What about the Cosina Nokton 58mm f/1.4?
Posted by: sfoo | 6 Mar 2009 04:25:55
I was worried about the exact same thing - until I mounted the Nikon 50/1.4 (not the new one) on my d90 (1.5x) and fell in love. While 75 is a bit wide for portraiture, it takes wonderful shots and lets me shoot in smaller spaces. All in all, I'm MUCH more impressed than I expected and I also love the size of the lens - very manageable.
Posted by: Steve Berley | 6 Mar 2009 05:24:53
I have the FA77 limited and it is my favorite portrait lens. As a matter of fact when it's the appropriate length, it's my favorite lens to shoot with.
Posted by: Larry | 6 Mar 2009 07:11:59
Quite agree. I'd love a Nikkor 70mm f1.8 DC for DX. Sadly, I think it's a dream and won't ever happen.
Posted by: Tom | 6 Mar 2009 08:18:53
Couldn't agree more. The (older) 77mm by Pentax almost had me switching a while beack and it's something I'd still really like to have. My next purchase will probably be the Sigma 50mm. From what I have seen it has the essential mix of sharpness and gorgeous bokeh that a portrait lens needs- that my 50mm Nikon can't do so well at ('look at my hexagon highlights').
Sure, it is a little short and in size a little big, but APS-C has been a world of compromises for me for a while now. Certainly, f/2.8 lenses are inadequate for any serious portraiture, clever uses of them notwithstanding.
Also, I think the 70mm DX Nikon will come some day, just as the 35mm did. Not only for current users, but because APS-C offers a world of smaller lenses that won't lose it's relevance as time goes on.
Posted by: Gideon Davidson | 6 Mar 2009 12:19:37
Hey, I *like* Ilford Delta 3200.
(But I also have the DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited being shipped to me right now.)
Posted by: Matthew Miller | 6 Mar 2009 12:56:53
For me the biggest problem with Nikon and Canon prime lenses is that none are available with image stabilizer. This is very annoying because it often forces me to either accept the risk of camera shake ruinining my picture or accept a suboptimal aperture or ISO setting.
I am not buying any more primes beyond my cheap Canon 50 1.8 until I can get them with image stabilizer either in the lens or the camera body.
Posted by: Andreas Helke | 6 Mar 2009 14:20:17
Andy, appreciate the favorable comments regarding Pentax and their understanding of primes. I was surprised that you mentioned the Pentax DA 70mm lenses but didn't mention the FA 77mm, f/1.8 lens. This lens incorporates the characteriistics that you find desirable in your article, a fast lens, right focal length and one that produces smooth and beautiful bokeh (better than the 70mm for portraits). I thought that I would mention this gem for those who are looking for what you described and are not familiar with Pentax. Regards, Jim
Posted by: Jim | 6 Mar 2009 14:20:20
Andy is right.
I use the 85/1.8 on my Canon but it would be more convenient for people shots if it were a little shorter.
The Canon 50mm options are a bit too short and have a poor reputation for AF consistency.
The Sigma 50/1.4 has super boke, but again a bit short, and a shame it's so big.
Oly could use a 50/1.4 with fast AF.
Posted by: Ehrik | 6 Mar 2009 15:32:09
Thanks all for your comments and suggestions for appropriate lenses. Here's a few more thoughts:
Olympus ZD 50/2 macro - spectacular lens, just a bit slow for portraits; it's not great for selective focus or subject isolation.
Sigma 50/1.4 - well of course I rate this lens very highly, but it was while reviewing it that I really started thinking that something just a little longer would be so much better on APS-C. Should be good on Four Thirds though.
Pentax 43mm/1.9 - ironically represents a second point - 50mm isn't really right as a 'standard' lens on full frame either. By the 'frame diagonal' convention, 43mm is ideal, which is why Pentax made this apparently eccentric lens in the first place. But in that regard, it's now effectively orphaned on Pentax's APS-C bodies.
Pentax 77/1.8 - I guess mentally I group this with the FF 85mm primes - it's a bit longer than the 100mm equivalent I'd like. But yes, it deserves an honourable mention, as one of the best of breed on APS-C.
Finally - Canon 100/2 on full frame - lovely lens, bizarrely underrated.
Posted by: Andy Westlake | 6 Mar 2009 15:52:46
I read what you said about using a 60mm f/2.8 Macro. However, the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 Macro is a fabulous portrait lens wide open with wonderful bokeh. And once you do stop down, this lens will provide super sharp imaging in a variety of settings. Highly recommended!
Posted by: Chris | 6 Mar 2009 15:59:48
One should also consider what kind of portraiture they are using the lens for. The DA 70mm F2.4 you mention is too sharp for older folks (really) but it is awesome for kids: compact, non-conspicuous, fast autofocus, sharp with great bokeh rendering. Always handy in my bag.
Posted by: BokehLover | 6 Mar 2009 16:03:50
Using a FF lens on a crop body doesn't mean you can just do the math and compare. It's a crop, not an equivalent. The DOF is different, among other things.
For 15 years and still today, on a FF body my favorite portrait lens is the 85 f/1.8.
Posted by: David | 6 Mar 2009 16:16:22
Interesting... I actually use all my primes 24L,35L,50L,85L for portraits on my Canon APS-C camera, and love the effect each one has. Some wide-angle, some very flat field of view, but all suitable for portraits. I'm surprised you're bothered by 50mm=~80mm not being close enough.
Posted by: GM | 6 Mar 2009 16:33:31
Excellent post, Phil. Thanks especially for bringing up bokeh, which is often pretty harsh on the cheap 50mm primes. I hope lens makers will heed your suggestion.
Posted by: Daniel Browning | 6 Mar 2009 16:43:00
For APS-C potraits I like my 1.4/50mm very much. It's an old Minolta design, lots of detail wide open, but very low contrast; ideal for portraits. Stopping down a little bit (f1.7 or f2) increases contrast a lot - which means I can choose between "softer" and "crisper" portraits very easily. Even though I first thought this combination would be "too short", I quickly started to love it: Due to the close distance there is much more interaction with the person to be portraited, and I hardly use my 1.4/85mm on APS-C. On FF alpha 900 I really like the small, incredibly sharp Minolta 2/100mm, usually wide open. However I support Andy's statements; I'd bet a re-badged AF version of the 30y old Minolta 1.2/58mm would be "the" Portrait lens for APS-C ...
Stephan
Posted by: Stephan Kölliker | 6 Mar 2009 17:09:47
My Panasonic-Lumix G1 with a Cosina-Voigtländer 50mm f/1.5 Nokton - 35mm equivalent of 100mm; perfectly focussable in any light, is the best combination I've had to date for portraits.
Posted by: m3 | 6 Mar 2009 17:14:29
Hi Andy
Thank you for this little dissertation on how primes are developing nowadays.
Nevertheless, I have to say something about the orphaned and infamous FA 43. Do not buy this lens for its sharpness. [I actually think that it is right now at apsc where it shines, as it is translated into 65mm, which is a spectacular length for cropping, and works very well for head and shoulders portraiture and street portraiture]. This lens has a mission, and it is extreme flare resistance. I think that this lens is the digital master for street shooting, as flare and LCA are the worst enemies of digital sensors.
Posted by: Iñaki | 6 Mar 2009 17:26:38
I'd second the recommendation for the Pentax 50-135 (f2.8) for portraints. It's insanely versatile and has lovely bokeh. Only problem is, it's really big and heavy, not a walking-around lens.
Posted by: Tim | 6 Mar 2009 17:35:54
Shooting with Leica M and Nikon film camera gear, the Leica Summilux-M 75mm f/1.4 and Nikkor 85mm f/2 AI-S were my two favorite portrait lenses.
Using the Pentax DSLRs with their 16x24mm sensor, the Pentax FA43/1.9 Limited replaces them and does a brilliant job.
In FourThirds equipment, what I'm using mostly now, there's no direct substitution. The Olympus 35 Macro is pretty close although slow. With the Panasonic G1 I can use a mount adapter and use a Voigtländer Nokton 40mm f/1.4 or Leica Summicron-C 40mm f/2. These lenses have excellent bokeh overall, but it would be nice to have a full FourThirds (or micro-FourThirds) spec, fast 35-40mm lens.
Similarly, fast primes with comparable field of view and rendering qualities to the 135mm telephoto standard on 35mm film format are few and far between. I can bodge together something that works using mount adapters and teleconverters but the result is overly large, heavy and lack the quality of a premium fast prime.
These are my most desired lenses now. I do 90%+ of my work with prime lenses in the range from traditional wide to short portrait tele. I want speed and excellent rendering qualities. Someone should get on it...
Godfrey
Posted by: Godfrey DiGiorgi | 6 Mar 2009 21:49:58
Why do you think a 60mm f/2,8 Macro doesn´t cut it?
Posted by: Andre Oliveira | 6 Mar 2009 22:08:25
Thank you Andy for this comment. Since I sold my analog Minolta gear I miss the 85mm/1.4 and there is nothing like on the market or even the horizon for my digital gear (Canon 50D, Olympus E-3).
Posted by: H.P. Bertschinger | 6 Mar 2009 22:20:36
It depends what you call a portrait ofcourse.
Arguably the best portraits can be taken with a 50mm lens full frame, with that focal length you can tell more of a story about somebody then by just shooting a headshot and blurring the background.
That's what I would call a portrait, a photo that tells a story.
Posted by: Jan | 6 Mar 2009 23:42:18
The timing of this article is perfect for me as I am planning to buy my first DSLR to use for portraits.
Bodies I like that are within my reach are used Fuji S5 Pro or Canon 40D. But choosing a lens is a real pain, just as Andy suggests.
I am revealing possibly very stupid beginner ideas here, but what about using a front end 2x tele-converter on a 50 mm prime? Being attached to the front of the lens, there is no stepping down of aperture. Can it work?
I bought generic, non specific, front end wide and tele converters for my Panasonic megazoom FZ50. The wide converter was sharp, big on barrel distortion but nonetheless very useful. The teleconverter was useless as it did not seem to match the characteristics of the FZ50 lens it was attached to; however, it seems to work well on a 50 mm Nikon prime on a film body. I shot some test photos but not yet developed them. The view through the viewfnder on my FE2 looks completely fine, sharp and distortion free.
I don't see any such front end converters offered by Canon or Nikon. Presumably they make more money by making us buy all kinds of expensive lenses for our various needs. Are there any third party converters available?
Posted by: Max Cottrell | 7 Mar 2009 04:15:02
Funny this should come up just now, as the latest addition to my lens collection is the 75mm F2.5 Voigtlander Color-Heliar SL (AI-S).
I agree totally about the 50mm primes generally having poor bokeh and therefore unsuited for shallow DOF work. The Voigtlander is a fair bit better and at about 105mm effective on APS-C quite well suited for people shots. Pity it is discontinued.
Posted by: Richard Murdey | 7 Mar 2009 12:05:58
Well said - 50mm is just too short unless you want your subject to look like a horse. The Nikkor 85/1.4 is a fantastic portrait lens.
Posted by: Jeremy | 7 Mar 2009 16:32:57
As mentioned in another comment the Cosina Nokton 58mm 1.4 (or the Voigtländer branded one) is and excellent portrait lens on APS sensors. Photozone tested it. Fits Nikon and Pentax and with and adapter Canon.
The Sigma 70mm 2.8 Macro is already mentioned. Possibly too sharp but with a good bokeh. Photozone and Colorfoto tested.
There are the older Takumar and Tomioka, Fuji, etc 58, 55mm, 1.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8 with the 42mm screw mount that fit many mounts with adapters. There are the Minolta MD conversions to AF (Sony Alpha) especially the 58mm 1.2 that can also get a conversion to EOS mount. There are Biotar 75mm 1.5 M42 screw lenses and with other mounts. The Contax 60mm 2.8 for EOS mount.
Not all with AE and AF but usable for APS sensor portraiture.
Ernst Dinkla
Posted by: Ernst Dinkla | 7 Mar 2009 18:54:51
I love my Canon 135 f/2 USM L, the perfect portrait lens.
Posted by: Tom Sugnet | 7 Mar 2009 21:44:10
The main reason why all camera brands need a cheap 50mm lens is unfortunately that less insightful reviewers, both amateur and pro ones, use the focal length to measure the cost of an entry-level system.
After all, the second lens that all newbies buy is that cheap 50mm prime, right?
