« Bye, Thom | Main | The System Concept »

Monday, 01 August 2016


Mike, you're simply describing my usual Fuji carry-about kit. I have the 14, the 18/2, the 35/2, the lovely little 60 macro (well, until my lovely wife swiped it), and the 90/2. I often swap out the 90 for the 55-200 zoom, which is slow in aperture but quite sharp and renders nicely. And has IS.

So there does seem to be a market for APS prime lenses. Now, is there a market for NIKON APS primes? Dunno. Not my department.

(Note too that when I am shooting to put bread on the table, I grab the faster, more "professional" Fuji lenses -- the f/1.4 primes and the 50-140/2.8. But they are heavier and I don't carry them unless I need to.)

Make the normal a pancake while we're at it. I really like those for carry around.

For my uses,

instead of your 14mm ƒ/2.8, I'd want a 12mm ƒ/2.8 rectilinear ultrawide (18mm-e);

instead of your 18mm ƒ/2 I'd want a 16mm ƒ/2 (though ƒ/2.8 would be fine, too) standard wide angle (24mm-e);

I'd used the existing 35mm DX lens as my "normal" fast lens (53mm-e);

the 58mm ƒ/2 short tele would be great;

closeup filters, like the discontinued (WHY?!?!) 3T, 4T, 5T, and 6T would be wonderful (I already have them); and they'd be especially nice with the

50–100mm ƒ/3.5 zoom (75–150mm-e)

I'd be fine with VR, or not. But they would HAVE to be AF-S designs, allowing instantaneous manual-focus override without the need to flip a switch or change a menu setting!

So just to satisfy the 2 of us, that's 7 new DX lenses Nikon needs to consider!

[I'd be okay with your 12mm & 16mm instead of 14mm and 18mm, and I could go with the tele filters (what are those really called, anyway?) on the 50-100mm instead of the 58mm. I didn't know Nikon had discontinued those. Too bad. The one time I used one it worked very well and it's certainly a nice solution for the occasional macro user who wants to pack light. --Mike]

And by the way, as I'm sure you know, the word is:

Rectilinear -- of or relating to a straight line or lines.


Rectalinear -- not even going to speculate!


[You know, I just looked right at that word and thought, that ain't right. But I was so absentminded I didn't have another thought after that one. Thanks for the catch. --Mike]

I'd make sure all the lenses all worked exactly the same way and had the same controls
I wonder if anyone other than Fuji users understands this. Me too, by the way.
I'd give them all the same filter size, no more than 58mm,
I have the happy situation that my first three Fuji X lenses were the 18-55, the 14/2.8, and the XC 50-230. All three have 58mm filters and can share caps and hoods. While the 50-230's is different, they share a bayonet interface. When shooting I generally swap a single 14/18-55 hood between all three lenses.

Now I'm afraid to buy another and mess this up.

Another Fuji user here. Couldn't go past that great lens lineup, among other things. Its pretty much APS-C lens paradise.

My most used lenses are the 35mm 1.4 and 14mm 2.8, with the 60mm 2.4 handling some portrait duties. The 23mm isn't in the bag but I can hear it's siren song calling over the waves.

"Complete" system of lenses seems to me to have some variable "qualifiers" such as age, wealth, and economic dependence on photography, i.e., pro vs. enthusiast. Of course the pro "needs" more than I do. Wealth is obvious - I can't afford a bunch of top of the line optics. And age! In my 20's I carried a Hasselblad and 5 lenses to the top of mountains. Now....

So now my "system" fits that same focal range of the "Leica trio" and which Galen Rowell often said better than 90% of his best photographs were taken at - essentially between 24mm & 90mm. But I'm doing it with ONE lens! I will try and sneak a fuji prime or two back into my life soon, but I am forever reminded after a shoot of how well my 18-55mm F/2.8-4 "kit" zoom has performed for me. I am constantly asking myself what would a "better" lens do for me? My rational arsonal of reasons is rapidly diminishing :-)

Incidentally, I did at one point use a Nikon 75-150 in my APS-C back when Nikon's only current telezoom was the 70-200/2.8 and I needed something cheaper and easily portable. Worked well, biggest problem was the mechanics. It's just silly that when nobody was shooting full frame, major brands didn't introduce some sensible APS-C telezoom such as a 50-135/2.8.

