Discuss: Best General Use Focal Length for APS-C: 50-60 or 30-35?

[Poki]

Don't trust DxO lens ratings. Just saying.

As for which lens to get, well, you now know what's available and what we prefer. Now you just have to find the best compromise for you.

 

[Amamba]

You are right there. Bringing in ratings of particular lenses sort of strays from the initial concept of this thread, i.e., what focal lengths - or fields of view - do we all prefer for general all-around use. And I recognize that that determination is very much a function of personal taste and the photographic situations we find ourselves in most often or that we seek out.

It has been almost a year now for me with the E-mount system through my humble a3000, and I still don't have a sense for my own preferred style or field of view. It's a personal problem of focus... in EVERY sense of that word.

Sent from TalkEmount app on iPad

It all depends on what you like to photograph, really, it's all about choosing a tool for the job.

 

[Hawkman]

I thought I'd remix the list of lenses I posted earlier, this time sorted by focal length - first the primes, then the zooms.
This way you can better see what the selection is in various focal length ranges - the "focus" of this thread anyhow - including the array of 30-35mm options in bold.
It is also interesting to note that there is a total lack of primes above 60mm. Hopefully this is something Sony rectifies soon, like for Photokina maybe (though I would expect most Sony lenses going forward to be FEs).

• Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8 (Black), $999
• Sony E 16mm f/2.8 (Silver), $249
• Sigma 19mm f/2.8 DN Art (Silver/Black), $169
• Sony E 20mm f/2.8 (Black), $349
• Sony E 24mm f/1.8 CZ Sonnar (Black), $999
• Sigma 30mm f/2.8 DN Art (Silver/Black), $169
• Sony E 30mm f/3.5 Macro (Silver), $254
• Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 (Black), $720
• Sony E 35mm f/1.8 OSS (Black), $449
• Sony FE 35mm f/2.8 Sonnar T* ZA (Black), $799
• Sony E 50mm f/1.8 OSS (Silver/Black), $249
• Zeiss Touit 50mm f/2.8 Macro (Black), $999
• Sony FE 55mm f/1.8 Sonnar T* ZA (Black), $999
• Sigma 60mm f/2.8 DN Art (Silver/Black), $209

• Sony E 10-18mm f/4 OSS Zoom (Black), $749
• Sony E 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS Power Zoom (Black), $299
• Sony E 16-70mm f/4 Vario-Tessar T* ZA OSS Zoom (Black), $999
• Sony E 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS Zoom (Silver), $299
• Sony E 18-105mm f/4 G OSS Power Zoom (Black), $599
• Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Di III VC Zoom (Black/Silver), $739
• Sony E 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 OSS Zoom LE(Black), $748
• Sony E 18-200mm f/4.5-6.3 OSS Zoom (Silver), $899
• Sony E 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 OSS Power Zoom (Black), $1198
• Sony FE 24-70mm f/4 Vario-Tessar T* ZA OSS Zoom (Black), $1198
• Sony FE 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS Zoom (Black), $499
• Sony E 55-210mm f/4.5-6.3 OSS Zoom (Silver/Black), $349
• Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS Zoom (White), $1499

 

[chrid]

I cant say enough good things about the sel 35 1.8, I do like the sel 50 1.8 but I could live without it, not so with the 35, its my go to lens for low light as adapted lens can struggle with peaking not being as effective when light is minimal. The lens is dear, its the most expensive piece of camera gear ive bought besides the nex-6 kit I have, but its probably overall my most used lens. Good luck with the decision ;D

 

[Hawkman]

Okay, I thought I'd do a little impromptu field-of-view test using the 18-55 kit zoom. Went into the largest room in our house, backed into a far corner and shot pictures at the marked focal lengths on the barrel, 18, 24, 28, 35, 55, plus one at what I guessed would be about 50 (turned out to be 49). While I shifted the center on the last two, the general idea holds through.

Not very interesting stuff, and please excuse the morning mess...

At 18

   ---            

At 24

   ---            

At 28

   ---            

At 35

   ---            

At 49

   ---            

And at 55

   ---            

So, which view do I like the best? Yep, it's the 35, followed closely by the 28.

Incidentally though, last night I also went through the batch of shots I took with the 18-55 at a recent large family & friend event in low light at a restaurant (large room for lots of people) to see which focal lengths we used the most. While I would have guessed 18 or 55 as I believe I have the amateur's tendency to zoom all the way out or all the way in, surprisingly I set the camera at 24 the most, followed by 35. (Note: That was the event in which the 18-55 failed miserably in low light and spurred my interest in this topic.)

Of the above shots, which do you all find has the most amenable field of view? (Trying to further the general discussion here )


Sent from TalkEmount app on iPad

 

[Amamba]

Great comparison.

Note how close 35 seems to 50. While I like the FOV of 35, it would be too narrow for many landscape or cityscape shots. To each their own, for me 28mm seems like the best compromise between portraits and landscapes. Any wider and your head & shoulder portraits start looking like camels, any longer and you need to back up all the way to the Canada border to get a good cityscape.

Last year, while in Chicago, the AF on my F3 died and the only MF lens I had with me was Minolta MD 50/1.7. I got many great 'scrapes but missed a whole lot more. I am honestly surprised Sony chose 35mm for their flagship prime (at that time), 28mm would be so much more useful and also better fitting between 20mm pancake and 50/1.8. Wonder if it was simply easier to get better IQ with least effort in a longer FL ?

 

[Hawkman]

Great comparison.

Note how close 35 seems to 50. While I like the FOV of 35, it would be too narrow for many landscape or cityscape shots. To each their own, for me 28mm seems like the best compromise between portraits and landscapes. Any wider and your head & shoulder portraits start looking like camels, any longer and you need to back up all the way to the Canada border to get a good cityscape.

Last year, while in Chicago, the AF on my F3 died and the only MF lens I had with me was Minolta MD 50/1.7. I got many great 'scrapes but missed a whole lot more. I am honestly surprised Sony chose 35mm for their flagship prime (at that time), 28mm would be so much more useful and also better fitting between 20mm pancake and 50/1.8. Wonder if it was simply easier to get better IQ with least effort in a longer FL ?

Thanks. And I wonder if we are saying that something between 28 and 35 would be best, then that really puts the Sigma 30 (or the Zeiss Touit 32) at the "sweet spot"?

Weather permitting, we might go out to Annapolis on Sunday and I want to try again there to get some nice shots of the town and so forth. I think I'll go manual most of the time, bringing the MD 35-70/3.5 and the MD 28/2.8, along with an AF backup from the SEL18-55 and SEL55-210 (hey, wildlife on the river maybe).


Sent from TalkEmount app on iPad

 

[Amamba]

Yes, I think Sigma is in the sweet spot, although I wish they've made it a 28. I have a couple of manual 28mm and I can still get very decent close up portraits with them without noticeable distortion, while every extra mm counts for wide angle shots. I can also get h&s portraits with Sigma 19 but I have to get really close to people then - which makes spur of the moment shots difficult - and I have to watch for arms or noses being too close to the camera and starting to look distorted.

32mm is getting longer... But I guess it's still within the range. The 24/1.8 could also be good without much distortion.

 

[Amamba]

Thanks. And I wonder if we are saying that something between 28 and 35 would be best, then that really puts the Sigma 30 (or the Zeiss Touit 32) at the "sweet spot"?

Weather permitting, we might go out to Annapolis on Sunday and I want to try again there to get some nice shots of the town and so forth. I think I'll go manual most of the time, bringing the MD 35-70/3.5 and the MD 28/2.8, along with an AF backup from the SEL18-55 and SEL55-210 (hey, wildlife on the river maybe).


Sent from TalkEmount app on iPad

MD35-70/3.5 Macro is my favorite manual focus lens. If I sell all other lenses I will keep this one. If you have LA-EA2 may want to look at Maxxum 35-70/4, while it's not as sharp as the MD version, it's close and it focuses well with adapter, plus it's so small it is shorter on adapter than the MD.

I also have the MD 28/2.8 (W. Rokkor variety ) , it's a very good lens, the one I like more tbh is Kiron 28/2 - it's 2x the size and weight, but it has the nicest bokeh compared to Rokkor or Sigma. But I honestly went back to AF lenses lately, missed too many great shots while fumbling with focusing. Plus, Sigma 30 is so small and lightweight, it makes Nex very portable. If you don't have it I can't recommend it high enough, for $100 used it can't be beat.

 

[MizOre]

The portrait lengths really depend on your own personal shooting habits.

I've got both the 24mm Sony/Zeiss and the 35mm Sony, and had buyer's hysteria over the 24mm lens and have to be brave to take it out of the house, but it's a great lens. The 35mm is lighter. I've also walked around with a 50mm on APS-C senor cameras. Most of the shots I have framed on the wall from a D300 are either a 24mm lens or a 80-200mm lens.

The 24mm doesn't work best as a traditional wide angle, but as an environmental portrait and still life lens (one of the shots on the wall from it is a still life). Go wider yet for a true wide. If you've got the kit zoom, play around with it at 24, 35, and 50 and see what each looks like.

