new lens or new body???

[Joves]

Id be more for glass as it holds value and, unless the body is holding you back as said, then the one you have is fine. Bodies are cheap but, glass prices will rise faster in short periods of time.

 

[Josh220]

Id be more for glass as it holds value and, unless the body is holding you back as said, then the one you have is fine. Bodies are cheap but, glass prices will rise faster in short periods of time.

The Nikon 70-200 has already risen almost $100 in the past couple weeks.

 

[kyle9128]

gah why are the prices rising

 

[Joves]

gah why are the prices rising

THe difference between the Yen and the dollar is why.

 

[JFew]

Weellll...

Canon's 50 f/1.8 is...cheap. It's only what? 80-90 bucks right now? It's worth a lot more than that...but the lens itself is junk. The glass is really great, the body...not so much. It's got a noisy AF, and the manual focus ring is unusable unless you have chopsticks for fingers. Also, the aperture arrangement creates blown out pentagons in the background. Very distracting.

If you're interested in 50s...you should take a look at the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. That's the one I use, it's a beast. It's extraordinarily sharp...some say it's even sharper than Canon's f/1.2 "L" series 50. *puts on a flak jacket*...I've used the Canon f/1.2 and at the very best...there's little to no difference at f/2 +. At f/1.4 I'd have to say the Sigma is slightly sharper than the Canon. *hides*