Pentax has an extensive APS lens line-up, where they seem to have forgotten to plug a prime between the 21 and 35mm lenses. Instead they have the recent 20-40mm zoom, which I think is their most ballsy lens. Not a constant aperture lens, with a limited focal length range and yet it's getting good user reviews over at pentaxforums.

I couldn't agree more: 21, 28, 40, 85 (all equivalent) - it's so good that someone with common (lens) sense has moved into the area. :)

If forced I could live with 35 instead of 40, but I'd prefer not.

Having bought this wonderful outfit Sir MJ would find the nicest and safest corner of a closet shelf so that the wonderful photographic utility offered by the DX, or other setup not be contaminated by picture taking. To prevent loneliness by the camera it would be in the same closet as the rest of his gear.

I wonder what relationship could possibly be drawn between those (fine) two digital-only lenses and that film development paraphernalia?

[I made that picture a long time ago and don't recall what I was thinking. Probably just playing around with stuff in the basement. It could have been that I needed something to keep the Zeiss from rolling around. --Mike]

Pentax really has a well developed APS-C lens system, so long as you view it as a whole and not as a (failed) attempt to copy Nikon or Canon 35mm equivalents. I mostly use the 15/4, 21/3.2 and 70/2.4 Limited primes, which equate roughly to 22, 32 and 105 in the 35mm world. Add the sparkly 50-135/2.8 (75-200)and you really don't need anything else. And it makes a tiny kit.

Agitator, eh? That's one of the nicest things you've ever said about me.

I wish you spent more time writing about what to think about when "composing, exposing and post producing" our photographs. Gear is gear and the worst of it is still likely to be capable of technically excellent results. It isn't the camera or lens we admire when we see a great picture, it's the picture itself. So how can we be more insightful when practicing our craft with whatever gear we've cobbled together?

Mike, your ideal DX lens line-up makes sense. But I'm afraid the current economics of the camera industry means an investment of this magnitude is too great even for Nikon right now. And, it looks like they're focusing on a much more profitable segment versus adding to the DX line.


Nobody else comes close to Pentax's wealth of Limited and legacy lenses. If you were going fresh into APSC-C format, without any prior loyalties to a brand, and you were choosing based on availability of format-matched prime lenses, the only choices would be Pentax for DSLRs, and Fuji for mirrorless.

[I used to shoot Pentax and eventually had to leave. As I said in the picture caption, I need a prime in the 35mm to 40mm equivalent range as my basic lens, and Pentax doesn't have that. It now has a limited-range zoom in that range, which I might have been able to make friends with, but who knows. --Mike]

Pentax's broad range of excellent Limited series APC/DX prime lenses has not helped Pentax crack the Canikon duopoly. (I do concur with the Pulles about the odd gap lacking a 35mm-equivalent prime.)

I've tested some Limited series lenses with the new full-frame K-1 and a fair number are sharp to the corners of full-frame images, so they're certainly even stronger on the smaller APC image circle.

That's apparently insufficient to rise above being a niche player compared to Canon and Nikon.

Don't talk about the Leica CL or you will make me cry -- it was the camera I most wanted but never had. Mind you, I'm not sure it would have been good for me if I had had it.

Back in those days, I had two Olympus OM1 cameras, one black for B&W, one silver for color (or one with the w/a lens and one with the tele) and I ran a four lens kit: the f3.5 21mm, the f2 28mm (my "standard" lens), the f2 85mm (unlike you, Mike, while I loved that lens, I really did want the extra 5mm to take it to 90; I always had to crop just a bit for portraits) and the f4 200. The f1.8 50mm lens that came with the camera stayed in the cupboard and got quietly mouldy in the tropical warmth and humidity.

Every one of those lenses was small for its focal length and aperture, light, and strong. And as lenses they were jewels. Lovely sharpness, smooth rendering, and color. Sold a lot of pictures taken with that outfit, and eventually sold the outfit itself when I was building an adobe house in the bush near Melbourne, Australia, and ran out of money to pay for the regulation toilet system. Bugger!!!

Never got back into Olympus until I got into m43 a few years ago because they dropped the ball with the OM system and fell behind. In addition, I couldn't afford a new outfit and used Olympus cameras and lenses were as scarce as hens' teeth. I understood why.

One odd thing I should mention in re the CL. Pre-Olympus, I used a Canon 7s for a while with a remarkable f1.5 35mm lens. I found it great and I was very taken with the 35mm as my "standard" lens. But when I shifted to the SLR, I found the 35mm wasn't wide enough -- so shifted to the 28mm for "standard". I noticed the same thing when I briefly used a direct vision VF on the Olympus E-PL3 m43 interchangeably with the accessory EVF, VF-2. Again, the 35mm equiv was better for me with the direct vision VF while the 28mm equiv was more comfortable with the EVF.

Funny, eh?

Cheers, Geoff

Why a DX lens at all? If you have DX lenses and you want to move to an FX camera, you are stuck with buying a whole new set of lenses. Mucho dinero. If you use FX lenses on your DX camera, and move to FX, there is no additional cost over the camera. And normally, FX lenses work perfectly on the smaller sensor-just adjust for the zoom effect. It works fine for me, and if I move to the larger format, I don't have to spend thousands to replace all my lenses. My wallet gives a sigh of relief.

Fuji has created the ideal APS-C lens system for their mirrorless cameras. Nikon and Canon should just copy the list for their own APS-C mounts, including:
60/2.4 macro

My favorite DX lenses were always the 12-24 zoom and the 18-70 zoom. Small-(ish), light, and almost all the range you ever need for most things. A bit at 70mm for taking head shots or whatever. But you could add a 105 or something for that if you needed it. I never did.

The "kit" for my D7000 (mind you, I bought full frame lenses when I could with the idea that I would upgrade to full frame one day and I did, sorta... I went back to film and currently enjoy my FG and happily use an FE):

-Tokina 12-28mm f/4 for ultra wide and some limited real estate shooting (I had the Nikon 10-24, and it's good, but I prefer the Tokina)
-Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DG EX whatever whatever: sharp, good color, etc.
-Nikon 50mm f/1.8 E (I have the current 50mm G and it's good, but the E series has better color at the expense of a wee bit of sharpness, and it has an aperture ring)
-Nikon 75-150 f/3.5 E or the Kiron-made Vivitar Series 1 70-210s (I have both, but if I could go back, the 75-150 is better, if narrower and shorter, and makes a fun macro lens with a reversing ring)
-Nikon 55mm f/2.8 ais for close macro (scanning negatives)

If I was going to recommend a Nikon system today, that would be it, pretty much. I'd probably swap the 30mm Sigma for a 24mm Nikkor, and maybe the Tokina for the Rokinon 14mm, though the Tokina is a superior lens, imo. The whole kit would run no more than $1000. Sure, it's not current Nikkor glass, and there's not a bit of VR to be found, but it's all great glass and will last for another generation or three.

The 35mm f/1.8 G DX is on my APS-C Nikon, a lowly D7000, most of the time. Like you, I find its focal length to be the wrong side of normal and would love a 26mm or even a good, fast 24mm that's made for DX and isn't a boat anchor. (The old Nikkor AF 28mm f/2.8, a rebadged E lens, didn't do it for me and the D isn't that much better.)

We won't see those DX lenses, though. When Nikon's DSLRs were all APS-C, the company made the necessary 17-55mm f/2.8 DX zoom (which I used to rent for jobs – very heavy but but lovely) and the 12-24mm DX (a good ultra-wide zoom for its time), as well as a ton of cheaper mid-range zooms, a few of which were decent. But they knew a lot earlier than we did that FX was coming. With FX lenses already here and FX bodies on their way, the pressure was off. Today, with FX firmly established, the chance of good new DX primes is essentially zero. The 35mm f/1.8 G DX was Nikon saying 'we thought you might like this little something we made for you as a token of our appreciation for everything you've done for us. We're so sorry it didn't work out but we're really grateful.' (Nice gesture, nice lens.)

The D500 exists only for sports, wildlife and PJ types who want speed, ruggedness and, most importantly, the entire resolution of the sensor in the APS-C area, giving extra reach. It's certainly a good backup for other pros but Nikon makes too little on DX—they want us paying $FX. And, even for that D500, they know (and so do we) that we're going to use FX lenses.

I spend a chunk of my time working with jobbing photographers and have noticed this: they all talk about how great prime lenses are but the only time they shoot with prime lenses is when their iPhones come out.I'm not just being critical—some of today's zooms are spectacular. I don't see myself paying for a Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 APS-C lens or doing the gym time I'd need before carrying it around but wow, it does seem like an incredible lens.

(If you're hoping for DX primes, though, don't let me depress you—I'm the guy who thought the Df would be a runaway success.)

