quit out smarting yourself:mrgreen:
Printable View
quit out smarting yourself:mrgreen:
Yeah...I still need to actually have the money to spend.
boy dont i know that feeling . Trying to figure out how to buy a $450 carbon fiber tripod right now:fp:
One more consideration...is f1.8 max aperture really so much more useful than, say f2.8? The thought of replacing my kit lens with an f2.8 Tamron or Sigma 17-50mm is tempting. Both carry the f2.8 over their entire zoom range, which seems pretty awesome to me as it's something the D3100's kit lens definitely can't do.
Yes, yes it is.
While I am not a great person to explain, but the bokeh and DOF of a 1.8 is amazing. It also helps for low light situations as well. All I use is my 50mm and 35m. And now my 28mm Vivitar.
If you want a tele lens, f/2.8 is as good as it's going to get. I have heard good things about the sigma.
Sorry, never looked at this thread again after replying. I've not tried the Nikon 35/1.8. I have no doubt it's nice. But I really liked the Sigma that I tried. Super impressive. I can't imagine the Nikkor being that much nicer.
Anyways.
I don't know how to say this in a friendly manner so... I'm just gonna say it. If you're asking a question like you just did, "is f1.8 max aperture really so much more useful than, say f2.8?" you need to fold up your wallet and put it away. Don't even think about buying something before you really understand the gear you're lusting after. You need to make some local photo buddies and try out some of their gear. Or take an online photo class where you have to do assignments every week. You need to really understand what you have before you throw money at it.
I don't mean to offend. I really don't. I just don't wanna see you follow some stray advice (even mine) and pick up a lens that you'll end up not needing or hating. Learn your camera. Take a class. Experience some really good gear that belongs to someone else. Understand forward and backward what all the numbers mean. Then buy a lens. Experience will teach you more than all the forums and books in the world.
I still shoot a lot with my crappy 18-55 kit lens. It's not a glamorous lens, but it works. Sometimes very very well.
I've got the Nikon 35mm 1.8 and it is an outstanding lens. The price makes it even more attractive.
But I bought it for its speed and low light capability at a great price point.
I don't understand the internet mentality over 'bokeh.' It's like the photography equivalent of being slammed. As long as the lens can throw the background out of focus and not distract from your subject, I'm pretty happy with that. And the lenses you're looking at, they're all capable of providing just that.
I'm not offended, Adam. Your criticism is fair.
I should have prefaced my question by suggesting I wanted the 17-50 to become my only lens due to the fact that it has a wider aperture than the 18-55 kit lens and, even more importantly, has it across all focal lengths, thus giving me better low-light performance at a zoom level my kit lens struggles at. I should've also mentioned that I probably won't be buying a lens for at least a year unless my wife gets creative for Christmas or my birthday.
New vid that just came out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X17Tb...layer_embedded
5 reasons to get a 35mm
Oooooo...another DigitalRev video!
You have my attention :lol:
yep love me some digi rev