Would you recommend this for someone who mainly uses AF, but shoots with 1.8, or 1.4 primes all of the time.
900470
I would. I've found that when using AF I'm able to tell through the viewfinder how accurate it really is. On several occasions I've been able to correct my focus when AF focuses at the wrong depth because I can clearly see where the focus is.
900471
If you mainly use AF I would not use this screen. It is designed for MF and would make the viewfinder a stop darker. I actually removed the screen and went back to the original screen because of the 1 stop darker viewfinder.
900472
Absolutely. This is how I use it although with different primes - 2.0 and 1.2. Regardless, you'll find yourself seeing through a much nicer viewfinder which I find useful even if I'm auto focusing or not. Here's how I see it: this focusing screen should have come standard with my body. It's that good.
900473
Yes. It gives you a more accurate view of depth of field wide open. Darkens slightly on f4 lenses but acceptable on my 6D.
1037323
I'm not sure if I understand your concern of DOF issue with 1.8, but you can always change your aperture to 8~9 and it will show details of your back-ground. But If I were you I would take a 18-200mm instead. covering wide to fairly good zoom unless you are planning to do dark inside building pics. That's just my 2 cents.
1588423
I heard with the 2x you have to use manual focus and I am very happy with my 1.4.
759247
Even better. The 1.4 is rock solid compared to the flimsy 1.8, and slightly faster. Ten times as expensive, but may be worth it. If you're still thinking of adding a new zoom to your arsenal, look at the 24-105L, as well. It's pretty much a coin toss, as far as IQ, with the 24-70L, but it adds IS. So, it's one stop slower, but it gains about 3 stops due to the IS, so it's actually better for low-light than the "faster" lens. And longer, too.
1203850
yep. I am going to amend my advice and recommend the Tokina 11-16 2.8. This gets excellent reviews and is faster than the others for low light shooting such as UW. I shot with the 10-24 such subjects as a gilded church. It came out spectacular. All in all, if money is not an issue, it is a tossup between the nikon and tokina. I switched to fx format and now use the nikon 12-24. It's a monster. BTW, another great option for the Nikon DX is the great 18-200 zoom.
565898
Get the Sony 18-55mm. It's better. The best replacement is the 16-50mm 2.8 if you can afford it. It's better than many primes.
86637
Depends on what you are going to use it for. I have the 1.8 50mm and the 1.4 85. The 85 1.4 has much more versatility for portraits and can create amazing blur beyond what the 1.8 can. It also allows for a faster shutter when shooting portraits of young kids(which helps with movement). Lastly, it is an amazing macro lens, but unless you are really into that, the 1.8 is sufficient in my humble opinion
398085
The aperture is one thing, but there's less than 1 f-stop between both ends (not much difference there.) What really matters here is the build quality. The more expensive 1.2 is an L line lens, so its built for professionals with better materials, weather resistant and can probably take a better beating.The 1.8 is the cheaper one - handle with care and it will last. Most importantly, since these are prime lenses the 1.8 is known to give you brilliant pro-quality images at the lowest possible budget. This is probably THE lens to get for the cheapest high quality images in the entire Canon lineup. The aperture is one thing, but there's less than 1 f-stop between both ends (not much difference there.) What really matters here is the build quality. The more expensive 1.2 is an L line lens, so its built for professionals with better materials, weather resistant and can probably take a better beating.The 1.8 is the cheaper one - handle with care and it will last. Most importantly, since these are prime lenses the 1.8 is known to give you brilliant pro-quality images at the lowest possible budget. This is probably THE lens to get for the cheapest high quality images in the... » Read More The aperture is one thing, but there's less than 1 f-stop between both ends (not much difference there.) What really matters here is the build quality. The more expensive 1.2 is an L line lens, so its built for professionals with better materials, weather resistant and can probably take a better beating.The 1.8 is the cheaper one - handle with care and it will last. Most importantly, since these are prime lenses the 1.8 is known to give you brilliant pro-quality images at the lowest possible budget. This is probably THE lens to get for the cheapest high quality images in the entire Canon lineup. « Show Less
682870
Great body for shooting portraits. Although I usually shoot in MF I often turn on the AF for use with portraits. The 45 point AF makes this camera great for those shots. The only downfalls lying in the 8.2 mp (depending on size needed) and the ISO is a bit low with a decent amount of grain occurring at ISO 1600. All in all though I recommend it for those events.
1346887
I have the 85mm 1.8 and a digital rebel. With a crop sensor camera, the 85mm is really tough indoors - you have to stand across the room and then you likely will only get a little more than a face in the frame. I don't own the 1.4, but I'd guess it would be better for a lot of tight indoor shooting over the 85mm 1.8 on a crop camera.
1505533
The AF works fine, maybe not as fast is the M43 lenses but it does work. This lens has never been a speedy lens so I've used it mostly for portraits and slow street shooting. Wonderful & maybe the top lens of the 43 lenses despite the hunting issue & slower AF. I used it for a while with my E-3, E-PL2 & E-P2 but has been replaced by the M43 45mm f1.8.
575774
Well I think 1.8 is ultra fast (vs 4), so I would use it in a particular situation if I had that lens.
1041294
I would recommend 23mm 1.4. The 35mm is a great lens, but 23mm is more useful as general purpose, also AF is faster and quieter. If you are not willing to spend for 23mm's cost, then 35mm 1.4 is next choice. Compare to 23mm 1.4, the AF of 35mm is slower, noisier. Also, 35mm is too narrow as general purpose while it's too short for portraits in my taste. I think 23mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2 are great lenses to have, if you can afford them both.
2163872
Yes, I can. I shoot f2.8 at 1:1 (the closest distance) most of the time (100% hand held).You might want to use a tripod first, see if you can have good image.
1346883
I have the 50mm f1.8 and love everything about it. My only problem is the focusing speed. I don't mind spending $340 for the 1.4 but I read alot of people had problem with it and have to send it in for repair. This made me very nervous. Anybody familiar with this problem? One more thing, if you want to choose between the 50mm or 85mm, check the crop on your camera first. Ex. T3i have a 1.6 vs 5D have a 1.0 meaning a 50mm on a T3i is equal to a 80mm on a 5D.
108096
Honestly unless you are making good money off of it go with the 28mm 1.8 it is fantastic. The 24mm is exceptional but 9 times out of ten you will have the same image for 3x the price and twice the weight/size.
144807
I have a Nikon D5300 with a AF-S 18-300 DX. Works great with moderate lighting and above. AF still works and is a great cost effective way to add extra reach. It softens the picture a little bit with large prints. So far it's been a great little gadget.