The 'filters' for closeups are 'achromatic close-up lenses' and are often very good. I also have the 3 & 4 (52mm) and 5 & 6 (62mm) ones by Nikon as well as some by Leica and Canon. They are not flat field but most are excellent on their intended primes for 3D macro subjects and the results don't lag those from dedicated primes in their intended applications. I often took them on travels.

Fuji truly is the only company that has a good set of primes for a smaller than FF camera. Unfortunately I don't along that well with the cameras otherwise. My sub FF choice is m43 (you may change this to whatever convention pleases you) and there the choice of primes is definitely lacking, although some outstanding ones exist. I would love a 12 or 14mm-e f/4, 21mm-e f/2.8, 35mm-e f/2, and a really good 70-200mm-e f/4. All would have to be in same optical class as the Olympus 75mm f/1.8.

Fortunately we have some excellent lenses already like the 15mm and 42.5mm f/1.8 Panasonics and the 75mm Olympus, as well as the outstanding Pro Olympus zooms. But the latter are on the large side, so I often go out with the 17mm/1.8 Olympus and the very tiny 35-100 f/4-5.6 Panasonic zoom. But while good they aren't great, and the zoom is variable aperture and plasticky.

Dave Riedel said: "So how can we be more insightful when practicing our craft with whatever gear we've cobbled together?"

Become one with it (trust it).

I have just two main system I shoot with mostly, one based on the Nikon D7000, and the other on the Olympus E-P5.

My Nikon D7000 kit:
- Tokina 12-28mm f/4 zoom (fantastic range of very useful focal lengths)
- Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX
- Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR zoom (outstanding IQ for a "kit" zoom)
- Nikon SB-700 flash (outstanding!)
- The body and three lenses all fit in a medium-large Tamrac messenger style bag that was discontinued years ago. No room for the SB700 though, unless I leave out one of the zooms.

Honestly, I'd rather just have one good wide-angle zoom than fill my bag with primes, especially since I'm usually in the f/8 to f/11 range on most of my wide-angle photography. The speed is nice, but I rarely even use f/4. But that's just me.

The only primes I'm seriously considering adding to my all-DX kit is the Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 FX, the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 FX, and the Nikon 85mm f/3.5 VR DX macro. If you want a quality short-range zoom the new Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 is the cat's meow, even though it's a BIG, HEAVY lens. I'm surprisingly happy with my 55-300 VR for now.

My Olympus E-P5 kit was very consciously modeled on the Leica CL, with some additions/modifications:
- Samyang 7.5mm f/3.5 fisheye
- Lumix 12-32 f/3.5-5.6 zoom (a honey of a TINY zoom!)
- Lumix 20mm f/1.7
- Leica 45mm f/2.8 macro
- Olympus 40-150mm f/4-5.6 zoom
- Olympus VF-4 electronic viewfinder
- And it all fits in a Billingham Hadley "small" shoulder bag.

I was going to buy the Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 wide-angle to have the "perfect" micro 4/3 version of the Leica CL kit, but when the super tiny Lumix 12-32 zoom came out, I decided to give it a try, and I'm happy I did! Surprisingly it's no bigger than the 14mm, but it's a very versatile little zoom that delivers really good IQ. The Oly 40-150 "kit" zoom is the greatest bargain in the history of micro 4/3. The IQ is surprisingly good, even better than that of the Lumix 45-200.

As for the Nikon D7200: It's easily the best general-purpose camera that money can buy right now. As long as you can live with a Tokina, Sigma or Nikon wide-angle DX zoom, and using a 24mm FX lens as your main prime. The Sigma 24mm f/1.4 "ART" lens might impress you, even though it's the same size as the Tokina 12-28mm f/4 zoom....but they use the same 77mm filter!

Sadly, unless you are into micro 4/3 or Fuji mirrorless, the days of the small, high quality prime lens set is mostly over.

I actually use 3 f/1.8 Nikkors on my D500, two FX and one DX: 20mm, 35mm (DX) and 85mm and only miss the suggested 12mm. Sure the DX versions of the 20mm and 85mm would be more compact and perhaps a bit cheaper, but I don't see why Nikon would have to develop a separate DX version in this focal length. Then in the zoom area they could update my 10-24mm but together with the 16-80/4 and 70-200/4 I don't need more.

Nikon already offers the following lenses:

14 f2.8, 20 f1.8, 24 f1.8, 28 f1.8, 35 f1.8, 50 f1.8, 85 f1.8.

