Jan 28 2011, 03:29 PM
- i sorely lack a bright lens. f2.8 tak cukup if no flash. iso cannot pump too high.
reason for 24mm:
-bright
-good walkaround lens due to the focal length
-can use as portrait lens as well due to the really short MFD
-Zeissssssssssssssss & can be used 5-10 years later if i switch to FF
-but...EXPENSIVE
reason for 35mm:
-cheap and bright and light
-might be a bit too tight for other things besides portrait
-bright
Added on January 28, 2011, 3:32 pm
QUOTE(shootkk @ Jan 28 2011, 03:29 PM)
zstan : If you want my opinion I would say get the 35mm first. Not because it's cheap but because both the 24mm and the 28mm on APS-C is frustrating to say the least. Like the others have said, it's not wide enough. Even 24mm is not wide enough. For wide you'll have to fall back to your kitlens.
With a 35mm on an APS-C you WILL KNOW even before you look through the viewfinder that it's NOT A WIDE lens. You will forget about getting wide shots straight off and concentrate on getting the shot on a normal focal length. Remember, 35mm on APS-C will give you roughly a view like a 50mm on a FF so that's a normal focal length.
Since you're looking for a prime, then the 35mm will make sense and will help you in your composition more than a 24mm can.
thanks for the advise. With a 35mm on an APS-C you WILL KNOW even before you look through the viewfinder that it's NOT A WIDE lens. You will forget about getting wide shots straight off and concentrate on getting the shot on a normal focal length. Remember, 35mm on APS-C will give you roughly a view like a 50mm on a FF so that's a normal focal length.
Since you're looking for a prime, then the 35mm will make sense and will help you in your composition more than a 24mm can.
This post has been edited by zstan: Jan 28 2011, 03:32 PM
Quote
thanks.
0.0486sec
0.34
7 queries
GZIP Disabled