| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/28/2006 10:36:05 AM · #1 |
I'm a beginner to DSLR and I'm kind of interested in 50mm 1.8 prime or 17-40, but 17-40 seems over buget for me. I mostly shot food and portrait, just wondering if 50mm could fulfill my need?
what about 17-85??
Which one should I get??
thanks!! |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 10:37:15 AM · #2 |
| Start with the 50mm. The 17-40 isn't really the lens for what you're shooting. The 17-85 could be nice for what you need but is quite expensive. The 50mm is cheap, great quality optically, and will get you doing things with your camera (depth of field) that you wouldn't be able to do otherwise. |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 10:38:39 AM · #3 |
Honestly... I just got the 17-40 a few weeks ago and it has barely come off of my camera. Definitely my favorite lens out of all that I have. Had I know just how great it was I would have gotten it a long time ago!
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 10:48:38 AM · #4 |
I am walking around between those 3 lenses, I am also thinking to have wide angle lense for landscape since summer is coming soon.
This is what I think:
to get 17-40 + 50mm ---> fast noodle for dinner
to get 17-85 ---> could still buy coffee every morning |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 10:51:23 AM · #5 |
| How much could a 50mm1.4 better than a 50mm1.8 according to image quality? |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 10:55:38 AM · #6 |
You can play an entire golf game with a 7 iron. The 50mm on a 1.6 crop factor camera is much like a 7 iron - you can use it for just about everything.
I would defintitely get the 50/1.8 and save some dimes for another lens in the future.
The 1.4 is a better build. More solid, quieter and faster focus but image quality is not exactly like night and day.
::are
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 11:06:03 AM · #7 |
I think I'll start with a 50mm 1.8 first and save money for 17-40 then
Thanks for all you guys anyway :) |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 11:23:15 AM · #8 |
Its worth pushing the Boat out and getting the 1.4 50mm its so much more creative with light it allows you to work with.
I love mine because of this, I allso have a 17-40 but I have only had it a few days, but if there was a choice between the Two for Portraites it would be the 50mm every time. ( 1..4 that is ) ? |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 11:34:32 AM · #9 |
| but 1.4 is 3 times much more than 1.8...:^^: |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 11:38:25 AM · #10 |
| If you're doing food photography, you might want ot look at Lens Baby 2.0. It allows you to have a much greater controll over your depth of field and it runs around 200.00$ |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 12:00:09 PM · #11 |
| 1.8 is even greater than 2.0, isn't that better?? |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 12:36:31 PM · #12 |
I have quite a few lenses but for food and other products I almost always use my 50mm 1.8. It's a fantastic lens!
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 01:11:54 PM · #13 |
The 50mm F1.8 is a great lens but it's soft on the edges, which is not a big deal for a portrait lens. The 50mm f1.4 is sharp through the whole frame. The 1.4 is also a little faster, built better, better/faster focusing compared to the 1.8.
The 1.8 is great for $80 and everyone that does not have the 1.4 should have one. But the 1.4 is also still a really good deal at $300 and if you do a lof of portrait or event type shooting it's a better choice then the 1.8.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 02:40:51 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by colacat:
1.8 is even greater than 2.0, isn't that better?? |
In this case 2.0 is the version of the lens and the aperture. The lensbaby is a specialty lens... its neat but not something you'd use very often, Lensbabies. Most food photography has a very shallow dof though... which is why I think that lens was suggested. Stick to the 50mm 1.8 if you are on a budget.. you can't go wrong. Besides... editing can always be done in photoshop ;) |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 02:41:25 PM · #15 |
| I am in the delima again, 1.8 or 1.4?? |
|
|
|
03/28/2006 02:43:10 PM · #16 |
Don't believe the hype! The 1.8 takes the same quiality of pics (VERY minimal difference)... it's just built a little more cheaply (plastic body).
Message edited by author 2006-03-28 14:43:39.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 03:21:59 PM · #17 |
thanks all your advise!
I think I'll try 1.8 first, coz my friend used to have sony f717 which hook with a lense with biggest aperture at 2.0, it takes very good food pics. that's why I think 1.8 is enough for picturing food, am I right? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/24/2025 06:03:21 AM EDT.
