Crop 50mm equivilent EF-S lens?

Myboostedgst wrote in post #18139782
Isn't 50mm not technically what the human eye sees on FF?

Absolutely not. The human eyes and brain see a very wide angle view although most of it (except for the center of the scene) is pretty badly out of focus most of the time. The eye's focal length is far from 50mm, of course. A quick search via Google reveals about 17mm for the eye's focal length. A huge difference between a camera and an eye is the fact that the focal plane (the retina) of the eye is curved while a camera's focal plane is typically flat.

If you do the test with the print and frame that I suggested above (post #22), you'll probably find that the two match up with about a 45mm to 50mm lens on a "full-frame" body though I've never been interested enough to go through the procedure.

Charlie wrote in post #18139788
canon SHOULD make a 22-24mm F2 EF-s and 28-35mm F2 EF-s
.

Why should they make those? They already make a 24mm 2.8 pancake that is priced rediculously cheap, and a 28 1.8. They also make a 35 f2 and a 35 f2 IS. Think making a slightly smaller 35 f2 for EF-S only, and slightly cheaper would revolutionize the world for crop shooters? Is there any info on what sells more, the Sigma 35 art or the Sigma 30mm Art? I know the 30mm is great, but Poole don't flock to it the way they flock to the 35mm, even crop shooters.

Myboostedgst wrote in post #18139807
Why should they make those? They already make a 24mm 2.8 pancake that is priced rediculously cheap, and a 28 1.8. They also make a 35 f2 and a 35 f2 IS. Think making a slightly smaller 35 f2 for EF-S only, and slightly cheaper would revolutionize the world for crop shooters? Is there any info on what sells more, the Sigma 35 art or the Sigma 30mm Art? I know the 30mm is great, but Poole don't flock to it the way they flock to the 35mm, even crop shooters.

I agree that the 28/1.8 covers that hole, but a wider and faster 22mm would be nice. The 24/2.8 options just don't make sense if you already have a 17-55 or 17-50. You gain nothing in aperture and lose the zoom.

One of the first two lenses for the M system was a 22/2 so why is there nothing like it for EF-s like 10 years later?

Myboostedgst wrote in post #18139807
Why should they make those? They already make a 24mm 2.8 pancake that is priced rediculously cheap, and a 28 1.8. They also make a 35 f2 and a 35 f2 IS. Think making a slightly smaller 35 f2 for EF-S only, and slightly cheaper would revolutionize the world for crop shooters? Is there any info on what sells more, the Sigma 35 art or the Sigma 30mm Art? I know the 30mm is great, but Poole don't flock to it the way they flock to the 35mm, even crop shooters.

because the EF-M 22 is fantastic and a stop faster?

35 f1.4 of any type is massive, people dont flock to the 30 sigma because it's third party. Canon could make a smaller less expensive f1.4 aps-c version. You want to know if it sells?

think of the pancake 24, does that sell? Canon already had a EF 24mm f2.8 (multiple 2.8 versions), and now the EF-s 24mm f2.8 stm. they could have completely skipped that lens according to your logic.

Myboostedgst wrote in post #18139782
Isn't 50mm not technically what the human eye sees on FF? I thought I heard/read somewhere it was somewhere between 43-45mm. Also, that everyone's eyes are actually slightly different and they can range a few mm's different from others.

Also the OP is not looking for a reasonable solution. He is just looking to voice his frustrations, plenty of valid options have been provided and he won't accept any of them.

That is very true. 70 on 70-200 is what my eyes normally see. When I stick on that lens, zoomed out, its almost like I am not looking through lens. No joke, I am embarrassed to tell anyone about it, maybe there are others like me.

To add to this thread, I myself shot a lot of 50mm on crop. Perhaps it had something to do with the above, don't know and took some amazing photos with it. Also used the 35F2/IS a lot and still do but sometimes I miss the bokeh and zoomed in perspective of the 50 a lot (on a crop body). However the 35 proved to be way more versatile indoors and in tight spaces. I actually went travelling with that lens + 70-200 many times and did okay.

On FF however, I find 35 to be a little on the wider side for controlled or perspective photography. I mostly shoot birds and landscape, but sometimes dabble into other things like flowers and interesting things walking around. On a crop 35 is ideal for that, on FF its a little too wide for my taste.

So I understand where OP is coming from, and since Canon is hell bent on pumping 4x crop bodies every year, it would make perfect sense to have an equivalent lens. Then again, from business POV, they would rather invest R&D into products that they can then sell for $$$ and rake in the profits.

FEChariot wrote in post #18139829
I agree that the 28/1.8 covers that hole, but a wider and faster 22mm would be nice. The 24/2.8 options just don't make sense if you already have a 17-55 or 17-50. You gain nothing in aperture and lose the zoom.