Of course they cover the FF sensor, but nothing stops people from using them on crop sensor cameras. Why should they introduce the same focal lengths for crop cameras?

[For one thing, because they're not the same focal lengths on crop cameras, if by "focal length" you mean angle of view. A 35mm on FX has to be a 23mm on DX to cover the same angle of view, and so forth. For another thing, because the FX primes are very large. Of course, so are the DX cameras, so maybe that's just not a value Nikon cares about at all! --Mike]

The absence of an 18mm f2.8/f2.0 or a 23mm f2.0 for DX cameras is the very reason for which at the end I switched to a Fuji X100 and then the X100T.

My 10y/o D200 body is still superior in handling and responsiveness to any modern mirrorless, but I need those damn lenses.

The most annoying thing about the modern Fuji lenses is the almost wilful carelessness when it comes to filter sizes. They are all over the place, even when it seems they could have been standardised more.

I use Pentax manual film cameras, and I have many of the wonderful SMC Pentax-M lenses. 49mm thread from 28mm up to 85mm. Perfecto!

I've come up with a similar list, but based on the idea that Pentax would do well to have another go at an APS-C mirrorless camera with a K mount. It would be designed with the emphasis on compactness, and so would the lenses.

The camera would have the screen on top, over the lens mount to sensor area. There would be an eye level electronic viewfinder tucked underneath the screen. This would give you a camera with a smaller front to back dimension. So what we need now is some new lenses. Some of them would be pancakes. Here they are:

18mm f/3.5 (f/2.8 would be better but it wouldn't be so compact)
26mm f/2.8 (like Pentax's 40mm f/2.8 pancake, but for APS-C)
58mm f/2.8 (Would cover full frame)
90mm f/2.8 (Would cover full frame)
50-100mm f/4 (About the size of a 50mm f/1.4)

The 50-100 would be great with a fast or slow standard zoom, to make a compact two lens outfit.

Having shoot the CD [Do you mean CL? --Ed.] trio for many years ago - 25mm CV, 40mm, 90mm - I have now switched to the a Fuji magic trio of 10-24mm, 18-55mm, 55-200mm zooms. Yes, all dark side now. And long enough for the guilt to have subsided. 😊

Mike hi

Without being contentious the Leica CL only had the 40mm, 50mm and 90mm lens fields shown in the viewfinder [ of course it could use most other M lenses with slip in viewfinders ], and it was the Minolta CLE that had the 28/40/90mm set up and viewfinder frames.

I'm assuming that ws world wide ?



[Really? Wasn't there a 40mm Summicron-C made specifically for the CL? All my old Leica books are in storage now.... --Mike]

My mind is working along the same lines. In the chaos of my life, I like to find ordered things like lenses... engineered all the way through to the details of how the user shoots. That said, as a Fuji X-man, I wish even they were more consistent in 1) Filter size and 2) added the focal distance markings for manual focus. The 16mm and 23mm have it down. But I'm an odd man out: No one else seems to care and complain these - some of the smaller in Fuji's arsenal by size, are still too big. FWIW, I've picked up some Olympus OM glass to complement the Fujis when I want to go into Manual Mode. Works great with a Metabones Speed Booster.

Historically I've been a two-kit-zooms-by-alternative-manufacturers kind of person. With the NEX-7 I was just straightforward two-kit-zooms-by-Sony, even. Of course there's a bunch of old 50-quid primes rattling around in the bag as well, but they don't get much of an airing unless it's the Helios 58mm...

So when I swapped the Sony gear for Olympus this year, I promised myself I'd avoid normal kit zooms akin to the 18-55mm, and I'd go ultra-wide and pretty-long instead. After all, there's a guy in the photo-society who's done well with that strategy.
Then I had to take up the reins at church and whaddya know but the first lens I bought is the four-thirds 12-60mm f/2.8-f/4 that sits right in the range I swore to avoid... hey, 5x zoom range in one lump is "compact camera" territory, isn't it? It makes my Pen-F into a lumpy big-glass monster - And I *LOVE* it to bits. Chroma, sharpness, convenience, just yummy. AF's slow to nonexistent but then I just use backbutton one-shot AF-S prefocussing...

So if the aim is to cover one's working range with the camera manufacturer's own glass, then I've actually done pretty well with Olympus zooms: 7-14, 12-60, 75-300. The only primes are the Helios for its bokeh and a Zhongyi 25mm for the f/0.95.

Must go now. Bank-manager wants a word. ;)

Interesting post, and interesting comments. Seems completely possible to imagine a 5-lens system but pretty much impossible to get folks to agree on which five.

If we're talking primes, I'd have to have a 24 equivalent and something around 105 eq. Never cared for 85 and really do not like 28. In the middle I'd like a 35 eq but could live with 40. So say a 16, 24 and 70 in actual focal length. F2.8 would be fine -- I'd be reluctant to pay the price or size penalty for anything much faster. For something longer maybe an f4 zoom or maybe about a 100 or 135mm 2.8

But I'm not really a prime kind of guy. The one lens I would buy (and did buy for Sony) would be a 16-70 f4. Give me that and a longer complement -- say 40-135 f4 -- and I'm good to go. I might add a 16mm pancake for walking around. I'd almost never use it, but it's fun to have.

Come to think of it, give me a 16-90 f4 and I might never buy another lens. But that's not what Nikon wants to hear.

You know, I got excited when Panasonic and Olympus announced the first MFT cameras. But it was when Panasonic announced the 20mm f/1.7 that I was sold. They made the lens I wanted. And then a 45mm appeared and a 14mm. It's like someone's building a system for me!

And then the camera I was waiting for happened along – the E-M5 – and now I have a hard time imagining using that 20mm without IS. All those dimly lit scenes I've photographed with good sharpness at relatively low ISO and with adequate depth of field. Maybe even holding the camera high above my head to get a better angle on the scene.

But it was when you suggested close-up filters that a pet idea of mine reared it's overly niched head again: the perfect fixed lens camera. Thing is, most cameras have plenty of megapixels and most all camera makers seem hellbent on using sensors with the despicable aspect ratio of 3:2. So, give me a fixed lens camera with a 35mm-e lens (like a Fuji X100 or a Sony RX1) and a 5:4 (4:3 is fine too) crop mode. I don't have the math in my head, but crop that 35mm-e lens from 3:2 to 5:4 or 4:3 and you'll be somewhere around 40 or 45mm. Perfect for me. 35mm is also wide enough for those rare occasions I need a wide-angle and that's usually for things I find 3:2 fine for. So, add a screw-in conversion filter to make that ca. f/2 35mm-e lens an 85mm-e focal length and I've all bases covered apart from soccer photography and, let's face it, I suck at soccer photography, so that's all good.

P.S. I had a Nikon E 75-150. I think that's the one Nikon lens I miss. My Olympus 40-150mm (not the fancy constant f/2.8) is surprisingly good from 40-100mm (really, I can hardly believe how good it is before it hits the precipice around 100mm), but the 75-150 was just… nice. Too sharp for portraits, though. And boy did it make for extreme ghosting and flaring in contra light. And the bokeh, well, the bokeh was okay for a zoom, I guess. Still thought it was a great lens.

Whoops, looks like I forget to close an em-tag…

A friend of mine was unhappy with the results from his DX Nikon + kit zoom, and was thinking of replacing the body until someone (not me) persuaded him to swap the zoom for the 35/1.8 DX instead. He was so happy with that combination that his next purchase was a D600 and a "holy trinity" of FX primes.

I suspect that my friend's move to full frame was due more to natural trajectory than a lack of DX primes, but I may be wrong. Now he is fed up with the bulk and weight of his current kit and is looking into the Fuji X series...

Your 26mm isn't normal. It's moderate wide.
You may perceive it as 'normal' but the crowd doesn't (neither is it mathematically 'normal').

Amateurs in particular will perceive a 30-35mm dx closer to normal than what you suggest. 30-35mm also fits better between 18-58mm than 26mm.

Personally, I don't see amateurs carrying 3-5 lenses, no matter how small they are. The 17-55mm f2.8 is all they need.

Myself, I'd rather carry a standard prime and wide zoom (in the field, constantly switching between 14mm and 24mm is too much hassle), which is already available.

In this respect, you might have mentioned Pentax. Since the beginning of the digital era they have a line-up of beautiful and small dedicated APS-C primes (15-21-35-70mm). For a prime addict, it's all you need. That gives you a DSLR about size & weight of a Leica M. Hence, no need to go mirrorless.

[I think I've said this about nine times now, but Pentax doesn't have a 35mm to 40mm-equivalent lens in its APS-C lineup. A fatal flaw for the system for me, as that's always my main lens. --Mike]

The comments to this entry are closed.