16-55/2.8 or 16/1.4?

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
HP1999 Senior Member • Posts: 4,066
Re: 16-55/2.8 or 16/1.4?

My thought is this if I have not said so. No one will ask what camera or lens you use. If the end result looks good, then it looks good.

From my perspective the hobby photographers do what you do, the ones making money at photography only care about performance, the final product and cost is no high on the list. It is something needed or they have a plan B

I am saying hobby photographers are more concerned about tests that only they care about vs those that go and shoot.

Skill level, knowledge and vision and technique are also important. I can spend $1000 on art supplies, canvas, pencils, brushes but I can't paint at all vs giving the same tools to someone else with a vision and skill.

I will say if a manufacture has limited options then switch and forget it. Do what you have to. The 16-55 is an amazing lens, images are sharp look great etc, but I use all the skills I have and do not expect the camera or lens is a magic and all I do is press a button.

I also have the advantage of a film background where you did not get immediate feedback you had to know your stuff to get results. Digital is a like a fancy polaroid camera.

Your photography and comfort level and if you are not second guessing the cost it is a good lens. If you wont get much use I would return it. you will never recoup that $1200 whatever the cost on the used market as a hobby type of thing.

Prime lenses will always have advantages over the zoom counterparts for critical use

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow