D40x + 50mm = yay or nay?

robertgilbert86 said:
Really? I've found if you don't have enough light for f2.8 you won't have enough for f1.8. You'll still be on a high ISO when it really matters.

I'd personally only be buying a 50mm 1.4 now I have the 17-50.

Thing is, the 50mm prime can be your best friend or worst enemy depending on the situation. A zoom will be a loyal friend doing their best whatever the situation :)
Click to expand...

If you're getting 1/20s at f/2.8 you'll get 1/40s at f/1.8 and 1/60s at f/1.4. At 50mm the first is unusable, the second is usable and the third is fine IMO.

I have a 24-70 f/2.8 that never gets used and a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 that gets used all the time (although more often at f/2 than f/1.4)... there are tons of times when speed trumps versatility IMO.
 
SoapSurgeon said:
So it seems that the 50mm is not the way forward. I don't want to upgrade my body just yet, I don't think I am a good enough photographer to warrant it at the moment. I only asked about the 50mm because of its price, I think my next lens will be a wide angle (Sigma 10-20 by the sounds of it).

Thanks for your advice.
Click to expand...

I don't think I am a good enough photographer to warrant it at the moment. is actually more of a reason to upgrade. Get a d50 or d70 which will allow you to use more older lenses with autofocus, and therefore learn how ot handle different lenses and focal lengths much quicker and much much cheaper.
 
robmiller said:
If you're getting 1/20s at f/2.8 you'll get 1/40s at f/1.8 and 1/60s at f/1.4. At 50mm the first is unusable, the second is usable and the third is fine IMO.

I have a 24-70 f/2.8 that never gets used and a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 that gets used all the time (although more often at f/2 than f/1.4)... there are tons of times when speed trumps versatility IMO.
Click to expand...

But in those killer situations when you're on 1/6s at ISO 1600 f1.2 isn't going to cut it really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom