(10-23-2019, 03:15 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: 50mm gives the same horizontal FOV on landscape orientation as 35mm on portrait orientation. A compromise between the two is 43mm.
Within the so-called FF format, 43 mm is the diagonal √(24²+36²) = 43.2666 mm, therefore someone decided some day to call 43 mm lenses "normal lenses" as they are meant to be the as close as possible to a "natural human view". Which is broader than higher, so rectangular proportions appear closer to our human elliptical field of view habits.
With a doubtful eye on the question wether 7 mm difference in FL do matter, I think, no one ever evaluated a statistical examination like "what is your normal field of view" as I can't borrow your eyes to have a comparison between our most likely different fields.
It would never occur to me to call a normal lens as a lens which in portrait mode gives me the field of view of "the other" normal lens in landscape orientation. Feel free to do so, but in my cosmos is only a small room for (and a small number of pictures made with) "normal" lenses, I find them more dull than useful.
Anyway, all three together cost just as much as a better nifty fifty, so each Sony shooter can take out of it the most normal lens. Or just enjoy the wide angle with 1:2 scale.
Like the Tamron move. 24mm with an A7 is a combo I could go for.
Given the trends favoring biggest latest greatest, it will be a tough one for Tamron nevertheless. Relative success of 28-70/2.8 gives some chance. And really atractive price should also help here.
I think, enough people complained about "bigger and heavier (and pricier)", so this set is a very nice offer for all Sony shooters who want to keep their kit small.
Indeed, timing might be right afterall.
They are directly firing against the Samyangs (18/2.8, 24/2.8, 35/2.8) I'd say.
Nice pricing as well.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
(10-23-2019, 03:45 PM)JJ_SO Wrote: (10-23-2019, 03:15 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: 50mm gives the same horizontal FOV on landscape orientation as 35mm on portrait orientation. A compromise between the two is 43mm.
Within the so-called FF format, 43 mm is the diagonal √(24²+36²) = 43.2666 mm, therefore someone decided some day to call 43 mm lenses "normal lenses" as they are meant to be the as close as possible to a "natural human view". Which is broader than higher, so rectangular proportions appear closer to our human elliptical field of view habits.
With a doubtful eye on the question wether 7 mm difference in FL do matter, I think, no one ever evaluated a statistical examination like "what is your normal field of view" as I can't borrow your eyes to have a comparison between our most likely different fields.
It would never occur to me to call a normal lens as a lens which in portrait mode gives me the field of view of "the other" normal lens in landscape orientation. Feel free to do so, but in my cosmos is only a small room for (and a small number of pictures made with) "normal" lenses, I find them more dull than useful.
Anyway, all three together cost just as much as a better nifty fifty, so each Sony shooter can take out of it the most normal lens. Or just enjoy the wide angle with 1:2 scale.
The diagonal gives the normal for... the diagonal. A compromise between vertical and horizontal shooting. We tend to interpret what we see with the width. 50mm on FF gives a similar feel/FOV/depth perception as the central part of our vision (when you shoot landscape orientation). 35mm gives the same feel/FOV/depth perception when shooting in portrait orientation.
43mm just sits inbetween.
Try calculating the diagonal from 36x36mm, or 24x24mm. You will start to understand why all camera makers used to offer 35mm and 50mm lenses as standard, and why you mostly found 43mm on cameras with fixed lenses.
Some test shots:
https://petapixel.com/2019/10/23/tamron-unveils-three-12-wide-angle-prime-lenses-for-sony-e-mount/
Bokeh with macro in a few shots looks good, a bit less in others. I'd like to see more samples.
stoppingdown.net
Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm Æ’/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm Æ’/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm Æ’/2.8, Samyang 8mm Æ’/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm Æ’/2
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.
(10-24-2019, 09:44 PM)stoppingdown Wrote: Some test shots:
https://petapixel.com/2019/10/23/tamron-unveils-three-12-wide-angle-prime-lenses-for-sony-e-mount/
Bokeh with macro in a few shots looks good, a bit less in others. I'd like to see more samples.
I missed this thread .......... these lenses look great to me, if test results are good which they probably will be .... plus their advantage of half macro and their very compact tidy build, at $350 each I can see many Sony shooters ordering the set at those prices!
The 20mm outlines wide open, so the bokeh is a bit "blotchy". But which 20mm does as well for close ups?
The 24mm only has one close up shot, it looks ok but not an image you really can make a judgement on close up bokeh.
The 35mm does quite a lovely job. The background bokeh is better than the forground bokeh (see bicycle shot), which is a good thing. Almost as desirable as the Canon RF 35mm f1.8 IS STM.
There is a financial link between Tamron and Sony. It will be interesting to see whether in future they will also bring them in Z-mount and RF-mount (and even L-mount).
The 20 mm has a MFD of 11 cm. The length of the lens + flange distance = 82 mm. So, at 1:2 scale things happen less than 3 cm away from the lens' front. Pretty wow... In comparison, my Sigma needs 27.6 cm MFD. Really nice. Blotchy bokeh? yes, but as you say, what are the alternatives?
|
