Why can't/won't canon create a normal lens for the 1.6 folks?

Why can't/won't canon (or nikon for that matter) create a 30ish 1.8 or 1.4 to

give a true "normal lens for the 1.6 folks - preferably one that would fit on

any camera...

I can't imagine that creating a 30 1.8 would cost much more to produce than the

50 1.8...say in the $100 range...something that people could choose rather than

the kit lens

My guess is because they don't feel that, all things considered, it would give them a good return on their investment.

 

Speaking personally, I wouldn't buy one.

Canon has a habit of being stubborn. Take the lack of an MLU button, for example.

Sigma's 30mm/1.4 is a pretty good contender, it seems. Of course, it's got the on-board AF motor (it's their "HSM" technology), which makes it a lot more expensive than something like those $100 50/1.8's. And, of course, it's a twitch faster, at 1.4, whether that's helpful or not seems to be debateable.

35mm is close enough or use a zoom. I am using a 35 on my Nikon and it seems fine. $50 at a camera show last Sunday. Also got a 50 1.4 and 24 2.8. Whole package was $250. I am keeping the 18/70 and 55/200 though.

Colin...thanks but why?

 

the "normal lens" has been a staple of photography for the entire history of 35 mm and the 50 1.8 is often hailed as the best budget lens you can buy...why wouldn't canon make one for their digital slrs...

something with the build quality of a 50 that would be normal...

 

you can't tell me that canon isn't making plenty on the 50 1.8

>>has been<<

 

Those are the key words ;)

EF lenses 28/2.8, 28/1.8, 35/2, 35/1.4L. They're all within the "normal" range. I don't think there is such a thing as a "true" normal lens. Lenses (that I am aware of) from 40mm to 58mm have been supplied in 35mm cameras as normal by various manufacturers since the format came into being.

I have a 50 1.8 and never use it. Why is it so important to have this focal length "normal view" that the human eye has. I much rather use a zoom. I have a 24-70 f2.8L and cant see a benifit to use the 50 instead. I know its 1.8, buy its so dull at 1.8, I stop down to 2.8 to get the sharpness usefull, and if you do that, why not use the 24-70 2.8L. Plus what effect do you get using this "normal" lens. IMO, it looks better to have a tight composition from a zoom than to move in close enough with say a 50 or even a 30 and get that distorted look.

Dave,

for one...(even though I have one) not many people can afford the 24-70 2.8

number 2 - it is not dull at 1.8

number 3 - it wieghs about a 20th of what the zoom does

 

Shooting street scenes and regular photography it surely helps to have the lightness and the light sensitivity of the 50...

 

As for why it's so important...I don't know why so many people used them for so long before the invention of the $1000 zoom...

 

JC

PS -

For the record I own a 1d II, 16 - 35 II, 24 - 70 2.8, 70 - 200 2.8 IS, 100 2.8 macro, 85 1.2, and the 50 1.4 as well as a sigma 15mm fisheye

 

I often shoot with the 50 simply because I like how light it is...I enjoy having to work to get my comp rather than twist my wrist...

 

I also happen to work at a pretty prominent photo company and know that their are many...many people that love the 50 1.8 due to it's a. price, b. sharpness (compared to kit lens) c. bokeh/fast aperture

Now that Nikon has a full frame camera, with Sony likely following suit soon, we know that the 1.6x and 1.5x bodies will eventually be relegated to P&S DSLR status for which a normal lens will not be necessary.

I'm with Ansel Adams on this one:

 

"In general, I do not find the normal lens especially desirable, functionally or aesthetically.

The angle of view and depth of field characteristics do not seem favorable to me in

interpreting space and scale. In my experience, lenses of shorter or longer focal length are

usually preferable in an aesthetic sense."

 

Page 57, "The Camera"

The 28/1.8 is pretty "normal" since it corresponds to a 45mm fov on full frame. If it's too short the 35/2 corresponds to 56mm.

 

The 28/1.8 is $400 or so, but then the Sigma 30/1.4 is around $450. If Canon made an EF-S 30/1.4 USM, I'm guessing at $600. How many do you think they would sell? I wouldn't buy one and it's certainly not going to be cheaper than the Sigma - and I would buy one of them either!

Find me a soccer mom (or dad) who just got their first DSLR (an XTi) who is going to buy /any/ prime lens.

 

Now compare that to those that will buy a zoom like the new 55-250 IS.

 

Which market makes Canon more money?

um...i can tell you for sure that we sell tons of 50 1.8's...TONS

 

As for Mr. Atkins...

The point is that I'd love to see it for the price range of the 50 1.8

I respect you very much so I hope that doesn't come off as "snarkey"

The 50mm F1.2 L on my 5D is about as close to heaven as I can get! I have all the fancy

zooms, too, and I use the 50mm a lot. I love the look and perspective of the lens.

just get a 5D.

i know i have same complaint as you. 35 f/1.4 is too heavy for me to use as a normal walk around lens... something like a 5D and 50 f/1.4 combo. Perfect in weight and image quality.

 

I am just waiting for 5D or any future FF camera to be more affordable.

I was using a 35mm f1.4L on a 20D just today. Nice normal lens. Works great. And Canon

makes it. :->)

<i>... something like a 5D and 50 f/1.4 combo. Perfect in weight and image quality.</i>

 

<p>Then you're in luck. A 40D with a 28mm f/1.8 lens will weigh less and cost a *whole

lot* less (like half) than a 5D / 50mm f/1.4 combo.

 

<p>Image quality between the two is more-or-less the same and you probably won't miss

the 2/3-stop you loose with the 28mm.

 

<p>Keep in mind a true "normal" lens isn't really possible on a 1.6 crop camera (where

"normal" is defined as a lens with a focal length equal to the diagonal of the sensor and

the

distance from the sensor plane to the rear nodal point of the lens is the focal length).

 

<p>Let's see, using a 40D for example with a sensor dimension of 22.5mm x 14.8mm we

get a diagonal measurement of 26.93mm: that's the focal length for a "normal" lens on a

40D. All EOS camera's have a lens flange to sensor/film plane measurement of 44mm. The

EF-S mount gives us a little more room to sink the rear nodal point of the lens into the

body, and while I don't have that measurement on hand I'm sure it's less than the

17.07mm

we're short.

 

<p>That means a "normal" lens on the 40D will require a retrofocus design where the rear

nodal point to sensor plane dimension is greater than the focal length of the lens. This is

more expensive and heavier, unless you want to use molded plastic lens elements like

those oh-so-high-quality kit lenses.

 

<p>In other words, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for Canon to release a new, cheap,

lightweight, and high-quality EF-S prime of normal focal length for the 1.6x crop cameras.

 

<p>Just get the 28mm f/1.8 -- it's a good lens, doesn't cost that much, is close to normal

focal length and is "full frame" which is where everyone seems to want to go anyway.

For me, it's covered in the range of my EF16-35mm F1:2.8L USM II & EF24-70mm F1:2.8L USM lenses - not quite "sub F1:2.0", but just fine for me.

 

All I can say is "If Canon thought they could make a truck load of $$$ from it then I'm sure they would make it".

"... The point is that I'd love to see it for the price range of the 50 1.8..."

 

There's the problem. A 30mm lens is more difficult to make than a 50mm lens and so it's more expensive. Just look at the 35/2. It's $230, and though it's better built than the 50/1.8 I doubt even in a cheap plastic housing it could be sold for under $150.

 

Mike is absolutely correct about such a lens needing to be a retrofocus design of course. That adds cost and complexity.

 

I think the closest thing you will get from Canon is the 35/2. It's pretty fast, not too expensive and it's very sharp. Being designed for full frame you'll even get minimal vignetting when used wide open! The 28/2.8 is also cheap ($170), sharp and as fast as even the most expensive "L" series zooms. If you can libe with f2.8, it's the best bargain.

 

Personally I tend to use a 24/2.8 as my "normal prime" on a 1.6x DSLR, first because I already have one, and second because I like the slightly wider than normal angle of coverage.

 

BTW the 50/1.8 makes a very good, very inexpensive portrait lens on a 1.6x camera. If you had full frame you'd have to pay $350 to get a lens with a similar view (85/1.8).

Probably because most of the people who use those cameras prefer the low-end zooms.

 

I am in agreement with you, in the sense that I want Canon to keep the APS sensor, but design some good format-dedicated glass for it, and make the cameras much smaller. Technically, APS is a subminiature format, roughly equivalent to using 16mm film. It would be nice if they would just clearly make the differentiation and give us a Leica-sized submini SLR with good lenses made just for it.

 

As things stand, however, we are pretty well set with the 28mm f/1.8. Its field of view on a 1.6 body is technically closer to normal than a 50mm on a film of full frame body. It doesn't render depth like a normal lens, but that is not something most would notice.

 

Keith

To Joseph Carey: My 50 1.8 is a peace of S@#$. It rattles when you move it around(The barrel is moving from side to side. Canon says its fine) and when used at 1.8 is sucks. I dont know what some peoples idea of sharp is, but I expect detail and it cant touch any other lenses I have. That said, I dont expect much from a $90.00 lens, but with all the hype about primes, I expected way more. I havent seen any better even from the L's. Unless you are in the 200-600 range. Then your talking 3,000 to 6800.00. No, not everyone can afford a 24-70 2.8L. But, the kit lens that came with my 40D is sharper than any of these primes I have seen(50 1.2,1.4,1.8)and alot more versitle.

 

Look at all the ISO 12233 chart tests with these(30,50,85) lenses. They suck for sharpness. Even look at Canons MTF charts. Way low on the chart unless stopped down to f8.0. Then why have a 1.2.

 

I agree with Rob Bernhard, find me someone, not just a soccer mom who would use a 50 to shoot soccer. Hell, what is it good for as far as that goes. For portraits, with the 50mm, you have to move in so close the facial features become weird. And, you will miss alot of good shots if you have to take off running at the subject every time you want to compose a shot. Its like me turning my 24-70 to 24 and taking all my pictures with this. Its just stupid. Same look as using a Walgreens throw away camera. Sure for landscape shots, the wideness is fine, but these people are talking about, " I like a 35mm lens as my "Normal" walk around lens." Ok, so take a trip to the Zoo, and only use a 35mm or 50mm and nothing else. You will come back with a bunch of stupid, amateur looking shots.