50mm lens still valuable on DSLRs?

tuben wrote:
OK, I'll throw in my possibly dumb question here as well:
How about the 1.8 aperture value on a 50/1.8?
I presume it's still technically a 1.8 but doesn't the crop
factor mean that not as much light falls on the sensor,
thus making the lens less fast for smaller sensors?

regards
göran

Less light will fall on a smaller sensor _in_total_, but the same amount
of light will fall on every point on the sensor, so whilst the image may
be smaller the brightness remains the same.

Cheers,

Tom

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:10:58 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:

Nope. Not grumpy at all. Thanks for the suggestion and, too, for
consideration for the quality and tone of your answer. That is
sometimes a little scarce here.

Off to do a little "googling".




Well, if you have an internet connection, the first thing to try is
www.google.com

(I hope that doesn't sound too grumpy: there's a lot of good stuff out there
on bokeh.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Good explanation he

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml


************************************************* ****

"Vietnam is what we had instead of happy childhoods."

Tim Page in
"Dispatches"
by Michael Herr


Thanks for that reference. As the author said, "... a little heavy
going...". But I get it, I think. More of what to look for when
comparing lenses.

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:10:58 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:

www.google.com

(I hope that doesn't sound too grumpy: there's a lot of good stuff out there
on bokeh.)


Now that is an understatement!! There's enough to keep one reading
for a month!

Thanks again!

Cal