Hey guys, I've been shooting a 60d for about 2 years now and would like to either add more lenses or upgrade my current lenses.
I'm wondering if the intrinsic sharpness and image quality of a basic prime, say, a 20mm f/2.8 would be better/worse/equal to a 17-55 f/2.8 zoom. While you're at it, how bout a basic prime vs an L zoom?
Why or why not?
Reason I'm asking is because I do a lot of portraits and I already have a 17-55, but I'm thinking of getting the 20mm which has the same max aperture. I also wanna know if an L zoom is just as good/better than the basic/mid range primes cos if they are, I'd rather get them than the primes since they'll take up less space and time overall.
What do you guys think?
Thanks lots in advance!
Nasri
P/S: In case it will give you guys a better picture, my basic kit now consists of the 17-55 2.8, 35 2.0 non IS, 50 1.8 and 85 1.8. Cheap stuff, I know!
I'm wondering if the intrinsic sharpness and image quality of a basic prime, say, a 20mm f/2.8 would be better/worse/equal to a 17-55 f/2.8 zoom. While you're at it, how bout a basic prime vs an L zoom?
Why or why not?
Reason I'm asking is because I do a lot of portraits and I already have a 17-55, but I'm thinking of getting the 20mm which has the same max aperture. I also wanna know if an L zoom is just as good/better than the basic/mid range primes cos if they are, I'd rather get them than the primes since they'll take up less space and time overall.
What do you guys think?
Thanks lots in advance!
Nasri
P/S: In case it will give you guys a better picture, my basic kit now consists of the 17-55 2.8, 35 2.0 non IS, 50 1.8 and 85 1.8. Cheap stuff, I know!
Last edited: