| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/15/2005 11:37:53 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
a 50mm prime is insanely limiting... you have to be able to admit that. The kit lens is much more versatile with one exception, speed. I'm really sick of people saying, "omg get the 50mm 1.8 it's cheap and fabulous". I agree that it is cheap and fabulous... BUT it's almost useless for a lot of indoor stuff because it's not wide enough. For the money, the kit lens has more bang for the buck imo. I'm really surprised that you're even arguing about this. Also I'm not even going to comment about Henri.
In the future, please do not make assumptions about what I am saying. I would really appreciate that. |
Well let's get pissed off.
Don't comment on Henri. Comment on me. I would much rather have and would get much greater use from a single sharp prime then with a single mediocre zoom. If I am all alone and stuck in the one percent of the rest of the world, well, so be it. I don't really think I am alone or someone else would not have brought this up.
I find zooms limiting to my creativity. Primes cause me to think more into a situation and the results are better compositions. Now if you care not to argue about it backoff. Otherwise discuss this as if your oppinion isn't the only one that matters.
Message edited by author 2005-09-15 23:38:32.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2005 11:43:30 PM · #27 |
Guys, dont turn this into a boxing match.
Please? |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 11:45:52 PM · #28 |
I'd like to say that i'm not pissed off. Although it does sound as if you are. What works for you works for you. If you need critical sharpness wide open in every shot, I'm not going to diss you for that. A zoom is more practical, period. I would like for you to consider for one second, that you could only afford one lens. Now I know you have a number, but do you use them all a lot? Think of having multiple primes as having one zoom. I'm not trying to say that a person can't do fabulous work with a single prime lens.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2005 12:42:32 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
I'd like to say that i'm not pissed off. Although it does sound as if you are. What works for you works for you. If you need critical sharpness wide open in every shot, I'm not going to diss you for that. A zoom is more practical, period. I would like for you to consider for one second, that you could only afford one lens. Now I know you have a number, but do you use them all a lot? Think of having multiple primes as having one zoom. I'm not trying to say that a person can't do fabulous work with a single prime lens. |
Much better. But if I had to lose all my lenses save one it would be my 85mm prime. I do more with that one lens then all my other lenses combined.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2005 01:20:03 AM · #30 |
Myself, I'm a confirmed zoomer; I got 3 of them, covering 10mm to 200mm with only a slight gap (22 to 28). But all of them are REALLY good zooms, optically, and the workhorse all-around lens is a constant-aperture f/2.8: the Tamron 28-75. Since I don't do a lot of off-the-cuff shooting I don't really need more speed. I nearly always use a tripod when I shoot, and the f/2.8 is plenty fast enough for handheld shooting in daylight. So is the 10-22mm, for that matter, simply because the DOF is so awesome you don't have to stop it down at all. So it's good in low light handheld up to a reasonable point. For me the main issue is always DOF, not shutter speed. Because of how I work.
My only prime is the 60mm f/2.8 macro, and it's a jewel...
Robt.
|
|
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: 08/02/2025 04:36:59 AM EDT.