One of the first two lenses for the M system was a 22/2 so why is there nothing like it for EF-s like 10 years later?

it's only been 4 years since the eos-m came out...and even with a fantastic 22f2 it was a bit of a flop...so i doubt canon saw it as being a lens with much demand

DreDaze wrote in post #18139955
it's only been 4 years since the eos-m came out...and even with a fantastic 22f2 it was a bit of a flop...so i doubt canon saw it as being a lens with much demand

I hope Canon realizes that it was the terrible focus system in the first M and not the focal length. Or that in general mirrorless camera's are being killed by smart phones.

Myboostedgst wrote in post #18139782
Isn't 50mm not technically what the human eye sees on FF? I thought I heard/read somewhere it was somewhere between 43-45mm. Also, that everyone's eyes are actually slightly different and they can range a few mm's different from others.

Also the OP is not looking for a reasonable solution. He is just looking to voice his frustrations, plenty of valid options have been provided and he won't accept any of them.

Hostile much?

I'm just fishing for suggestions form others, to see what they use/like...

So far I have Canon 28mm f1.8, Canon 35 f2 and Sigma 30mm f1.4 (which is the one i'm leaning to as I've owned a few Sigma lenses and really liked them).

Also, let's not get too hung up on the specifics of exact human eye perspective v's lens perspective...

I'm not going to kill someone or go on a rampage if the lens is slightly long or short (narrow or wide) of the field of view of my eyes, just want something that is basically the crop version of a 50mm (don't get hung up on the mm's, i'm talking about the standard 50mm lens)

Also I would like a large aperture to keep the speed up for quick shooting in and about town, and, for some nice narrow depth of field when shooting nieces and nephew, my dogs, car details etc...

STIC wrote in post #18140133
Hostile much?

I'm just fishing for suggestions form others, to see what they use/like...

So far I have Canon 28mm f1.8, Canon 35 f2 and Sigma 30mm f1.4 (which is the one i'm leaning to as I've owned a few Sigma lenses and really liked them).

Also, let's not get too hung up on the specifics of exact human eye perspective v's lens perspective...

I'm not going to kill someone or go on a rampage if the lens is slightly long or short (narrow or wide) of the field of view of my eyes, just want something that is basically the crop version of a 50mm (don't get hung up on the mm's, i'm talking about the standard 50mm lens)

Also I would like a large aperture to keep the speed up for quick shooting in and about town, and, for some nice narrow depth of field when shooting nieces and nephew, my dogs, car details etc...

Lots to agree with here. No sense getting hung on the specifics of something that will be different for everyone. Not to mention everyone's individual interpretation of that difference. For me, eye-perspective is about 70mm. That may be affected by 20/20 left eye and 20/200 right.

Please don't kill anyone. I'm pretty sure that is illegal.

Ditto the Sigma lenses. I had the 70-200 OS. Extremely nice lens for the price. I still have the Sigma 15mm FE. It is better than Canon's version, in every conceivable way.

I have the 30mm you're considering. One of two ef-s lenses kept after full frame became primary body.

It's brilliant. I love it.

You'll read lots about focus issues blah blah blah but most of that comes from those unwilling to learn the specific characteristics of a lens. Instant gratification or whinge online...

Contrast isn't up there with the Art version but it does give lovely warm tones.

Bassat wrote in post #18140148
Lots to agree with here. No sense getting hung on the specifics of something that will be different for everyone. Not to mention everyone's individual interpretation of that difference. For me, eye-perspective is about 70mm. That may be affected by 20/20 left eye and 20/200 right.

Please don't kill anyone. I'm pretty sure that is illegal.

Ditto the Sigma lenses. I had the 70-200 OS. Extremely nice lens for the price. I still have the Sigma 15mm FE. It is better than Canon's version, in every conceivable way.

If you read my previous post you should note that your 6D has a viewfinder specified as 0.71× magnification when using a 50mm lens focused at infinity. Given 0.71× @ 50mm you need to use a focal length of 50/o.71 = 70mm to achieve an optical magnification of 1× in the viewfinder of the camera. So yes what you see is indeed correct, and has nothing to do with your eyesight. To know what focal length you will need on any particular camera to achieve an optical 1× magnification in the viewfinder, simply divide 50 by the specified viewfinder magnification, as it is customary to define the magnification using a 50mm lens focused at infinity.

If you were to make a transparent print from the whole sensor area, and then view the print at the camera location from the same distance as the print diagonal, the subjects at the focal plane will appear to match correctly if the image was shot with a "standard" lens for the format that also matched the diagonal. It seems somewhat convoluted, because you have to ensure that you are correctly matching the viewing distances for the print.

Alan

STIC wrote in post #18140133
Hostile much?

I'm just fishing for suggestions form others, to see what they use/like...

So far I have Canon 28mm f1.8, Canon 35 f2 and Sigma 30mm f1.4 (which is the one i'm leaning to as I've owned a few Sigma lenses and really liked them).

Also, let's not get too hung up on the specifics of exact human eye perspective v's lens perspective...

I'm not going to kill someone or go on a rampage if the lens is slightly long or short (narrow or wide) of the field of view of my eyes, just want something that is basically the crop version of a 50mm (don't get hung up on the mm's, i'm talking about the standard 50mm lens)

Also I would like a large aperture to keep the speed up for quick shooting in and about town, and, for some nice narrow depth of field when shooting nieces and nephew, my dogs, car details etc...

