Here is the first shot (a test shot) I took in a parking lot before buying the lens, no post processing (you can look at teh full size image by clicking on the enlarge icon on the image's page) :
 .
Since  Art Roflmao insisted and inspired, I did a quick test between the 50mm one (paid $60 all incl., used) and the 28-105 one (paid $220+taxes+shipping, new):
Scene I. Indoors. Only natural lighting from left of the scene from outside. Only brightness adjustment to make them look equally bright, no other processing, cropped at 100%.
Left: 28-105mm lens at 50mm, f/4, ISO200. Right: 50mm lens, f/1.8, ISO200
 
Conclusion: I can see more noise in the 28-105 result.. perhaps because the aperture wasnt as open as the other one. As expected, 50mm one may do a better job in low light conditions.
Scene II. Indoors. Only natural lighting from right of the scene from outside. Only brightness adjustment to make them look equally bright, no other processing, cropped at 100%.
Left: 28-105mm lens at 50mm, f/4, ISO200. Right: 50mm lens, f/1.8, ISO200.
 
Conclusion: Hard to tell the difference.. except that I see a slightly better contrast in the 50mm result.
Whats your opinion? If the objective is to use the lens indoors, which one is better? A 220 bucks brat, or a 80 bucks fixed one? ;-)
P.S. I love the 28-105 one. But the 50mm one is fast on its way to my favoritism.. and NO I havent yet tried the 70-200mm glamboy.. heh:-)
Message edited by author 2008-10-11 22:52:16. |
