Why no "real" normal lens for apsc

westmill · 02-10-2012, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Bob from Aus

You make a point that I can't see answered in this thread. That is with the new K-01 it comes with a new 40mm pancake. So Why? Is the answer that to make a very flat lens for a FF or APC camera it can only be achieved between 40 and 70 mm? The 21Ltd is quite thick compared to the 40mm.

Thats because he has not made that point. K01 is not mentioned or any compact camera ?

westmill · 02-10-2012, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

Here's what I wrote earlier in another thread:

'Normal' has many meanings. 'Norma' is Latin for a carpenter's square, so 'normal' means "at right angles". In optics, 'normal' is the frame diagonal. In statistics, 'normal' means a value within a certain proximity to an average. In common usage, 'normal' means either "not too weird" or "what we're used to". Et cetera.

For 135/FF frames, optical-normal is 43mm. Many 135 RFs had lenses around 40-45mm -- a few stare down at me from my shelves. Lensmakers found the 50-60mm range more suitable|producible for SLRs. Many SLR shooters became used to that range, so Fifties were a de-facto 'normal'. But many users of RFs such as the Olympus XA became used to its 35mm lens -- it's 'normal' on that camera for those users. So we have 135/FF psychological-normal ranging from 35-60mm. Whew! And APS-C 'normal' may range from 24-43mm, again depending on our psycho-visual canalization.

What we're used to. What we're comfortable with. How we limit our vision. All these are related to 'normal' camera usage. That's one reason for my LOTD (lens of the day) strategy, where I semi-randomly choose a lens to use for a day or ten, to train my visual system to that FOV. For even more fun, I'll use a cheap safe wide-flange NIF (no infinity focus) M42-PK adapter and/or thin macro tube to pull-in the focus range. This forces me to not only seek subjects within a specific FOV, but also in a more limited zone. Yes, it's great eye-training.

Normal can be whatever you want. Let's all get normalized, eh?

Well you cant argue with any of that ! For most people though, normal is 50mm in 35mm terms and thought as such because it approximates our own feild of veiw with our eyes.

GibbyTheMole · 02-10-2012, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by Docrwm

Or try the kit lens 18-55, which is one of the best kit lenses on the market.

Yep. It's really a pretty decent little lens. I wouldn't be without mine.

NotaxPen · 02-10-2012, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by westmill

Pentax 35mm f2.4 = 52mm.... cheap as chips and one of the best lenses out there !
31mm f1.8 = 47mm.... superb but expensive
35mm macro f2.8 = 53mm good and reasonable
43mm f1.8 = 64.5mm
That seems a pretty good choice to me ?

35/2.4 I bought one and retuned it because the plastic focus ring sticks. IQ was great but I need something more useable and durable.

FA31 is nearly the size of a small zoom lens and the cost is ridiculous for a "normal" lens. Not an ideal choice for the apsc eqivalent of the 43/50mm film lens.
FOV wise it is clearly the best choice available.

35/2.8 macro I have and it's great for macro but all the focus throw is at the short end making it useless for manual focus on what I would use it for.

35 is a little tight for a normal on apsc, I just complained about 40 being too long, and you offer the 43/1.8 as a choice?

Why not something In between the FA31 and the cheapo build DAL35?

Anvh · 02-10-2012, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by westmill

Well you cant argue with any of that ! For most people though, normal is 50mm in 35mm terms and thought as such because it approximates our own feild of veiw with our eyes.

It's 50mm because the industry made those lenses cheap and pleantyful but they aren't true normal lenses in a sens that they are the same as are own field of view.

You can calculate the focal length for a normal lens by calulating the diagonaal of the film or sensor.
For 135format that means 43,3mm for APS-C we use digital that is around the 28mm because sensor sizes vary a bit.

For all formats larger then 135format this also trully match with the accepted focal length for a normal lens, it's 135format that is different from all the others.

Anvh · 02-10-2012, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by NotaxPen

Why not something In between the FA31 and the cheapo build DAL35?

Not what you want to hear but the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 thick some of your requests, it is plastic though but i don't have a complain about the build quality but the price isn't that high and the best thing is it's a f/1.4

TOUGEFC · 02-10-2012, 04:54 PM

The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is certainly a "real" normal lens for aps-c and fast too

**rayallen** · 02-10-2012, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by GibbyTheMole

Yep. It's really a pretty decent little lens. I wouldn't be without mine.

Yes, +1 to that. I have both the original DA and the DA WR.

westmill · 02-10-2012, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by NotaxPen

35/2.4 I bought one and retuned it because the plastic focus ring sticks. IQ was great but I need something more useable and durable.

FA31 is nearly the size of a small zoom lens and the cost is ridiculous for a "normal" lens. Not an ideal choice for the apsc eqivalent of the 43/50mm film lens.
FOV wise it is clearly the best choice available.