Sensitive much?

You are looking for a 30mm fast prime. There is a Sigma art with EXACTLY the specs you are looking for. So what's your complaint, its not Canon? As I said, complaining about the fact that Canon doesnt make the lens. If a few mm's dont really make that big of a difference, then there are 28mm and 35mm options from Canon. Why would Canon then make another lens right between the 28mm and the 35mm if, as in your own words, "I'm not going to kill someone or go on a rampage if the lens is slightly long or short"?

And by the way, if you think my initial post is someone about to "Kill someone or go on a rampage" then you must be new to the internet.

Myboostedgst wrote in post #18140257
You are looking for a 30mm fast prime. There is a Sigma art with EXACTLY the specs you are looking for. So what's your complaint, its not Canon?

I don't want an 'ART' as the price is a little high for my liking. NOT because it's a Sigma...try reading posts before angrily replying...

Myboostedgst wrote in post #18140257
If a few mm's dont really make that big of a difference, then there are 28mm and 35mm options from Canon. Why would Canon then make another lens right between the 28mm and the 35mm if, as in your own words, "I'm not going to kill someone or go on a rampage if the lens is slightly long or short"?

Do you work for Canon or have shares in Canon?

Jesus...

I'm looking for a 1.8 or, better yet, 1.4 so the 35 f2 is out for me...I do apologise personally to you for this rational on my part...

Between Canon 28 1.8 and Sigma 30 1.4, I think i'd go with the sigma as it gives me MORE of what I want...again, sorry if this upsets you...

Myboostedgst wrote in post #18140257
And by the way, if you think my initial post is someone about to "Kill someone or go on a rampage" then you must be new to the internet.

Oh no, I can tell from your posts that you've been on the internet for a long time...

STIC wrote in post #18140420
I don't want an 'ART' as the price is a little high for my liking. NOT because it's a Sigma...try reading posts before angrily replying...

Do you work for Canon or have shares in Canon?

Jesus...

I'm looking for a 1.8 or, better yet, 1.4 so the 35 f2 is out for me...I do apologise personally to you for this rational on my part...

Between Canon 28 1.8 and Sigma 30 1.4, I think i'd go with the sigma as it gives me MORE of what I want...again, sorry if this upsets you...

Oh no, I can tell from your posts that you've been on the internet for a long time...

Go back through and read your own posts. After your first post, every single post on page 1 (minus one post) contains something along the lines of "If they just built it I am sure they would sell a ton".

STIC wrote in post #18139172
Yeah, I've had my eye on the Sigma 30 f1.4 for a while (just trying to find a way to justify it to the wife), but, after getting the EF-S 15-85 IS USM, i'm really impressed with it and can't see why Canon don't release an EF-S (lets say for simplicity) 30mm for crop body use as a '50'.

With so many crops out there, it's a no brainer that it'd fly off the shelves...

STIC wrote in post #18139193
Not sure on the 'art', I was looking at the 30 f1.4 DC HSM (older, non art model).

I get they want to sell more FF bodies, but if so, why make so many crops, especially the extremely good (basically pro grade) 7DII, and not offer a 50 equivalent EF-S lens?

Seems to me, they are missing out on a fairly simple to produce 'cash cow'...

STIC wrote in post #18139211
No, it's about getting the 'human eye equivalent' perspective (so, shooting exactly what you are seeing) and, just as important, a nice wide aperture.

If I did have a FF, then my 50 f1.8 would give me this, but I have a 7DII so i'd like an EF-S lens that gives me this...

I still maintain that, if canon build it. it will sell...

STIC wrote in post #18139577
The wife will NOT sign off on a $1500 35L...

I'd be happy with an EF-S 30mm f1.4 (at a reasonable price), and i'm sure many thousands of other canon crop owners would be too...COME ON Canon...

yeah, but at f3.5 or 4...

Do I have stock in Canon? Come on, are you serious? Yes, my whole retirement plan is to try and convince others on an internet forum to buy Canon products instead of third party options. I have made my point here, you are as concered with complaining about Canon's lack of a 30mm as you are with finding a valid choice. All of the options have been presented, and the only one that fits into your stipulations is the older non art Sigma 30mm 1.4. Good luck on your choice, maybe relaxing a bit will help you make a decision. I'll leave you be now before I get super upset and go on some sort of rampage or something.

SkipD wrote in post #18139381
The desire for a wide aperture I can understand but focal length, in itself, has nothing to do with perspective (relative sizes of objects at different distances from the camera or your eye).

SkipD, I must say your dogmatic posts are misleading.

The FL choice does indeed have a big effect on perspective, if the photographer's purpose is a particular subject framing (as it usually is).
For example, if I want a full-body portrait framing, I will need to stay closer to the subject with a 35mm lens than with a 85mm lens, therefore the FL choice will definitely affect perspective.

In other words, good photographers select the FL because they want a certain perspective based on the desired subject framing, therefore the FL does affect the perspective.