Having had a look at Sigma (something I overlooked), they seem to have several options:

24/1.8 EX DG Macro
28/1.8 EX DG Macro
30/1.4 EX DC HSM

Has anybody compared the 28/1.8 & 30/1.4 (I don't need macro and the 30/1.4 looks interesting).

John.

Hi All,

For some time I've been thinking about a suitable APS-C prime lens that provides a similar field of view to my M40/2.8 pancake did on film. The obvious choice is 28mm, not least as this matches the diagonal of the frame.

I have an M28/2.8, which is fine although a tad slow for a 'standard' lens (and an 'A' or AF one would be more convenient). I've heard the M28/3.5 is better, but I'm looking for something around f/2 is possible, was there one?

The FA31/1.8 Ltd. is interesting but well outside my budget.

John.

And don't forget that compared to 135 format, on APS-C a 500 becomes 750 and a 600 becomes 900. Great for getting closer, but it means your technique needs to take this into account.

For my shots of the bottle, there was enough 'shake' visible in the finder to make the framing a challenge in itself.

I think my comparison is better used to show that there's not much in it. Although I feel the mirror lens shot is sharper, whether this would consistently be the case (shake was the biggest difference I think), I'm not sure.

I went for the mirror because I wanted to minimise CA (those pesky film days when you couldn't easily do anything in software) and at the time it was the only affordable option.

Handling is going to be a big factor, and mirrors have a considerably different profile, but they're more likely to have a lens mounted tripod mount, which is definitely an advantage.

I've got the DA 17-70 and it is rarely off the camera. I tried the 15mm f/4 but it didn't seem significantly wider considering the expense.

Technique is a big variable when using lenses this long. I've just grabbed a couple of shots on this link, the first with a Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 zoom at 250mm and a manual focus 2x TC, the second with my Tamron 500mm f/8 mirror.

Both are focused manually, I can't remember if the 70-300 with the TC displayed the green hexagon, but with the 500mm mirror it did indicate correct focus. The 70-300 + TC is somewhere between f/9.5 & f/11 which may be beyond the AFs capabilities.

The other advantage of a TC is that you use them on 50/1.7s to get a pretty good 100/3.5 lens.

Thanks for the comments. There are a few variables which are likely to affect the sharpness. The lens isn't a top quality zoom, the teleconverter will reduce the quality and the high ISO doesn't help.

I decided to have another go, this time with a Tamron 500mm f/8 mirror, again at 1/15th handheld (well braced) at ISO 12800:


Madeira Wine #2 by John Halliwell, on Flickr

And a close up of some detail:


Madeira Wine #2 detail by John Halliwell, on Flickr

John.

Hi Rowdy,

It seems that people on here don't want M 50/1.7s any more, the last few that have been advertised haven't generated much interest. I don't know why as they're probably better lenses than the soon to arrive 50/1.8 and will certainly have more character.

As for the K55/1.8, there's a seller on ebay with several of these on BINs around £80, it also makes a very good portrait lens on APS-C.

John.

If you are wringing everything out of your gear (and technique) that's possible, not using a filter might be a good idea, if you're not, it probably doesn't make a difference. The basics get you most of the way there, the final touches need everything to line up to make a difference.

Personally, my composition lets me down the most and having a filter on the front or not isn't going to improve that (but it might prevent me from persevering through branches if I thought I may damage the lens).

Having said that I'm an electronic engineer and I like fuses & circuit breakers. When I had a Land-Rover I milled a groove into my half-shafts at the wheel end so that when they broke I wouldn't have to take the differential apart...

And don't forget, if you do end up buying a film body which comes with a lens (often no more expensive than just a body), that lens will also fit your DSLR (but with some limitations).