[Teerawit]

Quote:

You lost me on the math there. Are you applying the 1.5 crop the wrong direction? A 35mm isn't much of a wide angle in FF range.

Yes it is. 35mm is still a wide angle on FF.
 
Then again I like my FF + 85mm as a walkaround.

 

[bigshot]

The poster asking the question has a D90.

 

[Teerawit]

That doesn't change anything. He's talking about getting a 24mm lens on APS-C, which has the equivalent angle of view as a 35mm on FF. 35mm on FF is still a wide angle, just not uuuuuuuuuuultra wide.

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

That doesn't change anything. He's talking about getting a 24mm lens on APS-C, which has the equivalent angle of view as a 35mm on FF. 35mm on FF is still a wide angle, just not uuuuuuuuuuultra wide.

Plenty of people would call it a normal lens, or perhaps "normal-wide".  It's only ever so slightly farther from the hypothetical "normal" lens for 35mm/FX than 50mm is.  Would you call 50mm or 55mm a long focus lens (often incorrectly considered synonymous with "telephoto")?
 
A 35-105mm f/2.8 equivalent lens surely isn't a bad thing, especially if you have a wider lens too (which probably means a DX lens, so you'll have invested in DX glass anyway).  But the 24-70mm (and 14-24mm) is hella huge on a D300 compared to say, a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 - and for me (and others) that goes wide enough that you'd rarely want wider.  What that means is you carry one less lens, and the one you do carry is a whole lot tinier - not to mention cheaper.
 
When I worked as a photojournalist, I could have done 99% of my photography (excluding sports and theater) with just the wide-short tele zoom.  Of course, I love to use telephotos for their ability to visually compress things - so I didn't.  Most of the time though, that was for outdoor personal photography and not assignments.

 

[bigshot]

The numbers in focal lengths mean a lot more the wider you get. The difference between 18 and 35 is a lot more than the difference between 35 and 55. A 35mm equivalent lens on DX is still in the normal range. I don't know what I'd do with a 35 to 70. Portraits I suppose, but I'd have to stay away from the schnozz enhancing 35 end.

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

The numbers in focal lengths mean a lot more the wider you get. The difference between 18 and 35 is a lot more than the difference between 35 and 55. A 35mm equivalent lens on DX is still in the normal range. I don't know what I'd do with a 35 to 70. Portraits I suppose, but I'd have to stay away from the schnozz enhancing 35 end.

Well, for photojournalists during the '90s it was their go-to lens.  I don't blame them either, because that's the most useful range for that work.
 
I'm not talking differences, I'm talking percentage differences - which is what matters.
 
85mm/43.3mm = 96.3% longer than "normal"
55mm/43.3mm = 27.0% longer than "normal"
35mm/28.4mm = 23.3% longer than "normal"
50mm/43.3mm = 15.5% longer than "normal"
43.3mm/35mm = "normal" is 23.7% longer
43.3mm/28mm = "normal" is 54.6% longer
43.3mm/24mm = "normal" is 80.4% longer
43.3mm/20mm = "normal" is 116.5% longer
 
So as you can see, a 35mm lens on DX is almost the same difference from the "normal" focal length as a 35mm lens is on 35mm/FX.  Also, I believe that most of Nikon's 50mm lenses also measure about 52mm nominally - which would also put them almost as away from "normal" at 20.2% when compared to a 35mm lens.

 

[bigshot]

We are talking about a good midrange zoom for DX. 24 isn't wide enough to be wide on DX. It doesn't cover the range of wide to long as well as a 17-55.

 

[Stormbringer]

Quote:

85mm/43.3mm = 96.3% longer than "normal"
55mm/43.3mm = 27.0% longer than "normal"
35mm/28.4mm = 23.3% longer than "normal"
50mm/43.3mm = 15.5% longer than "normal"
43.3mm/35mm = "normal" is 23.7% longer
43.3mm/28mm = "normal" is 54.6% longer
43.3mm/24mm = "normal" is 80.4% longer
43.3mm/20mm = "normal" is 116.5% longer

Can you explain me why the diagonal of the sensor is "normal"?
 

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

Quote:

85mm/43.3mm = 96.3% longer than "normal"
55mm/43.3mm = 27.0% longer than "normal"
35mm/28.4mm = 23.3% longer than "normal"
50mm/43.3mm = 15.5% longer than "normal"
43.3mm/35mm = "normal" is 23.7% longer
43.3mm/28mm = "normal" is 54.6% longer
43.3mm/24mm = "normal" is 80.4% longer
43.3mm/20mm = "normal" is 116.5% longer

Can you explain me why the diagonal of the sensor is "normal"?
 

I'll just do a little cut'n'paste from Wikipedia (here):
 
 
Quote:

 
In photography and cinematography a normal lens is a lens that reproduces perspective that generally looks "natural" to a human observer under normal viewing conditions, as compared with lenses with longer or shorter focal lengths which produce an expanded or contracted field-of-view. Lenses of shorter focal length are called wide-angle lenses, while longer focal length lenses are referred to as long focus lenses^[1] (with the most common of that type being the telephoto lenses).
 
A lens with a focal length about equal to the diagonal size of the film or sensor format is known as a normal lens; its angle of view is similar to the angle subtended by a large-enough print viewed at a typical viewing distance equal to the print diagonal;^[2] this angle of view is about 53° diagonally.
 

 
Basically, a photograph taken with a lens with the same focal length as the diagonal of the imaging area will have the same angle of view as you have when viewing a print of the photograph.  In other words, it preserves the spacial relationship of the objects in the photo from our point of view.

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

We are talking about a good midrange zoom for DX. 24 isn't wide enough to be wide on DX. It doesn't cover the range of wide to long as well as a 17-55.

 
A 35-70mm equivalent lens is definitely a good midrange zoom - that was the standard for 20 years...  THE original mid-range zoom.  Well, as long as you don't count the abysmal 43-86mm lens.
 
Now, is 28-70mm or 24-70mm better?  Yes, all else equal.  But plenty of people are happy using their 35-70mm f/2.8 on FX cameras as a lighter, much cheaper alternative to the big and expensive zooms of the 2000s.  You can get one for under $250 on eBay, and it performs just as well as the newer lenses.
 
E.g. http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikond700/discuss/72157612451902147/

 

[bigshot]

Wiggly mind.

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

Wiggly mind.

Ummm?
 
This is all that I found on that subject...

 

[Stormbringer]

Quote:

Basically, a photograph taken with a lens with the same focal length as the diagonal of the imaging area will have the same angle of view as you have when viewing a print of the photograph.  In other words, it preserves the spacial relationship of the objects in the photo from our point of view.

Ok, thanks! So that "50mm = normal" is not entirely true. Good to know.
 

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

Quote:

Basically, a photograph taken with a lens with the same focal length as the diagonal of the imaging area will have the same angle of view as you have when viewing a print of the photograph.  In other words, it preserves the spacial relationship of the objects in the photo from our point of view.

Ok, thanks! So that "50mm = normal" is not entirely true. Good to know.
 

Yeah - 50mm was pretty much a compromise, because it's a lot easier to design a fast lens for.  Up to 60mm is even easier - that's why you see lots of 55mm and 60mm macros - and older fast lenses are often 55mm or 58mm.  Part of the problem is that mirrors get in the way of SLR lens design, making retrofocus lens design necessary for about 50mm and shorter lenses that aren't for rangefinder or P&S cameras.

 

[Pseudonyms]

Just got a D3100. I was going to get a D60 but the seller ended up backing out on the deal. Oh well, I like the D3100 more as of now.
 
Heres a test video I took with it. Excuse the black box frame. It's a render issue that I need to fix. But I like how it turned out
 

 
If anyone is curious: It came with an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6, but for this test I was using a 50mm f/1.8 that my dad used to use on his late 80's Nikon film SLR  

 I love how SLR manufacturers stick to the same mount types.