... from being a better photographer

A thought-provoking piece from Digital Photography School.

I have a 50mm lens, but a crop factor camera. So, while I get the benefit of a nice tack sharp lens, it's about an 80mm focal length. To compensate, I acquired a 35mm lens, which gives me roughly 55mm. It's not quite as tack-sharp, I have to say, but it's okay for most jobs and has now become my default lens, backed up by the 28-105mm zoom.

Of course, once I get my mitts on a full frame camera, I can switch back to the nifty fifty.

As I've mentioned else where, we were discussing lens choice at the SeaFest I've been photographing.
The other 'tographer loves his big zooms. Bigger the better as far as he's concerned.
Most of the time my Minolta wears a 28mm or 50mm.
The work body has an 18-55mm kit lens, and I'm stuck with it.
Either way, big zooms they are not.

He was couldn't get into the idea of getting up closer and getting involved with your subject at all.
As someone else wrote 'Who needs a zoom? You've got legs, use them.'

That said, doing wildlife stuff does more often than not require long optics. But that's not something I do a lot of, to be honest.

Wildlife, yes, a long bright lens is perfect.

I'd argue that a good zoom is worthwhile for landscape work, too. On my recent Dorset trip, I think a 50mm would have meant I'd have walked and climbed further, but I wouldn't necessarily have as many good shots out of it. Mind you, at least I had the choice.

I ditched my 100-300mm zoom and replaced it with a prime 300mm f/4 lens, as the 105mm lens I bought was so much better than the 100mm end of the zoom lens.

I like the effect I get with the 300mm lens for lanscapes; I can isolate a detail such as a tree on the horizon, or make gently rolling hills look like steep slopes.

So far my thoughts are... "Could you not get a reference book to help with your grammar?"

My little bro has a 50mm prime lens. I really like it.

With the 1.6X compensation it make it 80mm which is a bit zoomy isn't it?

I was torn between getting a 50mm prime or a 35mm. With the crop factor I wondered if the 35 might be the better choice (35x1.6=56mm).

This - CLICKY - is the one my little bro has.

I'd consider getting this as it would work well with my Film SLR also.

Meh. Everyone's a critic.

I didn't notice poor grammar. I just read it, felt it was written in a conversational style, understood and moved on. I'm going to read it again now to see what everyone is complaining about.

Veato, I have a Canon 35mm, which I got second-hand. It still cost nearly three times the price of a new 50mm lens. If you can afford it, get both, but I really don't think you will regret getting the 50.

Indeed Nikon does do an equivalent. There's an f/1.8 and also an f/1.4 to choose from.

Mark

Oh ok. But that costs 3 figures! And has a proper focus-scale-thing and everything! It's not quite as cheap and corners-cut-but-oh-so-good-for-what-it-is as the Canon! That Nikon's like a real lens! :p

Yarr, that it be, young Edd, that it be.

Mark

Canon also do a real version of their 50mm.

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-can ... ens/p12813

Is it worth it for the f/1.4 over f/1.8. Perhaps.

In my eyes the cheapy plastic one's fine for me until I want something more proper. In which case it may well be the ludicrously priced f/1.2L. And the f/1.8 does look completely stupid on my camera.

[

So what !? Are you pleased with the results? I used the 50/1.8 for a few shots at a friends wedding last weekend, nobody seemed bothered and the results are *sharp*. IMHO it's an excellent value bit of glass.

Oh yes, of course I am. I love that little lens to bits! Ignore the final remark - it was more of a throw-away comment. My argument was meant to be more that I couldn't see why anyone would buy the f/1.4 when there's such a cracking little f/1.8, and those with silly money to splash about will want the quality and robustness that comes with the f/1.2L.