A reader asked about a 50mm lens for his APS-C, to which Robert responded that he did not need an 80mm lens, but instead recommended the 35mm.
Can I add that it may have been better to have questioned the purpose of considering a 50mm lens?
If it was because the questionner wanted a lens which gives the "look and feel" of a 50mm on full frame, then a 28 or 35mm would have been possibilities (the exact equivalent FOV would be 31.25mm). If it was for portrait shots, then 50mm would have been better, I suggest, as it would give a similar view to 80 on full frame. If the user wants to consider astro, then the 24 would be better, unless his interest in astro is for the smaller features which need long lenses.
Another factor is what quality the questionner is looking for. I have found the 24/2.8 pancake quite a good one for round the town, but sometimes too limiting for times when you need a longer focal length. The 50/1.8 is too soft for being a 1.8 in my view, but it may work for portraits on APS-C, better, perhaps than on full frame where the APS-C won't see the extreme softness.
Finally, there is the question whether the enquirer wants to upgrade to full frame some time. The 50/1.8 is compatible, but the 24/2.8 not.
Or maybe macro, when there are some good macro lenses on offer.
So rather than just "35mm" maybe the question should have been "what do you wish it to do?"
Can I add that it may have been better to have questioned the purpose of considering a 50mm lens?
If it was because the questionner wanted a lens which gives the "look and feel" of a 50mm on full frame, then a 28 or 35mm would have been possibilities (the exact equivalent FOV would be 31.25mm). If it was for portrait shots, then 50mm would have been better, I suggest, as it would give a similar view to 80 on full frame. If the user wants to consider astro, then the 24 would be better, unless his interest in astro is for the smaller features which need long lenses.
Another factor is what quality the questionner is looking for. I have found the 24/2.8 pancake quite a good one for round the town, but sometimes too limiting for times when you need a longer focal length. The 50/1.8 is too soft for being a 1.8 in my view, but it may work for portraits on APS-C, better, perhaps than on full frame where the APS-C won't see the extreme softness.
Finally, there is the question whether the enquirer wants to upgrade to full frame some time. The 50/1.8 is compatible, but the 24/2.8 not.
Or maybe macro, when there are some good macro lenses on offer.
So rather than just "35mm" maybe the question should have been "what do you wish it to do?"