 Blake T. Lipthratt |
Starting off w/two PRIME LENSES..but which ones??? So... I started a thread on here a few days ago debating on the 17-55 or 24-105. However, in the midst of my extensive research and forum posting, I discovered a new light: prime lenses. It just makes more sense for the type of shooter I am. I'm not really an event photographer, so I don't need that versatility of a zoom...rather, the quality, speed, and sharpness of a prime. So here's my condition: Been shooting with a cheap Pentax *ist DL, and finally upgrading to the I've got about $1200 to spend on glass... That leaves roughly $600 more to spend on primes If 50mm...then which one should I invest in? If I go with the Sigma wide angle, I would have enough money for the 1.4 I know this has a lot of questions...and quite confusingly worded... Thanks.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John G. Clifford Jr |
Since you have a Pentax dSLR, why not look at some of the great Pentax K- and M42-mount lenses? You can also use these on your Canon, with an inexpensive M42-to-EOS adapter. I have four M42-mount Pentax SMC Takumar lenses, the 28/3.5, the 50/1.4, the 135/2.5, and the 300/4. All are very good lenses, all sell for a fraction of what an equivalent lens would cost new today, and all will outresolve your sensor. Best of all, you can spend under $300 and get everything but the 300. Although I have a half-dozen Sigma EX lenses from 15mm to 200mm (with overlap), I enjoy using my manual focus lenses. Try an M42 lens... you might be surprised.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Suzanne Colson |
I do find the 85mm f/1.8 a little long on my Canon 30D, but it is also my sharpest prime and produces the absolute best bokeh of any of my lens. My 50mm f/1.4 is better in terms of length, but not very sharp and not the best at focusing in lower light; something I would expect out of a prime lens I guess. This may or may not be an issue for you and/or something you can 'watch' if you do end up with the 50mm. I looked at the Canon 10-22 and ended up with the Canon 17-40L. I know it isn't as wide, but I want to some day upgrade to the 5D or it's successor and don't want a lens of that price to not be compatible with a full frame sensor. The 17-40 is one of my favorite lenses in terms of image quality, focus speed. Plus the fact that is a fixed aperture from one end to the other I think makes it easier to work with. Is a macro lens necessary? Probably not. I don't use mine as often as I used to. I ended up with the Sigma 105mm. If you look at the reviews between the macro lens they are so equal, IMO, that I didn't feel the extra Canon was charging was warranted at this point. Good luck!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||