DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

Which is better for portraits: 16-50 S or 45mm 1.8?

Started May 8, 2017 | Questions thread
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
M43ForMe
M43ForMe Contributing Member • Posts: 516
Which is better for portraits: 16-50 S or 45mm 1.8?

I'm trying to determine if owning both the 45mm and 16-50mm is worth it since there's an overlap in focal length.

I realize that at 45mm the 16-50 won't be a 1.8 shooter, but probably something like 2.5. But beyond that, are there any major reasons for having the 45 AND the 16-50? I feel like the 16-50 is sharper and it's clearly a better lens overall.

But maybe there are some inherent benefits to a fast prime in terms of sharpness vs a zoom at the same focal length? I know this was the case with the SLR Lounge review, when they matched the 16-50 against the 5D II on a prime. But for this specific comparison, I doubt the Sammy 45mm is as good as the Canon 50mm.

Sorry if this is a noob question and has been covered 1,000 times.

ANSWER:
This question has not been answered yet.
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow