Lens Advice

Reskr wrote:

Thank you for all the suggestions so far. I'd got the impression that the AF on the 60 was pretty slow, and the bokeh was fairly unimpressive (at least compared to the 56). I'll check it out more carefully.

The 50-140 is short for wildlife and too big for macro, even more with the extension tubes.

Thanks for clarifying this. I'd originally envisioned it as a do-it-all lens, but it really is a bit short for wildlife. I'll look into renting the 100-400 if I go on any serious trips.

I would suggest you get the 60...

With the money from the 50-140, you can buy the 60mm 2.4 macro...

Have u considered the 50 mm F2?

I've read a lot of very positive reviews about the 56 and the 80, but none of you seem particularly keen to suggest them. Is there something I'm missing? Some of the test photos I took in the shop on the 80 really blew me away, and I guess I was sort of hoping to purchase one (or more) of the more expensive lenses during the rebate period.

If you can, rent before committing.

I'm aware this is great advice, but I'm not sure I have the time.

Thanks again.

I've actually found most macro lenses make great lenses for portraits. (Head shots, usually due to their focal length unless you have a lot of room to back up.) The 80 makes for about 120mm equivalent FOV which is 15mm shy of the traditional 135 that some people love shooting with but it should still yield good results.

The 56 is also a fantastic portrait lens. Someone else mentioned it is a specialized lens which I would say is short sighted.  I find it to be one of those lenses that once I mount it, I need a compelling reason to swap it out. (Usually when I'm needing something wider like the 35 or 16.) I use it to shoot everything from musicians in dark jazz clubs to landscapes. And yes, it's close to the 55 end of the 18-55 that I also have but frankly I only ever drag the 18-55 out when I am traveling light or I'll be putting the camera in a rain sleeve for the day of walking around in the wet.