d2jsp
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > Graphic Design > Photography > Nikon 50mm 1.8g
Prev123Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Sonicgundam
#11 Jan 6 2016 09:39pm
Group: Member
Posts: 14,028
Joined: Sep 17 2006
Gold: 11.02
Quote (Xandriia @ Jan 6 2016 06:08pm)
"Only" 220 for a 50mm 1.8?

I am so glad I shoot Canon, lol.


had a plastic fantastic.

my 1.8G is a much better lense.
Wydz
#12 Feb 22 2016 12:34am
Group: Member
Posts: 70,390
Joined: Jul 6 2010
Gold: 602.00
I must say I'm so glad I bought this lens. I love it lol.

I want another lens already to get rid of the 55-200mm or the 18-55 lol
Sonicgundam
#13 Feb 22 2016 04:12pm
Group: Member
Posts: 14,028
Joined: Sep 17 2006
Gold: 11.02
Quote (Wydz @ Feb 21 2016 11:34pm)
I must say I'm so glad I bought this lens. I love it lol.

I want another lens already to get rid of the 55-200mm or the 18-55 lol


buy the 70-300mm and get rid of the 55-250.

wayyyy better lens.
Wydz
#14 Feb 22 2016 04:36pm
Group: Member
Posts: 70,390
Joined: Jul 6 2010
Gold: 602.00
Quote (Sonicgundam @ Feb 22 2016 02:12pm)
buy the 70-300mm and get rid of the 55-250.

wayyyy better lens.


$1000

I'm thinking a 70-300 and the nikon 85mm 1.8g

that should hold me over a while but if i get a 4th lens im gunna need a bigger bag lol
Sonicgundam
#15 Feb 22 2016 04:42pm
Group: Member
Posts: 14,028
Joined: Sep 17 2006
Gold: 11.02
Quote (Wydz @ Feb 22 2016 03:36pm)
$1000

I'm thinking a 70-300 and the nikon 85mm 1.8g

that should hold me over a while but if i get a 4th lens im gunna need a bigger bag lol


yeah having those 3 would be a pretty good low budget setup. 85mm for portraits, 50mm for everything else, 70-300 for your telephoto.
Wydz
#16 Feb 22 2016 04:44pm
Group: Member
Posts: 70,390
Joined: Jul 6 2010
Gold: 602.00
Quote (Sonicgundam @ Feb 22 2016 02:42pm)
yeah having those 3 would be a pretty good low budget setup. 85mm for portraits, 50mm for everything else, 70-300 for your telephoto.


and then the kit lens just because i dont wanna bother trying to get rid of that lol

ive also heard the 85mm is a good sports lens, is this true?

watching a review of it and it seems to be very sharp from 1.8 all the way to 16, which looks nice

This post was edited by Wydz on Feb 22 2016 04:45pm
Sonicgundam
#17 Feb 22 2016 05:28pm
Group: Member
Posts: 14,028
Joined: Sep 17 2006
Gold: 11.02
Quote (Wydz @ Feb 22 2016 03:44pm)
and then the kit lens just because i dont wanna bother trying to get rid of that lol

ive also heard the 85mm is a good sports lens, is this true?

watching a review of it and it seems to be very sharp from 1.8 all the way to 16, which looks nice


it doesn't really have the reach to be a sport lens. the 85mm 1.8 is typically used as a portrait lens.
Canadian_Man
#18 Feb 22 2016 07:06pm
Group: Member
Posts: 34,934
Joined: Jul 26 2006
Gold: 0.00
Quote (Wydz @ Feb 22 2016 03:36pm)
$1000

I'm thinking a 70-300 and the nikon 85mm 1.8g

that should hold me over a while but if i get a 4th lens im gunna need a bigger bag lol


Not a fan of the 70-300 VR. I had one. It's pretty old. If you shoot it on an 8MP camera or on a 24MP camera, you will see next to zero difference in sharpness or croppability. The lens can't resolve enough detail on modern sensors.

Most consumer grade long lenses can't really render a ton of detail. I own the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary, it's better but it's also not the sharpest thing in the world.

Take a look at the Nikon 200-500 if you really want something cool.

The 85mm 1.8G isn't a sports lens really. It's a portrait lens.
Sonicgundam
#19 Feb 22 2016 08:45pm
Group: Member
Posts: 14,028
Joined: Sep 17 2006
Gold: 11.02
Quote (Canadian_Man @ Feb 22 2016 06:06pm)
Not a fan of the 70-300 VR. I had one. It's pretty old. If you shoot it on an 8MP camera or on a 24MP camera, you will see next to zero difference in sharpness or croppability. The lens can't resolve enough detail on modern sensors.

Most consumer grade long lenses can't really render a ton of detail. I own the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary, it's better but it's also not the sharpest thing in the world.

Take a look at the Nikon 200-500 if you really want something cool.

The 85mm 1.8G isn't a sports lens really. It's a portrait lens.


what? the 70-300s quality is fantastic for the $3-400 price tag. sure, its not comparable in quality to the 500 and 600mm super tele's, but then, neither is the price. if he's looking to get the 85mm 1.8 as well, the 70-300 is perfectly fine.

This post was edited by Sonicgundam on Feb 22 2016 09:01pm
Wydz
#20 Feb 22 2016 08:49pm
Group: Member
Posts: 70,390
Joined: Jul 6 2010
Gold: 602.00
Quote (Canadian_Man @ Feb 22 2016 05:06pm)
Not a fan of the 70-300 VR. I had one. It's pretty old. If you shoot it on an 8MP camera or on a 24MP camera, you will see next to zero difference in sharpness or croppability. The lens can't resolve enough detail on modern sensors.

Most consumer grade long lenses can't really render a ton of detail. I own the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary, it's better but it's also not the sharpest thing in the world.

Take a look at the Nikon 200-500 if you really want something cool.

The 85mm 1.8G isn't a sports lens really. It's a portrait lens.



200-500 is out of my budget :(

How do y'all feel about the tamron/sigma 17-50?

I love doing landscape style stuff so I'm assuming I should be looking at wide angle lenses?

This post was edited by Wydz on Feb 22 2016 08:52pm
Go Back To Photography Topic List
Prev123Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll