| Message |
I have the 16-35 2.8L but to be honest, if I had to do it again, I would get the 17-40. The 16-35 isn't worth the $1200. For an L lens, it's not that sharp at 16mm nor is it sharp at f/2.8. I rarely have to shoot wide open with this lens so there's no real advantage (for me) using it in low light. Most of the shots I take are at 4.0 or 4.5 for automotive stuff or family group shots. If I want to shoot wide open for more separation of the focal point from the background, I pull out the 70-200 or 50. The 50 f1.8 is a good bargain at $75 but it has it's limitations. There's excessive vignetting below f/2.5. The bokeh it creates is just so-so (only 5 blades in the lens so the bokeh creates a pentagonal shapes). It's pretty soft below f/3.2. Here's a example of the vignetting at f/2.0
Most beginners wouldn't really notice this stuff, though. But, at $75 it's hard to be a fast 1.8 lens. I've been using it more recently when I don't want to lug around the 70-200. A few other sample shots from the thrifty fifty
(my niece) 
I haven't bought a lens in over 18 months so I'm due, just have to decide what to get. Canon 50 macro, Canon 100 macro, Canon 135 f/2.0L, Canon 50 1.4
rice is a smart man/grain. you should listen to him. - infinite loop 00:04:14 09/06/01 |
 |
