Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-16-2008, 07:42 PM #1
snufferoo (Banned)
****in' Jagerbombs.
 
snufferoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: STL
help picking a prime please

I'd like to get a prime lens for my 40D. I'd really like f/1.8, but 2.8 would be ok.

Because it's not full frame, I think 50mm might be a little too long.

I can't afford any more L glass unfortunately, I'd I'd like to find something that'll give me crisp and clean pictures without having to stop up more than say...f/3.5.

Any help is appreciated.
snufferoo is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 07:45 PM #2
Sacintimidator06
Obey Propaganda
 
Sacintimidator06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
 has been a member for 10 years
Post in the FAQ.
Sacintimidator06 is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 07:47 PM #3
kirradude1025
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
There is a 20mm f2.8 USM for $445.95, and a 28mm f1.8 USM for $420.00. If you do not need the USM, let me know and I will suggest more lenses that are about $150-$200 less than those.

Danny
__________________
Canon 40D

"Originally posted by infotography: Sounds to me like you should just turn it to auto and give up."
kirradude1025 is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 07:50 PM #4
207
24/7
 
207's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Sigma 30mm f/1.4
207 is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 07:50 PM #5
snufferoo (Banned)
****in' Jagerbombs.
 
snufferoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: STL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacintimidator06 View Post
Post in the FAQ.
Unless this gets closed, I'll keep things in here.

I'm looking to spend <$500 if possible.

USM would be nice, I'll check that one out, but is it sharp?

Last edited by snufferoo : 07-16-2008 at 08:03 PM. Reason: because I don't want to spend more than $500
snufferoo is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 07:51 PM #6
...Lost
#17
 
...Lost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Riverside Ca
...Lost is a Supporting Member
...Lost is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by 207 View Post
Sigma 30mm f/1.4
I've heard bad things about it
__________________
"Originally posted by elTwitcho: I climb with my penis and hold my camera between my teeth. My arms I use for carrying beer and women."

ST: Photo - Don't Burn Me Bro
My Web Site

Flickr


Blog
...Lost is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 07:52 PM #7
snwbrdr913
stole my virginity
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: ohio
snwbrdr913 is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
You want to spend more than 500 dollars?
snwbrdr913 is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 07:58 PM #8
207
24/7
 
207's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by ...Lost View Post
I've heard bad things about it
I don't really know. It seems alright.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=141274
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/r...ns-Review.aspx
207 is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 08:05 PM #9
snufferoo (Banned)
****in' Jagerbombs.
 
snufferoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: STL
Quote:
Originally Posted by snwbrdr913 View Post
You want to spend more than 500 dollars?
Woah, messed that up.

<$500

I think I may go for a 28mm f/1.8.

It'll only be super sharp at f/2.8, but its not like f/1.8 is unusable.
snufferoo is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 08:10 PM #10
snwbrdr913
stole my virginity
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: ohio
snwbrdr913 is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
I've never heard of a lens being "super sharp" at wide open, compared to being stopped down a couple steps.


edit: It appears I cannot read.

Last edited by snwbrdr913 : 07-16-2008 at 08:23 PM.
snwbrdr913 is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 08:18 PM #11
TheLPB
LOOK LIKE A MYSTERION
 
TheLPB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Manteca, CA
someone said the 28 was dumb soft. try one physically on your camera if you can
__________________
flickr tweet
Originally Posted by NotRipped2Shreds - Maybe *****es are just ****s.
TheLPB is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 08:35 PM #12
snufferoo (Banned)
****in' Jagerbombs.
 
snufferoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: STL
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLPB View Post
someone said the 28 was dumb soft. try one physically on your camera if you can
Well, this was my first impression after talking to another photog I know, as he's had one since they first came out in the 90's.

After reading this though, it looks like it's plenty sharp at f/2.8.
snufferoo is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 08:40 PM #13
therealmr
\\\\\ i go on walks /////
 
therealmr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Behind your eyes
therealmr is a Moderator
 has been a member for 10 years
therealmr is reppin' sidebar 4 life
15 f/2.8 (sigma fisheye)
20 f/1.8 (sigma)
28 f/1.8 (canon)
30 f/1.4 (sigma)
35 f/2.0 (canon)
50 f/1.4 (canon)
50 f/1.4 (sigma)
85 f/1.8 (canon)

All under 500.
__________________
xyz

I want to be remembered for the
people I helped make memorable;
personal success is overrated if it
doesn't help everyone's progress.
therealmr is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 08:49 PM #14
kirradude1025
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Ya the Canon EF 28mm f1.8 USM is $420.00 and from what I heard it is a good buy. I just got the 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM, so when I get some make some more money I may look into a wide angle prime.
__________________
Canon 40D

"Originally posted by infotography: Sounds to me like you should just turn it to auto and give up."
kirradude1025 is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 08:52 PM #15
therealmr
\\\\\ i go on walks /////
 
therealmr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Behind your eyes
therealmr is a Moderator
 has been a member for 10 years
therealmr is reppin' sidebar 4 life
oops, forgot to close.

Please feel free to ask any additional questions regarding "what lens should I get" and such in the FAQ
__________________
xyz

I want to be remembered for the
people I helped make memorable;
personal success is overrated if it
doesn't help everyone's progress.
therealmr is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump