Upload & Sell: On
| p.1 #14 · Sigma 19mm f2.8 on NEX - Initial impressions |
If you love ~60mm equiv (e.g. 57/1.2 Hexanon, 58/1.2 Rokkor, 60/2.8 Elmarit-R), then 30mm on m/4/3 is neither odd nor useless.
True enough, but there is a bit of difference in what you can achieve with a 57mm f1.2 Hexanon or 58mm f1.2 Rokkor vs a 60mm equiv f2.8 on a m4/3 body.
Certainly far from useless of course, but perhaps not really all that exciting either.
I think offerings like the 25mm f1.4 or the 45mm f1.8 will appeal to far more buyers overall. While the Sigma 30 does have the advantage in price, I think that most who would care enough to want something other than the kit zooms in the first place would be willing to spend the money for the faster options.
Even at "just" $400 for the m4/3 mount, how many people really would say to themselves "what I'd really love is a 38mm and 60mm equiv prime, and I don't want it to be any faster than f2.8" ??
All excellent points but I deliberately included the 60/2.8 Elmarit-R in my group of ~60mm equivalent lenses because I was responding primarily to Jman13ís assertion that "30mm is just in no-mans land on m4/3" and to his reply to deadwolfbones' pointing out the popularity of the Pentax DA 40 2.8 Limited (60mm equiv):
I guess for me, it doesn't make a bunch of sense considering the outstanding 25mm f/1.4 available (though for quite a bit more $$). I've never been a fan of 60mm, but that's a personal thing. Also, the f/2.8 aperture is a bit slow for a normalish prime. Odd, since I love 50mm equiv.
I've never been a fan of 50mm and I love 60mm equiv. But, as Jman13 says, that's a personal thing.
I really detest, however, what I've come to regard as "the tyranny of the 50mm EFoV", a slavish and unimaginative adherence to the 50mm equiv as representing some ideal of "normality". The main consequence of this mode of thinking/looking is that the 40mm equiv and 60mm equiv focal lengths are then regarded as abnormal. To be fair to Jman13, it's clear that he doesn't believe this, given that he refers to the Panasonic 20/1.7 (40mm equiv on m4/3) as "outstanding", but it's an attitude that you see over and over again in various forum posts.
Upon what is this worship of the 50mm equiv based? The mythical belief that the perspective of the 50mm equiv lens matches the field-of-view of the human eye? The deification of Henri Cartier-Bresson as someone who captured his "decisive moments" using "only a 50mm lens"?
There's nothing magical about the 50mm equiv. At the time the first Leica was introduced, a 50mm lens for the new format was easier to design and less expensive to manufacture than a 40mm. Had that not been the case, the 40mm might have become the standard and people now would be complaining that "25mm is just in no-mans land on m4/3".
Interestingly, many of the popular fixed-lens rangefinder cameras manufactured in Japan during the sixties and seventies had 38mm, 40mm, or 42mm lenses. And, happily, Mr Kobayashi at Cosina Voigtlander is a fan of "abnormal" focal lengths, such as 40mm and 58mm. (The CV 58/1.4 is an excellent lens. Having used it on a Nikon D700, if it was available in Canon mount I'd buy one in an instant.)
Thanks for letting me get all that off my chest.