>> |
Anonymous
OP: It means it's able to get you a faster shutter speed in the same light at the same ISO. It isn't nescesarily more flexible, considering f/1.7 doesn't have much depth of field. Depending on your style and what you're trying to do, you might not want to take it much below f/3.5. Or maybe you do want to use absolutely minimal depth of field.
>A cheap 50mm like that is a classic for everyone to learn on On film, not on digital. Come on. 75mm equivalent is good for some portraits (IMO ~85-90mm is much better, though) and shooting concerts, speeches, etc., but it's not the thing it was on film at all. That's a 35, or again IMO, even better a 28.
>>295087 Resolution per se isn't really all that important. While I wouldn't want to use that as my main fifty- I like sharpness- it seems to have a really smooth rendering that would be great for some styles/subjects. And no, I don't just mean it's soft, I mean that combined with how it handles the tones, etc.
>>295652 This, though, is probably the thing to get. There's better fifties, but none for a price like this. The version marked "Super-Multi-Coated" is supposedly the best, and IIRC doesn't have the radioactive element.
|