I don't have anything in particular against zooms (my new Olympus 12-45mm f/4 is one great performer, and I do like most of the others I own), but I shoot differently with primes. Can't really explain why - it's important to me, and I clearly prefer it as well as the results.I'm thinking some of the people here should invest in a zoom lens or two. Not something for a traditional RF camera- but most cameras can use them. I traded it for an RF lens, but I had an AF-Nikkor 28~85 that was quite good.
Ah ... forgot about the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 Art I owned for my D5500 when I still had that camera - it hardly ever left the camera (only for the even more impressive Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 Art - a huge lens, but a fabulous performer); the rendering was gorgeous. Its predecessor wasn't bad either, as far as I recall ...My first film SLR was a mid-1970s Minolta SRT-200 that I bought brand new for about $150. 100 percent manual with only a battery for a light meter. I had little money in those days, so a 50mm f/2.0 Rokkor-X prime was my only lens for at least five years. And I had no problem with it.
When I switched to digital, I went with Pentax. But I found the focal lengths of its FA Limited primes to work out oddly on APS-C. The 31mm was okay, working out to about a 46.5mm full-frame equivalent. But, even then, it typically ran in the $900 range. Enter the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. Very sharp, very fast, great depth-of-field control and offering a 45mm equivalent. Under $400 10-15 years ago. It was my favorite prime on my Pentax K200D and K-5.
When I eased my way into micro fourth-thirds (I ran both systems for several years), it didn't take me long to gravitate to the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7. I gave my first version to a niece when I gifted her some of my earlier u43 cameras. But I picked up the Mark II shortly afterward and still have it.
I personally prefer the 35mm field of view over 50mm - most of the time. But 40mm is dang near perfect.
Sure. I started with a Spotmatic and a 55. I then had some 50’s (Pentax made a bunch of these) and then the 40 2.8. All of those lenses never failed to please.Pentax shooter, still, here. I have two 35mm and two 50mm, as well as a 55mm. I guess thats the range I prefer. I did have the FA43mm f/1.9 Ltd but I just could never adapt to it. I also have a DA15mm Ltd which almost never comes out. And a couple of WR zooms for *those* days.
I was thinking about why I might prefer the 50mm and i believe its about what I began my photography with... a Minolta SRT303 with a Rokkor 50mm f/1.4, and thats all I had, for years. Still have them.
I've mentioned before that I once rented the 20-40 Ltd during the time I owned a K30. It was one of the best lenses I've ever used from an IQ standpoint. I just couldn't see myself carrying a camera/lens combo that big regularly out in the woods, especially if I'm on a bike.That said, I was intrigued by the Pentax 20-40mm Limited for a very long time ...
There you are ... Compare what I've said about the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 - wonderful lens, but *huge*. I actually consider the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 somewhat big (on the small bodies I tend to own). I let go of other lenses, most notably the Sigma f/1.4 Art primes, because I found them clearly too bulky for my liking ... I think that a lot of my fascination for Leica M springs from the fact that you end up with a superbly compact setup (for FF) that performs superbly well ... I've looked into the MATE (28-35-50mm step zoom) - not a really big lens, but still somewhat off for my taste. I'll stick with the small 35mm and 50mm primes I own (with 28mm, 75mm and 90mm options to choose from).I've mentioned before that I once rented the 20-40 Ltd during the time I owned a K30. It was one of the best lenses I've ever used from an IQ standpoint. I just couldn't see myself carrying a camera/lens combo that big regularly out in the woods, especially if I'm on a bike.
On a 3:2 size sensor, I am thinking so. Mentally I think I measure a frame by the horizontal, as in what I can fit into the frame on both sides, more so than the top and bottom. So in a sense, 40mm on 4:3 seems tighter to me because there's less on the sides. Though, I have used 40mm on 35mm film and feel the same level of comfort with that frame.Do you get more of a panorama?
I loved the 30mm f/1.4 Art on the very grippy little Nikon D5500 - fantastic combo, worked out very well overall. In fact, the camera handled so well that it actually took the 18-35mm f/1.8 Art surprisingly well. Still, compared to its little brother (or cousin), the 30mm f/1.4 Contemporary (which isn't a particularily small lens, either), the 30mm f/1.4 A felt indeed huge. And the 30mm f/1.4 C is better behaved, too ... But yes, Sigma values optical prowess over compact size - or did so for quite a while. But now, they have my new favourite AF lens, the 45mm f/2.8 C - not a compact f/2.8 lens, but still reasonably small, fantastic build quality and gorgeous images. I like it ...And very heavy by comparison with the Pentax lenses. Thats why I never went Sigma for any lenses, every one of them weighs a lot more than either the Pentax or Tamron counterparts.