GOLFMK8
GOLFMK7
GOLFMK6
GOLFMKV

some 50mm 1.8 goodness

clutch fool

OG MUFF DIVER
Location
Roc NY
Car(s)
MK5 GTI 1st Owner
thanks for the info bubba. i think i will end up getting the 50mm 1.8 because its only $100 but i was hoping to find a nice 50mm that can be used for Maco that has a 1:1 ratio.
 

nhbubba

CEL free until 48,398 mi
Location
Seacoast NH
I've always wanted the 100/2.8 macro myself. I hear it is one of the sharpest lenses out there. That's where I'll be spending my money if I ever go for a dedicated macro. I've almost pulled the trigger on that one a half dozen times now.
 

clutch fool

OG MUFF DIVER
Location
Roc NY
Car(s)
MK5 GTI 1st Owner
^yea that looks like a nice macro but getting up there in price about what i was planning on spending on a decent wide angle lens. oh decisions decisions...
 

-jakrbt-

.:R32 OG
Location
North Texas
Okay, so I'm trying to figure out the major difference between the 85mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.8 lenses. I've got the Nikkor nifty fifty and I really like it, but I'm wondering why the 85mm is so much better. Can someone enlighten me?
 

nhbubba

CEL free until 48,398 mi
Location
Seacoast NH
85mm is much more telephoto than a 50. Both are f/1.8 primes, and so will be pretty darn bright and pretty darn sharp. The 50mm is just far far wider angle.

Clutch, IMHO wide is where it's at. Unfortunately I do not think wide macros are all that useful because you will have to get VERY close to your subject. I've wanted to dabble at shooting insects and flowers as macros. The argument I hear is that 100mm is actually too wide for that as you still have to get too close. Most I talk to suggest something in the 150-180mm range if you want to do that stuff right. The Canon offering, the EF 180mm f/3.5L is priced at like $1300 though.

In that light the 100/2.8 starts looking REALLY good. The 100 is effing-A sharp too. Most say it is as good as any L.

Me, I'd get the nifty 50/1.8 and save for a 100/2.8 to play with macro. But then I don't actually own the 50. I spent more and got the 35/2.0. ... As said, I really like wide angle photography.
 

-jakrbt-

.:R32 OG
Location
North Texas
85mm is much more telephoto than a 50. Both are f/1.8 primes, and so will be pretty darn bright and pretty darn sharp. The 50mm is just far far wider angle.

Clutch, IMHO wide is where it's at. Unfortunately I do not think wide macros are all that useful because you will have to get VERY close to your subject. I've wanted to dabble at shooting insects and flowers as macros. The argument I hear is that 100mm is actually too wide for that as you still have to get too close. Most I talk to suggest something in the 150-180mm range if you want to do that stuff right. The Canon offering, the EF 180mm f/3.5L is priced at like $1300 though.

In that light the 100/2.8 starts looking REALLY good. The 100 is effing-A sharp too. Most say it is as good as any L.

Me, I'd get the nifty 50/1.8 and save for a 100/2.8 to play with macro. But then I don't actually own the 50. I spent more and got the 35/2.0. ... As said, I really like wide angle photography.

SO what you're saying is that the 85mm basically has a narrower field of view and focuses more on the center subject?
 

cevMkV

Ready to race!
Location
Johnstown, PA
Car(s)
2008 UG MkV GTI MT
Looks like a Weimeraner

nhbubba.....thanks for the info.


sorry for being MIA...that dog is my buddy's chocolate lab. his name is Heinz...
 

residentevol

Fugitive Trucker
Location
Spangdahlem AB Germany
Car(s)
On order 09 GTI UG
From an animal park in Germany the white balance needs to be adjusted a tad but I was so suprised with how well this monkey acted with me in his face ;) Nikon D60 F1.8 50mm 0.003 sec (1/400) ISO 400 (not sure why I was shooting at 400 I think I just forgot to change it)

Monkey
 

BreezyGTI

Ready to race!
Location
Rock Hill, SC
newly acquired 50mm1.8...







 
Top