 

[Schusskabob]

Since you've already got all the focal lengths covered with your zooms then I'd want to go with something like the Sony 35 f1.8 as a low light all-arounder. As a second choice then the Sigma 30 f2.8. That gets you sharpness and speed in a very useful focal length. But.....if there was any way you could possibly swing it (wait...save up for it...trade away something else??) then far and away the first choice, in my opinion, is the Sony/Zeiss 24 f1.8. It's a fantastic lens and one that you're going to immediately see a difference in compared to your zooms. I went through these same gyrations trying to decide on lenses and after much deliberation, finally closed my eyes and hit the submit order box. I have not regretted it. Compared with any other lens I use, it just simply gives better looking images and if I could only have one lens, it would, unquestionably, be that one. Yeah, it's a crazy amount of money to spend, even at $750 for a used one at B&H but it will fill that niche you're looking for and without compromises (well you might end up divorced, but I hope not). Best of luck to you whatever you do!

 

[TonyTurley]

I've looked closely at the SEL35F18, and it does appear appealing, especially for moving people shots in low light. However, I just sprang for a Pen F 38/1.8 + adapter, a lens I've been eyeing for quite some time. I've long preferred MF, but I do conceed that sometimes AF is easier. I currently own no E-mount AF lenses, having sold my 5R + SEL1855 this week. I came to the conclusion that I had way too much camera stuff, and decided to risk eBay again (after a couple of sour experiences). I've sold 6 lenses this week, and have another half dozen currently running, along with both of my Pentax cameras. If I can sell either of the Pentaxes, I may still spring for the SEL35F18 . . . if I sell both Pentaxes, I may just dive in and go for the Zeiss Touit 32!

Tony

 

[Hawkman]

Note how close 35 seems to 50.

Hmmmm, true... and thus maybe the 50 wouldn't be so long after all... for some uses at least.

And the SEL 50 does have the advantage of actually being available now, says Mr. Instant-Gratification.

 

[Hawkman]

Okay, I want to thank everyone who offered up their thoughts on their preferred focal length range for general walk-around use. What everyone had to say was very instructive and prompted much thought on my part. I knew I needed (okay, wanted) another native AF lens, a prime, in order to provide something (a) sharper, and (b) better in low light than my kit SEL 18-55 could muster.

After listening to all that has been said here, I agreed that the 30-35 range - probably closer to 30 - was the optimum for me based on the predominant focal length I used in one set of shots recently at a large family & friend gathering (a 50th anniversary party for in-laws). In that I noted that the majority of shots seemed to come in the 24, 28, 30-35 focal lengths.

However, I went through a number of more sets in various other situations, and noted that when not zooming to get in close (with either the SEL 18-55 or SEL 55-210), most shots came at 18, 24, 28, or 30mm, with 18 dominating. And if I factored in my manual focus legacy lenses, my clear favorite there is the MC Rokkor-X PG 50mm f/1.4 (although the new-to-me MD Zoom 35-70mm f/3.5 started to make a run at it in the last week or two, mostly at either 35mm or 70mm). While I initially had trouble with the closeness of the legacy "fast fifties" I have, I quickly adapted and learned to love the ability to isolate a subject... especially my favorite "models", our dogs Katie and Darci.

So, this led me to think that I might prefer to have either a longer lens like a "fast fifty" or a wider one like a 24, rather than a "normal" (for APS-C) of 30-35. From there, the E-mount lens selection, and their prices and availability made my decision for me. Here's my thinking:

First up, the Sony-Zeiss 24mm f/1.8, while likely at the sweet spot for both its aperture and focal length for a lot of what I want to do, is just way out of my price range now and for the foreseeable future. Even the Sony 35mm f/1.8 at US$450 is out of the price range I've set for myself (which maxes out at under $300, preferably less).
The next closest option in the 20-30 range would either be the Sony 20/2.8 or the Sigma 30/2.8 at either end of this 20-30 range I've established (and perhaps the Sigma 19/2.8 at the wide end as well). Unfortunately, the Sigma 30 just doesn't seem to be readily available right now. Every online seller seems to be back-ordered at the moment. While there were a few used ones online, the only copies I found that I might consider were used ones on the reputable KEH and those were silver. Call me whatever you wish, but I prefer black rather than silver for my black camera. And the Sony 20/2.8... well, oddly enough, for me it is actually a little too compact for me. It would look kind of silly on my "big" a3000. Should I get an "upgrade" in the near future (Holidays?) to something like an a5100 or a6000, then it'd be perfect for pocket ability and the associated "street" photography. So, if I prioritize wide aperture for low light and isolation of subject, that leaves me with the SEL50F18. With it on sale for US$250, $50 off its regular retail, it remained apart as the choice for me at the moment. And the many positive reviews it has received in this forum and from reviewers around the web didn't hurt my confidence in it.

So, having thoroughly rationalized the matter, I snapped up one a local store while out shopping for other unrelated stuff.

And so far I'm happy with it. It sort of feels like an autofocus, stabilized version of an MC/MD 50. Sharp at f/2 and with good bokeh for my tastes.

Here are my first few "test" shots with it.

First, one of my favorite "models", Darci, showing off her spiked hair (she has eye issues, so we have to wipe the "gunk" from her face often):

   ---            

Darci Spike Hair by SRHawk64, on Flickr

Then my other favorite "model" Katie, who is a little camera shy - she always turns her head away whenever I point the camera at her:

   ---            

Katie Will Not Look at Camera by SRHawk64, on Flickr

And finally a shot of some pebbles - and the accompanying empty indentations - from a drained cement pond water feature at the courtyard at work looked interesting:

   ---            

Pebbles in Dry Cement Pond by SRHawk64, on Flickr

I figure that I may eventually (within a year or so) get another AF prime at the wide end of the spectrum to supplement this "fast fifty". Especially if I somehow manage to "upgrade" to a fast-focusing new body like an a5100 or a6000.

 

[Amamba]

Congrats, SEL50 is great lens.

 

[José De Bardi]

Glad we could help! Look forward to seeing what you do with it and more thoughts after she's settled in with you

 

[davect01]

I know I am a bit late, but I will add my thoughts.

I have both the 20mm SEL and 50mm SEL. I love both and use both a lot.

The 50mm is great and gets a bit faster "F," which is great. The only issue is in tight rooms, I often can not move back far enough. For a day out, it is my preferred AF lens.

I also really like the 20mm. It is small, which is great for discreet shooting. It is the lens I prefer when I know I am going to be inside taking shots.

 

[eno789]

If I only have one lens for general walk around, it would be full frame equivalent around 40mm, that is, close to normal, but slightly wide.

Translate the field of view to APS-C, that would be 24mm ~ 30mm. Fortunately legacy 28mm's are pretty common and not very expensive. I got to try a quite a few. I especially like Nikon AI-S 28mm/2.8, Vivitar 28mm/2.0 Close Focus, and Sigma Mini-Wide for close range, and Contax Distagon 28mm/2.8, Canon FD 28mm/2.0 for distance.

For AF on APS-C, I like the Sigma 30mm/2.8.

It is a very different question whether you want a lens as the only lens to use for some time (hiking, walk around town), or a lens as a low light compliment of your zooms. For the former question, field-of-view preference should dominate; the latter lens speed.

I also question the validity of counting the number of shots with zoom on different focal length. For a lot of people, it would easily favor the two ends of the zoom. Let's say you shoot at the wide end the most, but for walking around, do you want to always shoot that wide? Zoom lens typically are the slowest at the longest, the characteristics is entirely different from a fast prime lens at the same focal length.

 

[Hawkman]

Well, I'm loving the SEL50F18 so far. It really does feel like an AF, OSS-enabled modern version of a Minolta MC/MD 50mm. And it has taken over "favorite lens" spot from my beloved MC Rokkor-X PG 50/1.4 (sorry Ad).

However, I am also seeing the wisdom of all those who have herein said that a wider field of view and shorter focal length, like something in the 20 - 30 range would be a better lens for walk-around, street shooting and indoor people shots. As such, I came really close to going ahead and springing for the Sigma 30mm f/2.8 when I saw it on sale for US$175 at B&H in the last couple days (see this article at SAR: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/plenty-of-deals-on-sony-stuff-at-bhphoto-lenses-flash-cards-and-more/) (and if you decide you want to buy, be sure to use our TalkEMount links in this thread).

Nevertheless, reading through this thread again actually caused me to hold off. And here's why: the recently announced Sony FE 28mm f/2 lens coming "March 2015."

With the SEL50, 18-55 kit, and 55-210 tele-zoom, the legacy lens I have been using most lately is the MD W.Rokkor-X 28mm f/2.8. And I am really warming to the 28mm field of view (on APS-C). While some of my Disney and Universal shots (which I'm still culling through and trying to PP) convinced me I'd really like a 24mm prime, there's only one prime in that length and, well, I'm not shelling out $700-$1100 for the Sony-Zeiss (sorry Poki) anytime soon (unless I want a big talking-to from the "other half"). But the announced FE 28/2 really has me intrigued. If the price is closer to the FE 28-70 than the rest of the FE lenses, say under $500 or $400, then it could be a really fine option for both APS-C AND FF usage.

Is anyone else here intrigued by Sony's announced FE 28mm f/2?

 

[fractal]

I purchased the SEL 35 1.8 to use as a "walk around" lens. It's a fine lens and produced some of my favorite shots but I never got comfortable with that focal length on my NEX-7.

I sold that lens and used those proceeds (and a bit more) to buy a used Sony Zeiss 24mm 1.8 and I now have that lens on my camera 90% of the time. The focal length suits me much better and the quality of the images from this are just better than anything else I've shot with. I feel it was well worth the money.

I also have the Sigma 19 and 30 and the SEL 50mm 1.8 that compete for my "carry around" AF lens, but I don't imagine any of them replacing the SZ.