Posted by: William S | 7 Mar 2009 22:57:06
Great article, really. I'm just thiking on something like 75 for portrait work on my 1D Mark IIn (currently this is my only digital body, so I use it for everything, not only reportage). Though it's not APS-C sized and I'm bound to "fair EF" full-frame designs only, when it comes to Canon range, I don't hesitate mounting non-EF lenses via adapters. Manual focus in portraits doesn't scare me, being electronically confirmed with tweak chips, especially in pre-set-up conditions, like studio or location portraits.
I really love Sigma 50/1.4 (much kudos to its designers for the Real Job; Sigma primes and non-standard solutions are generally much less inferior than consumer-grade dark zooms and hyper-zooms), using it as a general on-camera lens - though it's a bit narrow for "normal prime" and a bit wide for portraits, considering the sensor size of my camera.
Nevertheless, I point my attention to CosinaVoigtlaender Color Heliar 75/2.5 (not to often beast here in Moscow, Russia, if you don't pursue it specially) or older 75...80 mm lenses from 645 medium format cameras. SMC 75/2.8 from Pentax 645 MF body seems quite a solution, Mamiya 80/1.9 might also hit the spot right (with something like 105mm FOV on APS-H).
Also, Sigma 70/2.8 Macro MIGHT be good in some situations, despite I consider macro lens is NOT good for portraits because of excessive sharpness, which is a nuisance unless you shoot someone with really smooth skin, layered with a hi-class cosmetics by a specialist.
Anyway, time will tell. And until time and manufacturers keep silent, I (and some of my friends) will continue using old MF Olympus OM Zuiko lenses on our Canon bodies... really present-day Olympus has something to learn from Yoshihisa Maitani in terms of lens qualities.
Posted by: Ignat "Dyor" Solovey | 8 Mar 2009 01:55:19
Thanks Andy for your thoughts on the most common use of our expensive toys I've just purchased the Olympus f/2 50mm, mainly for the relaxed, non intrusive family family photos and find it gives great results. Helps reduce the need to stretch the ISO capabilities on the E520. Thanks also for your test of the lens, it gave me the excuse I needed.
Posted by: Neil Sinclair | 8 Mar 2009 04:15:54
The first question is —Why do all DSLRs look like old film cameras? The manufacturers had all the chances to do something much smarter an easier to hold and use.
My favourite 35 mm focus lengths in the film days were:
21 real WA but not absurd.
28 normal lens for my way of seeing things.
35 conservative normal.
85 best portrait lens for kids, will not flatten out their faces as longer lenses tend to do.
24, 50, 55, 135 were useless to me. And for Nikon DX — just divide by 1.5.
And come to think of it — I love tiltable "live view" screens. For people shots, you can keep the face to face contact, and not fool around lika a mechanical elephant. Also, you'll shot from an lower angle which is more flattering to most people and makes them more comfortable in the shooting moment. So where's my 14-60/2.0 attached to a 4 x 5 inch screen and a vertical handle with built-in monopod?
Posted by: Jan Andersson | 8 Mar 2009 04:56:58
Andy, you make a good point. It's interesting that crop-sensor cameras make up the majority of the market, and yet they haven't figured out a better solution for optics on those cameras.
They already make digital-only versions of lenses which will not work on full-frame bodies, so why not make the equivalent versions of the most popular focal lengths (20, 35, 50, 100, 200, etc...)?
I mean, not that I care all that much, as a full-frame user. But I totally agree with you, Andy.
Posted by: Kurtis Kronk | 8 Mar 2009 06:42:36
Even though both Canon and Nikon have a FF line up, the DX format account for the most of the sale.
Therefore they need to make more dedicated DX lenses for the masses!
I love my 105/2 DC, but I'll not hesitate to buy an 70 mm equivalent of the lens, all though it doesn't need the DC feature - just the optical design!
Posted by: Kåre | 8 Mar 2009 10:43:59
I completely agree. It may be heretical, but I've had good luck using a fast 50 with good 1.5X teleconverters for a fast 75.
An on-front Nikon TC-15ED causes little light loss, and a behind-lens 1.5X costs about one stop.
Posted by: Iowa Dave | 8 Mar 2009 14:48:47
I'm not sure what to believe - This webpage disagrees:
http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/5710/the-50mm-f14-lens-photographys-magic-bullet.html
(summary: the 50 does a wonderful job of portraits on the digital format)
Posted by: Thomas | 8 Mar 2009 18:47:03