Have 50mm - should I buy 35mm ?

Started Nov 12, 2009 | Discussions thread
Guidenet Forum Pro • Posts: 15,748
Re: Have 50mm - should I buy 35mm ?

Marcos Pinto wrote:

Guidenet wrote:

Personally, I'm not sure why you need the 35 f/1.8 or the 50 f/1.8. Both are covered by the Tamron 17-50 and with only a little loss in speed. I think that this particular lens is as good or better than those two primes, though I often like primes better.

Well, I do think the 50 f/1.8 is sharper and has a nicer bokeh compared to the 17-50. So if the 35 f/1.8 also has these (perhaps subjective, I know) advantages I don't mind paying 200 bucks for it. The speed doesn't matter that much to me, I hardly use my 50mm faster than f/2.8.

If I were in your shoes, I'd be saving for an ultra wide or a 70-300VR depending on the direction photography was taking me.

If I could buy either of them for around 200-300 Euros I would had made the plunge long ago ... I just don't feel I'll use a ultrawide enough to justify a 400 Euro (or more) investment.

You might be right, and only you can tell, but how about the 70-300 vr? It also will cost you more, but might be a range that you'd be better suited to. If you just want to spend $200 just to spend it, the 35 f/1.8 is a wonderful lens. Have at it.
Cheers, Craig

 Guidenet's gear list:Guidenet's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon D3S Nikon D800 +31 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow