|
[VIEWED 7736
TIMES]
|
SAVE! for ease of future access.
|
|
|
|
behoove_me
Please log in to subscribe to behoove_me's postings.
Posted on 07-13-12 7:56
AM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0 
? 
|
| |
I perhaps know the answer because google does, and same goes with you guys as well. But here is a point; I need a little insight over buying an additional lens for indoor photography when I already have a top dollar lens in my camera bag. I have been extremely confounded with the blogs and reviews with all positive and negative feedbacks, and if I follow the law of averages, I can choose either to buy or not and I will still be alright.
Rather than aggravating you guys ranting about my next to non-existent photography skills, I shall come straight to the point. I have recently bought a Nikon 24-70mm/2.8G, and have been shooting pictures more than ever, great lens, I know, I mean really really great (of course, the darn price tag was a whooping 1900 dollars + tax). It works great for landscape, indoor photography, portraits and every other category photography pundits have created, but I still am not satisfied with the pictures taken indoor, especially when there is minimum light.
The answer would be to get a 50mm/1.4G, and that will cost an additional (almost) 500 dollars, but I am not sure whether I should buy that lens because I was almost certain my 24-70mm would get me pictures an ‘I-can-never-afford’ Hasselblad does. The question is, is there a way to shoot better indoor pictures with 24-70mm/2.8? Am I missing something? Am I such a fool that I do not really understand the difference between 2.8 and one f-stop less? Cos I don’t want to put 500 extra dollars on that 50mm lens right now and then a year later I realize I could’ve done the same with my existing premium lens.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Kiddo
Please log in to subscribe to Kiddo's postings.
Posted on 07-13-12 10:52
AM [Snapshot: 104]
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
| Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
| |
I wouldn't, specially since y ou already have 24-70mm. Primes are good but is it worth extra 500 when you have an excellent lens that covers the f lenght already.
I'd think about investing in flash with a diffuser. If you have enough lighting even a 3MP cell phone camera can take excellent pictures. This is why your picture outside (good ambient light) comes better.
|
| |
|
|
rethink
Please log in to subscribe to rethink's postings.
Posted on 07-13-12 12:44
PM [Snapshot: 168]
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
| Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
| |
You already have a premium lens 24-70 mm f2.8. You will be disappointed if you get the 50mm 1.4 because there won't be that much noticiable difference. Maybe it's time for you to move on to full frame camera if you don't already have one.
|
| |
|
|
behoove_me
Please log in to subscribe to behoove_me's postings.
Posted on 07-13-12 2:28
PM [Snapshot: 209]
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
| Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
| |
Thanks kiddo and rethink,, that is exactly what I am thinking.
50mm/1.4 ONLY lets more light in, nothing else. The lens quality for 50mm is 6 on the scale of 10 whereas for 24-70 it is 9.5. So like kiddo mentioned, if I could get a speedlight with a diffuser, I might then be able to get the desired picture perhaps.
I do not have a full frame camera, still using DX, it is D7000 but still serves my purpose. I am trying to invest on lenses and other accessories and then save later for a better camera, from what I have seen, they upgrade the lens once every 5-7 years but update camera every year. Few years down the line I would like to buy D800 or an even better if they come out with one.
|
| |
|
|
intelligentguy
Please log in to subscribe to intelligentguy's postings.
Posted on 07-13-12 2:29
PM [Snapshot: 214]
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
| Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
| |
Wll if u have extra money on side for disposal then why not as someone said paisa is kindda like hath ko maila
|
| |
|
|
Poonte
Please log in to subscribe to Poonte's postings.
Posted on 07-13-12 4:59
PM [Snapshot: 287]
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
| Login in to Rate this Post:
1
?
Liked by
|
| |
Try a speedlight first, beehoove!
I was quite amazed with indoors/low light photos using a 35mm/f 1.8 with that mounted flash with diffuser.
But then again, I too am a novice. I wouldn't know for sure. Never tried 50mm either.
Also, depending on where you are at, you can also RENT the lenses first for trials!
|
| |
|
|
MySweetLord
Please log in to subscribe to MySweetLord's postings.
Posted on 07-14-12 10:28
AM [Snapshot: 420]
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
| Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
| |
Having owned both 50/1.4 and 24-70/2.8, I kinda agree with rethink in that you would be 'underwhelmed' if you get a 50/1.4. Don't get me wrong, it's a terrific lens and my weapon of choice for a variety of situations but since you already have a 24-70/2.8, if I were you, I would rather invest in a Speedlight. Yes, it's ~$400 but with the lens you already have, the combination with something like SB600 would make you far more versatile as a photographer than getting a 50/1.4. My 2 cents. Jai Nepal.
|
| |
