I'm looking at a 85mm F/1.8. I was wondering if the sharpness would be better than my 24-105mm? I know that primes generally have better optical performance and may be faster, but will a $350 prime beat out a $1150 zoom?
Meh glass meant like, non-L or higher end glass. More like 50mm F/1.8 against a F/1.2 (maybe not that big of a price different). Basically, lower end primes and zooms on a FF body vs L zooms and higher end primes.
Finally, another side of the decision! Very agreeable. My 600D has quite the grain at 3200ISO plus.
However, if you got fine glass, it will last a long time, and then you will be able to use those high end FF cameras to their best potential.
Better to get good lenses with a entry body than less quality lenses with a better body.
True or False? It's all your opinion, and I'm quite curious.
So basically a 650D with some nice glass.
Or a 5D Mark III with some not so fancy glass.
Which one is better? And why?
50mm would be 80mm, so I would think that it may be a little long. I could always crop it on a 35mm if there's too much background. 35mm would be 56mm. Since I'm not getting a FF anytime soon. Maybe the Sigma 30mm would be good.
I'm getting some primes because photography in low light is pretty difficult with an F4 lens. I'd have to bump up ISO and have a longer exposure.
I have a 600D, so the 50mm would be an 80mm. So... yea.
I don't plan to get a FF camera anytime soon.