which prime lens?

Being a dink.

Cool story bro.
Yes yes, call me names, please. While we're at it, let's refute those who say that the Nikon D50 and the Canon 50D are not identical because, let's face it, they have the same number in their names; they must be the same. And then when we're proved wrong, we should call that nay-sayer names!!!!

Now THAT's bein a dink ;)
 
i don't think you should be as concerned with how fast it is, as much as how wide it is.
i'm going to guess you camera is a crop sensor, which mine is. i found 50mm to be too close for what i wanted.

between the two, i'd go with the 35. maybe even look at the 24?
 
i don't think you should be as concerned with how fast it is, as much as how wide it is.
i'm going to guess you camera is a crop sensor, which mine is. i found 50mm to be too close for what i wanted.

between the two, i'd go with the 35. maybe even look at the 24?
well he/she wants to shoot in low light, so the speed of the lens is important, but yes, the zoom is also very important. I too have often found the 50mm to be too close. The 35mm is a sharp lens too :thumbup:
 
You do realize that you acted like an asshole though, right? Because you did. Good. Glad we're on the same page.

As a matter of fact, both Derell and Keith offered respectful and informative posts at the same time. Imagine that? Not only did they inform me that Nikon's 50mm lens construction differs vastly from Canons, and that recent Nikon Models are testing better in terms of sharpness, they did it in a respectful way. Crazy how that works, the internet. Huh?
 
Geez, calm down. This is the internet. You need an apology and a fresh wipe for your tush? I'm sorry I have offended you so badly...sheesh. Who cares.
 
Get trolled. I never really cared what you posted from the start. :sexywink:
 
Get trolled. I never really cared what you posted from the start. :sexywink:
o rly? lol anyone who reads this thread can see pretty plainly the opposite. If anything, you got trolled because you gave such a crap what someone with 390 posts said to you.

Hayyyy everyone come see us arguing on the internet!
 
Hey, o hey tyler, that 65 days of static cut you linked to above at

is pretty awesome man!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wouldn't base a lens off of charts.:thumbdown: The 50mm 1.4 and 1.8 are both great lenses. You can't go wrong with either one. If you are on a budget get the 1.8, you won't be disappointed.
 
If you don't have tripod, the bigger the aperture the better, but you said you will have a tripod, means you are not worried about slow shutter speed. So what's the catch here? I think I am missing something.

BTW typically, I will switch to MF in low light situations whether I have tripod or not.
 
I wouldn't base a lens off of charts.:thumbdown: The 50mm 1.4 and 1.8 are both great lenses. You can't go wrong with either one. If you are on a budget get the 1.8, you won't be disappointed.
I agree, but resolution numbers don't lie and can expose vital characteristics of a lens. And sometimes, people want hard proof of something, not hearsay. I've used the 1.8D and the 1.4D and my experience exactly mirrors those charts.

IMO, it's silly to spend more for a lens that actually performs worse, even if the build quality is better (and by how much exactly, it's hard to say). ESPECIALLY when this person needs the fastest lens possible. Sure, he could shoot at 1.4 instead of 1.8, but it's going to be soft, and what good are soft photos? You can shoot the 1.8 wide open all day and the photos will be acceptable, whereas the 1.4D produces softer images at the same aperture. See what I'm saying?
 

Most reactions

Back
Top