Please tell me if this 1 more expensive lens could be used to obtain the similar quality images than 3 less expensive lenses that I am looking at -- 35mm prime f/2.4, 50mm prime f/1.8, the kit 18-55mm lens. I am on a budget and new to SLRs...thanks in advance. Please tell me if this 1 more expensive lens could be used to obtain the similar quality images than 3 less expensive lenses that I am looking at -- 35mm prime f/2.4, 50mm prime f/1.8, the kit... » Read More Please tell me if this 1 more expensive lens could be used to obtain the similar quality images than 3 less expensive lenses that I am looking at -- 35mm prime f/2.4, 50mm prime f/1.8, the kit 18-55mm lens. I am on a budget and new to SLRs...thanks in advance. « Show Less
1974651
I've had the 50mm 1.8 and the kit lens, and I can definitely say this will blow both of them away! This is essentially a high-quality upgrade from the kit lens, and in my opinion gives at least as good an image result as the 50mm prime - but with the range of a zoom. The 35mm I don't have experience with, but I would still bet that the Sigma would compete just fine :)
1974652
I haven't used the 35mm but i can assure you the image quality is better than the 50 f1.8 or the kit lens. This sigma will serve you well as a starter lens and actually shouldn't be something you immediately feel like upgrading. Primes are well and good if you are ready for them but zooms are better for starting out. if you test out different focal lengths you can find out what prime lenses will work best for you. you don't want to buy a 35mm just to find out you'd rather have a 24, etc.
1000371
I have the DA 35/2.4. It is an amazing piece of glass for its price point. The 50/1.8 will give you tighter shots (better for portraits) with a better depth of field at f/1.8 (greater separation of your subject from the surrounding environment) and it will perform much better in low light situations thanks to the large aperture, leading to fewer noisy/blurry images.
1477491
Actually I find out the the much cheaper Canon 55-250mm IS lens which is on sale today for 144 bucks does a superb job of taking portraits as well. You can set it to 100mm to get equivalent of this lens (of course you can't go down to f2.8 but for your situation you don't want to) also you get an excellent telephoto lens - just not a MACRO lens but again that's not what you're looking for. I would save my 300 bucks and get that lens instead - I can tell you as i have both these lenses.
916479
So despite it being a macro there's no problem with regular focusing?The 50mm 1.8 is really shoddy build quality, I think you're thinking of that. The 50mm 1.4 (3 times the price) is quite sturdy.I use the 28-105mm (the cheap one, not the L glass) I got this around the same time my friend got the 28-135, which looks like a better lens on the surface, yet he hated his and sold it. It's a much larger lens physically, while the 28-105 is really small, so that's something to consider. I also felt like mine focused better, although that wasn't an objective test. And it's half the price, which is nice. Something to consider So despite it being a macro there's no problem with regular focusing?The 50mm 1.8 is really shoddy build quality, I think you're thinking of that. The 50mm 1.4 (3 times the price) is quite sturdy.I use the 28-105mm (the cheap one, not the L glass) I got this around the same time my friend got the 28-135, which looks like a better lens on the surface, yet he hated his and sold it. It's a much larger lens physically, while the 28-105 is really small, so that's something to consider. I also felt like mine focused better, although that wasn't an objective test. And it's... » Read More So despite it being a macro there's no problem with regular focusing?The 50mm 1.8 is really shoddy build quality, I think you're thinking of that. The 50mm 1.4 (3 times the price) is quite sturdy.I use the 28-105mm (the cheap one, not the L glass) I got this around the same time my friend got the 28-135, which looks like a better lens on the surface, yet he hated his and sold it. It's a much larger lens physically, while the 28-105 is really small, so that's something to consider. I also felt like mine focused better, although that wasn't an objective test. And it's half the price, which is nice. Something to consider « Show Less
369535
I own the D80 with 18-135 lens and love it. Yes, you sacrifice a tad of fabulousness by picking the lens with the broader range, but I wanted bang-for-buck versatility first. I recommend getting at least *one* of the Nikon-Nikkor lenses, since they have proprietary circuitry that (I believe) the after-markets don't. The one thing you'd gain by starting with the 18-55 lens is that it *is* quite a bit smaller. I hate to mention it here, but I found - post-purchase - my local (Atlanta) membership w'house had a kit with *both* lenses for less than I paid for the body + lens.
1966949
I almost decided in favor of Sigma, but then I realized that Sigma is made for a crop camera only. While I'm not looking to buy an FF one any time soon, when I do, it will be costly, so I wouldn't have the money to follow it up with expensive lenses, not to mention that a good prime is a good prime, which I expect to last me a long while... So that is becoming a big drawback for me...
916482
I personally think that he'd benefit more from purchasing the nifty fifty (50mm f1.8) to cover that range, and then also buy the 100mm f2.8. Honestly there is not a huge difference in terms of image quality between the 50mm f1.8 and the f1.4. The f1.8 does have trouble focusing in dark conditions, but for the price (and for a beginner) it is a great option and it leaves your budget open to get another lens.
405
Thanks everyone for your help. You've explained a lot and it really helps. After your explanations, I looked at my past photos. I'm thinking that maybe the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 will fill my needs. Thanks again.
2103071
Hi,Both are super sharp lenses. My recomendation for street photos would be the 18-35mm, rather than the prime 35. With the first one you have more options zooming in and out with a lens so sharp in every step that it feels more like a prime. A would recommend you to take a look to the review from this site which I trust a lot: http://m.dpreview.com/articles/7613711074/dpreview-top-picks-stand-out-third-party-lenses
1838717
This lens is quite shart at it's focal length. Not take away from this lens but I have actually started to favor the 135L prime lens in terms of sharpness. It obviously requires much more room to get your subject in range (outdoors generally) but the picture come out sharp with a nice Bokeh.As you mentioned, the 35mm is a must have focal length and the sharpness of this lens won't disappoint. I would post an example but I am responding by mobile. You can probably find examples with a quick google image search.
1716986
All the reviews that compare this lens with the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark I, state there is very little differance betwen the two lenses. I own the Canon 28-70 F/2.8. It is a very sharp lens. I can't see paying the more expensive price for the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark I if they perform the same. However, the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark II appears to be the better of the three lens. It is more expensive of course. In my opinion, the price differance between the Canon 28-70 F/2.8 and the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark II doesnt match the small improvement in image quality, unless you are shooting professionally and need the best quality possible. You can't go wrong with the Canon 28-70 F/2.8 for the price, just keep in mind it is an older lens and if it needs repaired, Canon probably won't repair it.
120648
If money is a concern, try the "fantastic plastic" or sometimes called the "nifty fifty". That's the Canon EOS 50mm f/1.8. Great lens. Best optics per dollar, for sure. Only complaint people have had has been about the quality of background blur when shooting wide open. I haven't had an issue personally, it's acceptable for the price. It IS rather ugly compared to the quality of bokeh on the f/1.2L .. But you can buy 15 of the 1.8s for the price of the 1.2, so that's to be expected. The 1.4 has had some great reviews as well.
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.
1111391
Dragoneer makes some really good points, particularly about go slow an buy quality. Master one lens before getting another. Personally, I think this is the best lens to start with due to its quality and versatility. Once you have a taken a lot of shots, you can determine from how you shoot what the next lens should be (if you even need another). If you find yourself in a lot situations where you wish the could go wider, get a 10-24mm zoom; if you find you're cropping a lot of shots when zoomed all the way in, get the 70-300 (if you have the 18-140, don't get anything that only goes to 200 unless you want to drop some $$ on something faster). This a lens you can keep on your camera and be ready for almost anything. With a wide zoom, mid prime and telephoto zoom, you'll have the ranges covered, but will likely be changing lens a lot. If you want another lens for a DX format camera - the 35mm 1.8 is fantastic and an extreme bargain - super-sharp, great for low-light and terrific for experimenting with shallow depth of field. If I could only keep 2 of my lenses, it would be this one and the 35mm.
1247240
hum... what do you mean, by a "base" lens? I consider myself a "advanced" amateur haha... i also have a D7000, and i use this lens mostly for street-photography and some portraits. This lens are definitely for open space when you use it in a crop sensor (which is the case), if you need a lens for indoor, i would go for some sigma or even tamron 17-50mm f2.8 which is more expensive. I even have a nikkor 35mm f1.8 which is not wide enough for small indoor places, but it is also one great lens.Talking about the image quality it is amazing. It's always nice to have one prime lens. You will never regret. hum... what do you mean, by a "base" lens? I consider myself a "advanced" amateur haha... i also have a D7000, and i use this lens mostly for street-photography and some portraits. This lens are definitely for open space when you use it in a crop sensor (which is the case), if you need a lens for indoor, i would go for some sigma or even tamron 17-50mm f2.8 which is more expensive. I even have a nikkor 35mm f1.8 which is not wide enough for small indoor places, but it is also one great lens.Talking about the image quality it is amazing. It's always nice to have one... » Read More hum... what do you mean, by a "base" lens? I consider myself a "advanced" amateur haha... i also have a D7000, and i use this lens mostly for street-photography and some portraits. This lens are definitely for open space when you use it in a crop sensor (which is the case), if you need a lens for indoor, i would go for some sigma or even tamron 17-50mm f2.8 which is more expensive. I even have a nikkor 35mm f1.8 which is not wide enough for small indoor places, but it is also one great lens.Talking about the image quality it is amazing. It's always nice to have one prime lens. You will never regret. « Show Less
935597
It's very close in quality to its 1.4 counterpart. The L version has a very slight edge in contrast and sharpness. I opted for the 35mm f2 IS because the difference wasn't large enough for me to justify spending twice as much for the 1.4.Hope this helps!
773131
I would say get the 18-55 and use the $150 difference toward a 55-250 while you are starting out. You will probably want something longer than 135mm regardless, and depending on how far you go with your photography, there may come a point where none of the three lenses mentioned in this post is "good enough" anymore. ;)