QUOTE(goldfries @ Oct 10 2014, 01:02 PM)
flawed thinking.
more blurred behind means less DOF - not good for food photography.
my food photos are f/8 in general, f/5.6 and f/11 for some and rarely f/4.
sweet spot is generally f/8 to f/11.
if you're going to be taking "photos of my meal" then 24-70 F4L would be better actually. Unless it's commercial table-top photography, a prime lens is good but even so the 50mm f/1.8 sucks big time for that. That's why I use 50mm f/1.4 instead. World of difference.
Why 1.8 suck?more blurred behind means less DOF - not good for food photography.
my food photos are f/8 in general, f/5.6 and f/11 for some and rarely f/4.
sweet spot is generally f/8 to f/11.
if you're going to be taking "photos of my meal" then 24-70 F4L would be better actually. Unless it's commercial table-top photography, a prime lens is good but even so the 50mm f/1.8 sucks big time for that. That's why I use 50mm f/1.4 instead. World of difference.
I know 1.4 got USM and faster aparture speed that's all right?
Why claim it suck?
Oct 10 2014, 02:07 PM

Quote
0.0295sec
0.67
6 queries
GZIP Disabled