A decent piece of glass?

[Johnboy2978]

Hey all, I was looking for a middle of the road, decent piece of glass as a step up from my kit lens. I found this one on ebay and wondered what you all thought.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Sigma-28-70mm-E...ryZ48558QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

or this from B&H

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...755&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

I know comparing a 28-70 to a standard 50mm is probably like apples and oranges, but for about the same money, which would you go with?

I have been shooting mainly still life stuff, and have dabbled in portraits, which I will continue to work on. I like shooting landscapes as well, but neither of these lenses would really be appropriate for that I don't think.

 

[Big Mike]

For portraits, a nice fast Prime lens like that is nice because you can get very thin DOF.

Typically, you get better image quality (for the money) with a prime lens because it's a simple design. Zoom lenses have to make some compromises in quality because they zoom. Very expensive zoom lenses have much better image quality than cheap zoom lenses.

I would go for the 50mm...but that's me. I have heard good things about that sigma lens...and it's quite fast for a zoom lens. So if you want/need the versatility then that might be a good choice.

 

[Fate]

What about this lol?

 

[duelinthedeep]

i think you should go with the 50mm prime lens.
if you want a standard lens, that is.

 

[Johnboy2978]

That's a nice lens fate, however, I'm afraid the wife would frown on me selling the house and cars to get it.

So, of the two, you would go with the Pentax 50mm? I have an old manual 50mm Asahi/pentax that is a f1.7. It seems to take a pretty nice picture, but I'm not sure if the quality of it is any better or worse than the one from b&h. Anyone have an idea? Would I be gaining anything from it over the MF one I have?

 

[duelinthedeep]

well, in my opinion, the quality may not change much from the f/1.7 to the f/1.4 but i'm pretty sure the versatility will.

i think, in your case, you should then buy the standard zoom.
it will be more versatile and,besides, you already have a pretty sweet
50mm prime.

 

[kemplefan]

i would go witht he 28-70 unles the 50 mm is like a 1.4
one of the best lenses i have used, let me restate that the second best lense i have ever used was a fixed 85 mm 1.4 fstop the onley better lense was a 70-200 2.8 vr

 

[Rob]

Buy prime lenses. All of you. Now. It's the way, the truth and the light.

Seriously though, there will be no comparison between the two as they are different tools for different jobs. The prime is a very bright fixed lens and the zoom is a good short to medium length versatile lens.

I use only a 20mm, 50mm, 105mm and 180mm all prime. They're all under f1.8 (except the 180 which is 2.8 ) and that's great. Ok, I could buy a Sigma equivilent and sell all four and make a few thousand... but I would think my pictures sucked as a result.

Take your choice - flexibility or sharpness/brightness? I'm with sharp and bright.

Rob

 

[Fate]

Flexibility for me Rob.

Although maybe one prime lens would be nice

 

[Rob]

What about this lol?

(snip)

No no no.... what about this:

http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Fixed_Focal_Length/EF_1200mm_f56L_USM/

Hey hang on... that's the same lens.... you were recommending a prime after all!

Rob

 

[duelinthedeep]

how bout if i want a 300mm prime, rob?
is there any use for such a focal length?

 

[Rob]

There's loads of uses for a 300mm prime. They're available in 2.8 Pretty much every sporting event and every serious wildlife photographer will use one as it's virtually the end of low ISO lenses. It's also the borderline where hand-holding will soon become impossible under normal light. Check this puppy out:

http://mishami.image.pbase.com/u46/damond/upload/39922594.img0020.jpg

Pap's, wildlifers, sports photogs all will have one, so there's plenty out on the market. They are NOT cheap though.

Rob

 

[duelinthedeep]

cant access that link.......