kakomu wrote: Thing is, $400 for a lens isn\'t considered \"cheap\" by many people. I know it isn\'t for me. Thus, the sub-$100 price of the 50 f/1.8 really makes it shine. I know I really like my 50 f/1.8 for just about all facets of photography...but I don\'t really want to drop the cash on an EF 50 f/1.4 (but, I did get a Nikon 50 f/1.4 Ai for even lower light photography).
True ... But $400 is not an expense, because you can get most of it back when you sell it. So, for less than the cost of a 50 f/1.8, you can use a 85 f/1.8 or a Tamron 28-75 and sell it when you\'re ready to move up. If you consider lenses as expenses, then yeah .. That\'s why most newbies (myself included) go through cheap lens after cheap lens initially and move up, losing money in the sale of each cheap lens in between.
In my case
- Can 28-135, Tam 28-75, Can 17-55 for $870 and I can still sell it for $800 and am really happy with it
- Can 70-300, Sig 100-300, Can 70-200 f/4, Can 70-200 f/2.8 for $950 and I can still sell it for $850-900 because it\'s a sharp copy in great condition
I could\'ve just saved myself lots of $ by just going with really good lenses, got better IQ than my 28-135 or 70-300 for years and still have spent less than the route I took.
Dec 22, 2009 at 01:50 PM
Previous versions of saaketham's message #7918414 « Most overrated Canon lens. »
