saaketham wrote: 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.
If you sell it and you have the avenue to do so and someone wants it for your price (many do not).
saaketham wrote:
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.
Sure, if you were clairvoyant and could predict the future. However, myself (probably you) and most amateurs and beginners I know and meet have absolutely NO IDEA what they want to photograph when they start. They have little idea how the focal length affects anything beyond angle of view. They don\'t even know if they\'ll stick with photography next year! Thus, cheap lenses are an easy source of education, especially if a small amount of cash is allotted to the hobby.
Unfortunately, many people suggest to buy expensive immediately, but to suggest that a beginner should immediately upgrade to an expensive lens is ludicrous as it will probably be an uniformed decision that can easily make the beginner unhappy, especially if they\'re still struggling with getting their kit lens to function.
So, for many experienced people, cheap lenses = growing pains, I suppose. Me, I\'m perfectly happy with my cheap zooms and MF primes. On my 5D, my 50 f/1.8 easily became my most used lens because it offers great quality and a wide aperture. When I don\'t need AF, I\'m sure my 50 f/1.4 will replace it soon enough.
Dec 22, 2009 at 01:59 PM
Previous versions of kakomu's message #7918441 « Most overrated Canon lens. »
