14th May 2005, 09:57 AM
14th May 2005, 10:10 AM
1. How does this lens compared to the normal standard zoom?
There's no comparison since they are both different lenses
2. At 50mm, most standard zoom lens can also reach, why this lens?
Prime lenses are sharper than zooms. To get a zoom lens that rivals in terms of quality, you need to dish out some serious dough
3. Given a choice to take portraits (both indoor & outdoor), will you use this lens or is there something else?
This is not the best lens for portraits. Try 70mm and above. Indoor or outdoor doesn't matter.
4. OT: Compare omni-bounce and light sphere... Effect vs Cost. Which is more worth getting?
Question: Do you understand how your flash works?
14th May 2005, 12:31 PM
2. The 50mm prime offer a big aperture of 1.8, not found in zoom lenses that are 10-20 times more expensive.
14th May 2005, 02:56 PM
the 50mm f1.8 for canon & nikon are cheap and good. don't even need to compare against any zoom. there may be times you will find the f1.8 real handy. i would buy this in addition to any other zoom.
14th May 2005, 03:36 PM
1. & 2. primes offer larger aperatures and is sharper than the most standard zooms. the larger aperature makes it excellent for low light shots and serves as a drug for "bokeh addicts". for only $175, it's a good value-for-money lense.
3. If you're referring to model shoots, i think that a you should get yourself a zoom, e.g. 24-70f2.8. IMHO, this is a sharp lense which would allow you to not have to keep moving "closer-and-away" from your model all the time (actually the kit lense is sufficient if you're not excessively particular on the sharpness and colours). IMHO, primes for portrait shoots, 50mm for half-body, 85mm for facial shots.
4. i find that the omni-bounce and bounce cards (homemade) are sufficient for most purposes.