Why are there no exact crop format equivalent of the classic

>Why isn't an inexpensive but fast and good 33mm prime included with DSLRs like in the good old days?

Because the starter kit lenses are seen as more pragmatic. And they are in most cases.

I agree that it's disappointing, but why exactly are you wishing for the precise focal scale? What DSLR do you use?

Most 50mm lenses aren't even 50mm on the nose, especially as you focus closer, so it's not like those extra 2mm or so make a difference.

You don't see 33mm primes packaged with crop bodies anymore because computer aided design has made cheap kit zooms practical and easy to manufacture. A zoom is more useful to amateurs, and since they are far and away the biggest customers of crop, it's what gets included in the kit.

Well if you want a standard lens (check wikipedia) that's a 43mm on full frame. So getting a 30mm for your crop puts you a little closer to ideal.

File: pentax-k-30-xl.jpg (175KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 960x640px

>>2886406
pentax K-30

I used a canon AE-1 with a 50mm prime for many years and I guess that framing has become ingrained in my brain. Neither 30mm nor 35mm feel quite the same on a crop DSLR.

>>2886409

35mm especially would be indistinguishable. I think you're full of it.

>>2886401
A 50mm apsc lens is one

Do you mean why are there no lenses which equal exactly to 50mm equivalency?

Cause if you use a micro 4/3 system, there are...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1182677-REG/panasonic_h_h025k_25mm_f_1_7_lens_for.html

25mm * 2 = 50mm

>>2886409

I doubt a 33mm would "feel" like a 50mm on FF either, then.

>>2886409
Becasue the arc/size/brightness of the viewfinder, and the actual distance to subject are inherently different.
It IS different, so it feels slightly different.

Just buy an apsc 50mm for your brand of digital camera, native full frame apsc lenses are converted.

File: highres-HD-Pentax-DA-21mm-f3-2-AL-limited-black-3_1382093448.jpg (2MB, 2148x2149px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2148x2149px

Since you've got a k30 just get this lens

It's pretty based

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M5
Camera Software	Version 1.7
Photographer	Joshua Waller
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2013:10:18 11:32:41
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/14.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	45.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2148
Image Height	2149
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Unique Image ID	272467659e7147f019c6dba61ae4c674

Fuji x-pro 2 has 33mm frame lines, which suggests they'll make a 33mm lens at some point.

>>2886418
>Micro four turds
>relevant
HA!

>>2886401
I don't suppose you're the twat that wrote this too?

http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6598/what-is-the-exposure-triangle/12441#12441

>>2886442
>21 3.2
is it better than a kit lens because that's pretty slow.

>>2886523
>it's pretty slow

There's more to a lens than it being fast

Just read about it and check some of the example images. It's very sharp

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/hd-pentax-da-21mm-f3.2-limited.html

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Pentax-DA%2021mm%20F3.2

>>2886414
>>>2886401 (OP)
>A 50mm apsc lens is one
>>2886428
>Just buy an apsc 50mm for your brand of digital camera, native full frame apsc lenses are converted.

The fuck are you chatting? you dick humping retard.

>>2886582
A 50mm apsc lens is a crop format equivalent of a traditional 50mm lens because the focal length is LITERALLY 50mm but designed for a smaller sensor rather than a full frame sensor

>>2886584
Unless something is lost in translation here... you're very, very wrong.

>>2886584
also I think you're confusing focal length for field of view. If two lens had a LITERALLY equivalent field of view, then what you're saying kind of makes sense. But that isn't how lenses are designated (unfortunately) and that's not what's going on here. Look it up.

>>2886584
This product LITERALLY does not exist, you sausage fingered goof

>>2886401

Why not just buy a full frame camera?

I got fed up with all my film lenses being really weird shit on crop and did so.

File: Bildschirmfoto-2016-04-24-um-14.20.48-700x292.png (139KB, 700x292px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 700x292px

Because the optical formulas for 50mm and 35mm primes haven't really changed since forever ago

There's a couple new zeiss lenses that utilize the really short flange distance of the e-mount on full frame sony cameras but it's not like they can just make 'crop versions' of standard nifty fifties and it's easier to just give out shitty 18-55mm lenses

>>2886401
The autism to use rounded numbers is stronger than the autism to mimic full frame.

>>2886529
Any fast prime that's not complete garbage is be very sharp stopped down to f/3.2

>>2886604
Doesn't the smaller image circle mean a completely different optical formula?

An APS-C 35mm is certainly a lot cheaper to make than a full frame 35mm.

>>2886626

No. Optical formula refers to the specific grouping of lenses inside the lens body. 90% of normal lenses ( regardless of format) have been double gauss since the 1900's.

>>2886625
Never said they couldn't be. That being said that lens would be three times as expensive even if it was only two third stops faster and if you're stopping down to 3.2 to get the dof you want why bother spending three times as much for a really fast prime when something like that will do just fine and be cheaper and smaller

>>2886626
Not a completely different optical formula since they'll be a double gauss design either way. The pentax DA 35mm 2.4 can cover the full image circle on the k-1 but will probably vignette a bit wide open. Stopped down a bit it'd probably work really well

If you compare the current production DA 35mm 2.4 with the pentax-a 35mm 2.8 you'll see that they're pretty much almost the same even though they're about 30 years apart in production

>>2886603
Don't have the budget.

45mm > 50mm

The contax g 45mm planar ruined me for life

>>2886642
planar > dbl gauss
Hence why most dslr normals look atrocious

>>2886455
Those were probably included for the 33mm f/1.0 that Fuji was previously planning on their roadmap, since delayed indefinitely to focus on more compact WR primes.

Might still see it one day, but not any time soon.

>>2886765
>focusing on lenses
>1 lens released for whole of 2016

>saying sony has no lens
>7 lenses released 2016

get your pathetic dying brand out of here.