The thing to note is working distance.
Long lens can give good isolation through shallow DOF, but you need to get a feel of the working distance needed to take half/full body shots with such a lens.
The 50mm is nice as it does give shallow DOF for up to head to chest type portraits. (bkgnd needs to be far enough of course)
It also gives a very communicative working distance.
A 70-200 at say 135 and above on APS-C, you'd need to stand quite far away for half body and more.
Imagine trying to shoot like that in Orchard Rd with the people cutting into the gap between you and the subject all too often.
In the end, imo, probably need to get both to fulfill difference requirements/needs as they arise.
I think TS is now overloaded with information.
TS, go and rent those lenses first so that you can experience them first hand - then you can see which one suits you best.
Or, if you're overloaded with cash.. then no harm getting both, I guess.
At that time you bought it, it was the best bro.Originally Posted by catchlights
Primes are nice if you can afford the time and room to move about and change lenses. But 50 is best paired with a 105 or 135 or 180.Originally Posted by pinholecam
Last edited by daredevil123; 17th November 2012 at 12:15 PM.
you could go for 70-200 f2.8 sigma or tamron. I think its good as well. Not much issues with the lens, when i used it long ago.
Correct me if i am wrong.
Like others have said 50mm f 1.4 can be better when you are shooting at busy streets and its also cheaper.
Sometimes the 3rd party ones are excellent...Originally Posted by spree86
Take for example the sigma 12-24DG or the sigma 180mm macro or the sigma 50mm f/1.4
The sigma OS version is not bad and performs close to a VR1, but still a ways off from VR2.
I rationalized down to a Sigma OS... but the only copy has a problem in one of the middle elements. So in the end I coughed up the money for the VR2. Boy was I glad I did that.
Last edited by daredevil123; 17th November 2012 at 06:53 PM.