![]() ![]() If you tell us a bit more, we might be able to give some more advice. Is it possible that a lens with a higher f/stop of 4 could produce better or sharper images than a lens with a lower fstop of 2.8 The lower the f/number, the more light the lens can let though. There are several longer f/2 lenses that will lose the background as well or better than the 85mm f/1.8, but generally the price goes up the farther (each way) you get from 50mm. Tamron seems to have lower f/stop of 2.8 for their lenses. If the latter is a concern, the 60mm f/2 mentioned above is a macro lens. Incidentally, I'm assuming when you say "focal distance" you mean "focal length" (of the lens), not "close focus distance" (how close you can get to something in focus). Did you ever use anything faster on your film camera? Interesting that you're starting at the other end I'm just curious why. It's more usual to pick the field of view (focal length) that you want first, then worry about the aperture. ![]() If you want to lose the background, longer is usually better, and if the 85 is within your budget then it's a good choice - the 50mm or something like a Tamron 60mm f/2 would also be good. Marissa - why do you want a faster lens? If you want something you can hand-hold in the dark, wider lenses are easier (suggesting the 28 or 35mm would be a good starting point - the 24mm is silly money, and the Sigma 20mm is optically iffy if you could put up with manual focus, the 35mm f/1.4 Samyang gets good reviews too and is cheap) - but bear in mind that these lenses aren't image stabilized.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |