Longer focal lengths offer almost the exact same DOF at the same apertures. They just get less of the background in the frame, for the same framing of the subject. We shouldn't confuse the look of a telephoto with narrow DOF.
the_wrath_of_khan wrote:
If he can afford a 35L then he shouldn't be shooting a Rebel XSi.The 35/2 is a wonderful lens on the 1.6 crop cameras. I absolutely loved mine on my Kiss X2; however, you probably need to sort your focus problems out before spending another dime.
Affordability is not always the reason for shooting a consumer dSLR. I shot my Rebel XT and the Tamron 17-50 for well over a year to learn the digital system. Collected more glass later before jumping into the 40D and 5D. My main point about the 35mm range which includes the f/2 is that that is the range to look at for full body shots on a 1.6x camera. And if the OP can spring it, the 35L is the one to shoot for which is the better route if you're like me who tends to waste money by buying the "good" affordable lens first and then end up having to buy the "best" more expensive lens anyhow.
Ha ha wing tong, I like to just go ahead and buy the best ones I want, rather than wasting time and money on the affordable equipments. Plus, I already got the L diaease... But yeah, 35L looks nice, except that means I'd have to keep changing lenses while shooting from full body to head shots... Maybe I should get the 24-70 first rather than the 70-200mm?
that would be true, but the example you point to, 75mm @ f5 on FF, could easily be mimicked by the 50/1.8 on a crop camera at say f3.5 (and at f.35, the 50 will be just as sharp)... that was my point. Your examples were not of razor thin DOF...
I'm not saying the lenses are equivalent, just that for what you are saying you want to shoot you should be able to shoot stellar photos using either.
4honor wrote:
I thought both at say... f/2.8, the 200mm is going to give more DOF at the same framing than a 50mm?
4honor wrote:
@ mh2000: Oh snap, are you saying I can get the kind of photos from a $1700 70-200mm f/2.8L IS with a $85 50mm f/1.8?!
@ skibum5: I am gonna ask the risque question... Are N*kons better with wide open AF?
not sure since i havent touched the D300,D3,D700 and those are the ones that some nikonians are claiming do have better wide open AF, but i dont know if they are just talking or if it is true, it might be true
for whatever reaspm during 5 minuts of shooting the same trees today the focus was way better and the 300 2.8 IS was close to dead on at wide open.
light and sky were a different color today, not sure if that was a coincidence or not
Ha ha mh2000, you didn't really answer my question... :P
Well skibum5, consider I bought the XSi (~$700), can't really afford the D300/D700/D3 at this time... For the price, those cameras better focus (along with everything else) than my XSi!