35/2.8 macro I have and it's great for macro but all the focus throw is at the short end making it useless for manual focus on what I would use it for.

35 is a little tight for a normal on apsc, I just complained about 40 being too long, and you offer the 43/1.8 as a choice?

Why not something In between the FA31 and the cheapo build DAL35?

Actualy I listed the 43 just because i didnt understand where you got that 28 bit from is all.
No matter how you look at it, its still a fair choice of lenses to pick from.
If you think of Nikon.... they or cannon dont offer much either in terms of APSC standards.
But yes ! I couldnt agree more... Something with a tad better build quality and a tad faster than the cheaply made 2.4 would be nice.
I expect Pentax sees the 35mm macro as a lens covering the middling ground though.

NotaxPen · 02-10-2012, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by Franky2step

Buy one of the following; 16-45, 17-70, or 16-50, problem(your problem) solved.

I have the DA* 16-50/2.8.

If I need the range, I'll suffer the size/weight. But it's ridiculous to carry around a relatively huge heavy zoom when I know a light compact prime is all I need for the job.

NotaxPen · 02-10-2012, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by kcobain1992

What do you mean by "normal"? I use a 50mm on my digital camera without any problem.

It would be a problem if you were trying to photograph the same sized subject from the same distance as you did with your film camera.

That would require a lens with a comparable field of view on the smaller cropped sensor.

westmill · 02-10-2012, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by Anvh

It's 50mm because the industry made those lenses cheap and pleantyful but they aren't true normal lenses in a sens that they are the same as are own field of view.

You can calculate the focal length for a normal lens by calulating the diagonaal of the film or sensor.
For 135format that means 43,3mm for APS-C we use digital that is around the 28mm because sensor sizes vary a bit.

For all formats larger then 135format this also trully match with the accepted focal length for a normal lens, it's 135format that is different from all the others.

You cant argue with that either BUT !
My quote you have just quoted me on is my exact reply to that lol

**RKKS08** · 02-10-2012, 05:22 PM

I was 10-11 years old when I started photographing, and till the age of 26, it always were lenses in the range of 40~45mm for 135 film. When I then switched to SLRs, it took me a while to feel at home with the 50mm (no affordable zooms at that time, it was the standard 35/50/135mm lenses as for most people). My first "good" lens (I don't really regard the Meyer Domiplan 2.8/50 as "good", just as acceptable) was the SMC Pentax-M 2.0/50, which I bought in 1981 new for DM 99.

I miss such a lens for APS-C badly: a SMALL full metal manual focus 2.0/30 with acceptable IQ at 2.0 and very good IQ from 4-5.6 on FOR NOT MORE THAN €100 ($125) new. THIS would be the real equivalent to what Pentax offered during the film era. If not possible, I may accept a plasticy lens body, if the bajonet is made of metal.

NotaxPen · 02-10-2012, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by mikeSF

add the
DA18-55
DA18-135
DA18-250
FA28-70
FA*28-70
FA 28-80
and perhaps a few more...sheesh, i'd say they have that length pretty well covered.

If I wanted a slow or heavy zoom, yes they have those covered.
If I want relatively fast and light/small, not many options.

NotaxPen · 02-10-2012, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by RKKS08

I was 10-11 years old when I started photographing, and till the age of 26, it always were lenses in the range of 40~45mm for 135 film. When I then switched to SLRs, it took me a while to feel at home with the 50mm (no affordable zooms at that time, it was the standard 35/50/135mm lenses as for most people). My first "good" lens (I don't really regard the Meyer Domiplan 2.8/50 as "good", just as acceptable) was the SMC Pentax-M 2.0/50, which I bought in 1981 new for DM 99. I miss such a lens for APS-C badly: a SMALL full metal manual focus 2.0/30 with acceptable IQ at 2.0 and very good IQ from 4-5.6 on FOR NOT MORE THAN €100 ($125) new. THIS would be the real equivalent to what Pentax offered during the film era. If not possible, I may accept a plasticy lens body, if the bajonet is made of metal.

I would pay much more than $125 for such a lens, I want the quality more than the low price.

02-10-2012, 05:22 PM	#28
RKKS08 Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Frankfurt am Main Posts: 1,241	I was 10-11 years old when I started photographing, and till the age of 26, it always were lenses in the range of 40~45mm for 135 film. When I then switched to SLRs, it took me a while to feel at home with the 50mm (no affordable zooms at that time, it was the standard 35/50/135mm lenses as for most people). My first "good" lens (I don't really regard the Meyer Domiplan 2.8/50 as "good", just as acceptable) was the SMC Pentax-M 2.0/50, which I bought in 1981 new for DM 99. I miss such a lens for APS-C badly: a SMALL full metal manual focus 2.0/30 with acceptable IQ at 2.0 and very good IQ from 4-5.6 on FOR NOT MORE THAN €100 ($125) new. THIS would be the real equivalent to what Pentax offered during the film era. If not possible, I may accept a plasticy lens body, if the bajonet is made of metal. Last edited by RKKS08; 02-10-2012 at 05:27 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Feedback on a "Normal" Lens, Please	TooLoose	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	29	12-09-2011 01:31 PM
Program mode: "Auto" vs. "Normal"?	PALADIN85020	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	3	02-13-2011 12:22 PM
"Normal" lens?	wildman	Photographic Technique	68	07-19-2010 12:11 AM
A real prob"lens" with my items	tcerveny	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	09-28-2009 02:19 AM
Cheap "normal" lens for Pentax APS	montecarlo	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	06-01-2009 09:08 PM

02-10-2012, 04:17 PM	#16
westmill Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Stoke on Trent Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146	Originally posted by Bob from Aus You make a point that I can't see answered in this thread. That is with the new K-01 it comes with a new 40mm pancake. So Why? Is the answer that to make a very flat lens for a FF or APC camera it can only be achieved between 40 and 70 mm? The 21Ltd is quite thick compared to the 40mm. Thats because he has not made that point. K01 is not mentioned or any compact camera ?

02-10-2012, 04:22 PM	#17
westmill Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Stoke on Trent Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146	Originally posted by RioRico Here's what I wrote earlier in another thread: 'Normal' has many meanings. 'Norma' is Latin for a carpenter's square, so 'normal' means "at right angles". In optics, 'normal' is the frame diagonal. In statistics, 'normal' means a value within a certain proximity to an average. In common usage, 'normal' means either "not too weird" or "what we're used to". Et cetera. For 135/FF frames, optical-normal is 43mm. Many 135 RFs had lenses around 40-45mm -- a few stare down at me from my shelves. Lensmakers found the 50-60mm range more suitable\|producible for SLRs. Many SLR shooters became used to that range, so Fifties were a de-facto 'normal'. But many users of RFs such as the Olympus XA became used to its 35mm lens -- it's 'normal' on that camera for those users. So we have 135/FF psychological-normal ranging from 35-60mm. Whew! And APS-C 'normal' may range from 24-43mm, again depending on our psycho-visual canalization. What we're used to. What we're comfortable with. How we limit our vision. All these are related to 'normal' camera usage. That's one reason for my LOTD (lens of the day) strategy, where I semi-randomly choose a lens to use for a day or ten, to train my visual system to that FOV. For even more fun, I'll use a cheap safe wide-flange NIF (no infinity focus) M42-PK adapter and/or thin macro tube to pull-in the focus range. This forces me to not only seek subjects within a specific FOV, but also in a more limited zone. Yes, it's great eye-training. Normal can be whatever you want. Let's all get normalized, eh? Well you cant argue with any of that ! For most people though, normal is 50mm in 35mm terms and thought as such because it approximates our own feild of veiw with our eyes.

02-10-2012, 04:34 PM	#18
GibbyTheMole Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Iowa Photos: Albums Posts: 2,275	Originally posted by Docrwm Or try the kit lens 18-55, which is one of the best kit lenses on the market. Yep. It's really a pretty decent little lens. I wouldn't be without mine.

02-10-2012, 04:37 PM	#19
NotaxPen Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 123 Original Poster	Originally posted by westmill Pentax 35mm f2.4 = 52mm.... cheap as chips and one of the best lenses out there ! 31mm f1.8 = 47mm.... superb but expensive 35mm macro f2.8 = 53mm good and reasonable 43mm f1.8 = 64.5mm That seems a pretty good choice to me ? 35/2.4 I bought one and retuned it because the plastic focus ring sticks. IQ was great but I need something more useable and durable. FA31 is nearly the size of a small zoom lens and the cost is ridiculous for a "normal" lens. Not an ideal choice for the apsc eqivalent of the 43/50mm film lens. FOV wise it is clearly the best choice available. 35/2.8 macro I have and it's great for macro but all the focus throw is at the short end making it useless for manual focus on what I would use it for. 35 is a little tight for a normal on apsc, I just complained about 40 being too long, and you offer the 43/1.8 as a choice? Why not something In between the FA31 and the cheapo build DAL35?

02-10-2012, 04:45 PM	#20
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by westmill Well you cant argue with any of that ! For most people though, normal is 50mm in 35mm terms and thought as such because it approximates our own feild of veiw with our eyes. It's 50mm because the industry made those lenses cheap and pleantyful but they aren't true normal lenses in a sens that they are the same as are own field of view. You can calculate the focal length for a normal lens by calulating the diagonaal of the film or sensor. For 135format that means 43,3mm for APS-C we use digital that is around the 28mm because sensor sizes vary a bit. For all formats larger then 135format this also trully match with the accepted focal length for a normal lens, it's 135format that is different from all the others.

02-10-2012, 04:48 PM	#21
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by NotaxPen Why not something In between the FA31 and the cheapo build DAL35? Not what you want to hear but the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 thick some of your requests, it is plastic though but i don't have a complain about the build quality but the price isn't that high and the best thing is it's a f/1.4

02-10-2012, 04:54 PM	#22
TOUGEFC Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,561	The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is certainly a "real" normal lens for aps-c and fast too

02-10-2012, 04:55 PM	#23
rayallen Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Forresters Beach, NSW, Australia. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,014	Originally posted by GibbyTheMole Yep. It's really a pretty decent little lens. I wouldn't be without mine. Yes, +1 to that. I have both the original DA and the DA WR.

02-10-2012, 04:58 PM	#24
westmill Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Stoke on Trent Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146	Originally posted by NotaxPen 35/2.4 I bought one and retuned it because the plastic focus ring sticks. IQ was great but I need something more useable and durable. FA31 is nearly the size of a small zoom lens and the cost is ridiculous for a "normal" lens. Not an ideal choice for the apsc eqivalent of the 43/50mm film lens. FOV wise it is clearly the best choice available. 35/2.8 macro I have and it's great for macro but all the focus throw is at the short end making it useless for manual focus on what I would use it for. 35 is a little tight for a normal on apsc, I just complained about 40 being too long, and you offer the 43/1.8 as a choice? Why not something In between the FA31 and the cheapo build DAL35? Actualy I listed the 43 just because i didnt understand where you got that 28 bit from is all. No matter how you look at it, its still a fair choice of lenses to pick from. If you think of Nikon.... they or cannon dont offer much either in terms of APSC standards. But yes ! I couldnt agree more... Something with a tad better build quality and a tad faster than the cheaply made 2.4 would be nice. I expect Pentax sees the 35mm macro as a lens covering the middling ground though.

02-10-2012, 05:08 PM	#25
NotaxPen Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 123 Original Poster	Originally posted by Franky2step Buy one of the following; 16-45, 17-70, or 16-50, problem(your problem) solved. I have the DA* 16-50/2.8. If I need the range, I'll suffer the size/weight. But it's ridiculous to carry around a relatively huge heavy zoom when I know a light compact prime is all I need for the job.

02-10-2012, 05:15 PM	#26
NotaxPen Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 123 Original Poster	Originally posted by kcobain1992 What do you mean by "normal"? I use a 50mm on my digital camera without any problem. It would be a problem if you were trying to photograph the same sized subject from the same distance as you did with your film camera. That would require a lens with a comparable field of view on the smaller cropped sensor.

02-10-2012, 05:17 PM	#27
westmill Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Stoke on Trent Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146	Originally posted by Anvh It's 50mm because the industry made those lenses cheap and pleantyful but they aren't true normal lenses in a sens that they are the same as are own field of view. You can calculate the focal length for a normal lens by calulating the diagonaal of the film or sensor. For 135format that means 43,3mm for APS-C we use digital that is around the 28mm because sensor sizes vary a bit. For all formats larger then 135format this also trully match with the accepted focal length for a normal lens, it's 135format that is different from all the others. You cant argue with that either BUT ! My quote you have just quoted me on is my exact reply to that lol

02-10-2012, 05:24 PM	#29
NotaxPen Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 123 Original Poster	Originally posted by mikeSF add the DA18-55 DA18-135 DA18-250 FA28-70 FA*28-70 FA 28-80 and perhaps a few more...sheesh, i'd say they have that length pretty well covered. If I wanted a slow or heavy zoom, yes they have those covered. If I want relatively fast and light/small, not many options.

02-10-2012, 05:34 PM	#30
NotaxPen Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 123 Original Poster	Originally posted by RKKS08 I was 10-11 years old when I started photographing, and till the age of 26, it always were lenses in the range of 40~45mm for 135 film. When I then switched to SLRs, it took me a while to feel at home with the 50mm (no affordable zooms at that time, it was the standard 35/50/135mm lenses as for most people). My first "good" lens (I don't really regard the Meyer Domiplan 2.8/50 as "good", just as acceptable) was the SMC Pentax-M 2.0/50, which I bought in 1981 new for DM 99. I miss such a lens for APS-C badly: a SMALL full metal manual focus 2.0/30 with acceptable IQ at 2.0 and very good IQ from 4-5.6 on FOR NOT MORE THAN €100 ($125) new. THIS would be the real equivalent to what Pentax offered during the film era. If not possible, I may accept a plasticy lens body, if the bajonet is made of metal. I would pay much more than $125 for such a lens, I want the quality more than the low price.