View Single Post
      07-02-2019, 09:01 PM   #9
Major General

Drives: '09 Cpe Silverstone FR 6MT
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Colorado

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2009 M3  [4.20]
If you want small size, then DON'T buy a full-frame camera. The one-inch sensor and AF system in the RX-100 will serve most people.

Buying a professional full-frame body and then limiting yourself to a relic from the 1960's, a 50mm f/1.8, just seems crazy to me. I was there in the 1960s, when zooms sucked and most of us had a 50mm, a 35mm and a 135mm or 200mm. Today, the image quality of my FE 12-24mm f/4 G, FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS, FE 100-400mm is a COMPLETE solution for 99% of us. I also own the FE 400/2.8 and FE 85/1.4 for birds, wildlife and portraits, in the the case of the 85. I could do without the 85mm, but not the 400mm, but they are both special purpose.

I understand the need for some to keep weight down. One of my students is a 110-lb, 64-year old woman that could carry part of my rig for even a few minutes. For budget reasons, she's still with a Rebel DSLR, with one good lens, the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS. She's got an EF-S zoom for everything else and can manage the weight easily. If she can afford it in the future, I'll probably recommend a Sony RX-10, because she shoots wildlife and really needs the focal length.

Would I recommend a 50/1.8? What for???? It doesn't do anything particularly well. It's too short for most portraits and it's too long for most landscapes. I don't think it's a good street focal length.

I looked through an Album of 60+ "street" and "candid" shots and only a hand full were shot within 10mm of 50mm. I see no reason to tie one arm behind your back, particularly now that the image quality of the better zooms is excellent and you can apply digital lens optimization in RAW conversion.
Appreciate 0