| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/24/2006 07:43:22 PM · #1 |
I have some money burning a hole in my pocket.
I really want to get a nice prime lens, mostly for portraits.
B&H Prices:
50mm f/1.8D $109.95
50mm f/1.4D $279.95
60mm f/2.8 Micro $364.95
I used to have a f/1.7 for an old Minolta and it was bright enough. Right now I only have f/3.5 and a f/4, so I don't even know what a bright lens is. It makes me really want to get the 1.4 just to have the brightest possible.
I love looking through Librodo's and Kiwiness's portfolios and I noticed all of my favorite shots are done with the 60mm macro.
I would love to get the 1.4 and 60mm but that would push it cause I really want a SB-500 flash unit too.
Help. Someone help me.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2006 07:45:14 PM · #2 |
neither...
sigma 30mm 1.4
--
EDIT to add...as far as the 50 1.8 and the 50 1.4 go...you're only getting 2/3 stop of light better...sure it's a bit, but bumping your iso from 200 to 320 would be the same thing. If it were between just those two, I'd get the 50 1.8 especially for the price. That is a fantastic lens.
As far as the 60 macro...I'd avoid it. Go with a 105 2.8. With a 60, you're working so close to things and you can't control the background as easy. With a 105 (especially with an 12mm tube and a 1.4x teleconverter), you can't go wrong for the price if you're into macro...remember more working distance means more room for flash, lighting, reflecting, etc...and all of that is very important to macro photography.
Message edited by author 2006-07-24 19:49:23.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2006 07:45:15 PM · #3 |
I'd go with the 50mm/1.4 if you could afford it. Sweet lens, but not very strong. Still hoping Canon will release a 50mm/1.2L soon.
edit: Oh nikonian, have no clue :-)
Message edited by author 2006-07-24 19:45:43.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2006 07:49:54 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by tonytmtsh:
I love looking through Librodo's and Kiwiness's portfolios and I noticed all of my favorite shots are done with the 60mm macro.
|
That is exactly why I bought that lens. |
|
|
|
07/24/2006 07:55:29 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by deapee:
neither...
Go with a 105 2.8... |
Wow, $660.00. I can't do that.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2006 07:59:02 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by tonytmtsh:
I love looking through Librodo's and Kiwiness's portfolios and I noticed all of my favorite shots are done with the 60mm macro.
|
That is exactly why I bought that lens. |
And how do you like it? Did you take any stunning portraits? I've heard that it's veeeeeryyy sharp.
Originally posted by tonytmtsh:
Originally posted by deapee:
neither...
Go with a 105 2.8... |
Wow, $660.00. I can't do that. |
I've heard that sigma makes a great 105mm f/2.8 lens that is much cheaper. Maybe you could look at it.
Message edited by author 2006-07-24 20:00:37. |
|
|
|
07/24/2006 08:04:46 PM · #7 |
I have to repeat the words Sigma 30mm 1.4
The 50mm was developed as a competitor lens for the Leica M-series mount 50mm 1.4 glass, but most of us are using APS-C cameras, where the 30mm is equivalent to that focal length. For a fine, detailed, bright, robust lens there is no comparison to the 30mm. Hell, the 50mm is like walking around with an 85mm thing on your camera, and how close can you get with that? |
|
|
|
07/24/2006 08:13:06 PM · #8 |
| does a 1.8 setting on a lens that can go to 1.4 allow the same light as 1.8 on a lens that can only open this much? |
|
|
|
07/24/2006 08:22:07 PM · #9 |
People have been telling me, and an article in PopPhoto, to use a longer focal length lens for portraits. You don't crowd the model, and they feel more comfortable having a camera in their face.
I keep looking at librodo's work and his work with the 60 is awesome.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2006 08:24:00 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by briantammy:
does a 1.8 setting on a lens that can go to 1.4 allow the same light as 1.8 on a lens that can only open this much? |
yes
|
|
|
|
07/24/2006 08:45:10 PM · #11 |
| I had the 60mm f2.8 micro.....and sold it. Beautiful glass but the autofocus is finicky and loud when used as a "macro". You should have the camera mounted on a tripod for full benefit for this application. 50mm f1.8 vs f1.4. I have the f1.8 and it is a sweet lens and probably the best value of all. Hope that helps. |
|
|
|
07/24/2006 09:12:45 PM · #12 |
I would go with the 50/1.4. The 50/1.4 is sharper than the 50/1.8 at apertures below f/2.8. I had the 50/1.8, but have just replaced it with the 50/1.4 (well, the 50/1.8 is selling on eBay right now). You can buy the Imported version of 50/1.4 for $240 from B&H.
I, personally, don't like the 60/2.8 too much, from what I've seen. It's a supremely sharp lens, but, for macro work I prefer a little more working distance (90mm or above), and for portrait work I prefer a lens with better bokeh and one that can go to at least f/1.8.
The Sigma 30/1.4 has good center sharpness, but is soft around the edges, from the pictures that I've seen. Its bokeh is also not too pleasing, and it's very heavy for a 30mm prime, IMO. |
|
|
|
07/24/2006 09:16:09 PM · #13 |
| One more thing: you may want to consider the Nikkor 35 f/2 if you want something close to a normal lens. It's very light and people are praising it as a very good performer. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/02/2026 11:44:23 PM EST.
