| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/19/2005 08:15:31 PM · #26 |
Which do you guys think is better, the Canon 50mm 1.4 or the 50mm 1.8? Didn't the 1.4 have a little bit better reviews?
On the canon 100mm macro, is it as clear and sharp as the 60mm macro? I kept reading about how sharp and clear the 60mm was but I also know I wouldn't have to be as close to the subject if I got the 100mm. (but the 60mm is about $200 cheaper) From what eschelar said, it sounds like it might be better to get the 100mm though. I've gone back and forth between these two.
Also, what's the best lens to get for macro and portrait, if it's possible to have both in one lens? Or is the macro mostly just for that and I'd need a different lens for portrait?
I'm trying to eventually get 5-6 lenses that will "cover most things" without having to mortgage my house! lol So, I figured if some would do several kinds of things it would be nice.
Message edited by author 2005-09-19 20:16:48. |
|
|
|
09/19/2005 08:23:42 PM · #27 |
The Canon 10-22 is by far my favorite lens. If it broke right now I'd eat Ramen noodles for a month and get a new one. Highly recommend it. Fun lenses, well, the Peleng 8mm can't be beat.
June
|
|
|
|
09/19/2005 08:30:46 PM · #28 |
I'm a bit biased, I haven't found a thing that the 100mm macro doesn't do well... OK, I haven't used it for tracking fast action, LOL. Even on a 1.6-crop cam, it doesn't seem too long for intimate portraits. The longer focal length gives better DoF control at f/2.8 than will the 60mm. For macro work, the working distance on the 100mm will be a bit longer.
I don't think that in any normal shooting situation, that any difference in sharpness between the 100 and the 60 would be apparent. They are both very sharp. From reports of others, it seems the 100 has a bit better build quality than the 60, and of course it's an EF lens, so if you upgrade to a body with a smaller crop factor, the 100 can still be used whereas the 60 cannot.
Bottom line, you'll be satisfied with either, both will be very versatile. The choice is really one of personal preference.
Edit:
Regards the 50/1.8 and 50/1.4, the 1.4 is better at f/1.8, and the build quality is somewhat better, but not really what you'd expect given the price difference. Unless you really need the f/1.4 aperture, or the $$ difference is of no consequence, you might just be better served with the 1.8.
Message edited by author 2005-09-19 20:32:59.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 06:39:12 AM · #29 |
Ok, thanks! What about this?
Originally posted by pianomom:
Also, what's the best lens to get for macro and portrait, if it's possible to have both in one lens? Or is the macro mostly just for that and I'd need a different lens for portrait?
I'm trying to eventually get 5-6 lenses that will "cover most things" without having to mortgage my house! lol So, I figured if some would do several kinds of things it would be nice. |
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 07:57:42 AM · #30 |
Don't buy lens right away. Make a mental note of what you wish for when you shoot. "I wish I could go wider/closer" or "I wish I had a macro" or "This lens sucks for portraits".
Then decide.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 08:58:29 AM · #31 |
Don't worry, I can't afford to get a bunch right now after buying the camera anyway! lol I do plan on getting the Sigma 70-200 now for my daughter's swimmeets and soccer and maybe another one for Christmas. After that, I want to gradually add 2-3 more. I just wanted an idea of some good ones to put on my list. I'd like to end up with around half a dozen lenses that would, hopefully, cover most things.
Message edited by author 2005-09-20 08:59:34. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/17/2024 10:02:00 PM EDT.
