3 ms·

For the vast majority of low end DSLR shooters, buying a fast prime lense (eg. 35mm 1.8 for 1.5x smaller sensor) will have the biggest single impact on their ph

For the vast majority of low end DSLR shooters, buying a fast prime lense (eg. 35mm 1.8 for 1.5x smaller sensor) will have the biggest single impact on their photography. It gives them much more headroom in low light and much shallower DoF for portraits. It's also much smaller and lighter than the chunky 18-55 the camera probably comes with.

ghshephard 12y ago
I can't upvote this enough. The owner of something old like an EOS 10D would be far better served investing $1000 better glass than they would upgrading their body. I purchased the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM for my EOS 10D ($400), and spent the next two years taking completely new pictures. The pictures that I took with my EOS 7D didn't look that much different from the EOS 10D (though the faster focus and startup was greatly appreciated)
matwood 12y ago
I was about to write this same thing. For $200 you can get either the Nikon or Cannon version of the 35mm and greatly improve every picture you take. It also opens up a lot of artistic options with DoF and lighting.
r00fus 12y ago
The only problem with a fast prime lens is that it can be "too fast" - i.e., super shallow DoF (e.g.: in a portrait, parts of the face are in focus while others are already seeing bokeh). The Canon 50mm 1.4 is in this range - you need to be very good to avoid the super-sharp DoF. Personally, the best benefit of a DSLR is the external (bouncable) flash. That's something that smartphones aren't going to solve anytime soon.
foldr 12y ago
Who are these people who regularly take photos at f1.8? At least with a full-frame sensor you'd almost always want more depth of field that that. Having a super-wide aperture may be an indicator of lens quality but it's not all that much use in itself.
- ghshephard 12y ago
  I loved the pictures I could take with my f1.4 - particularly macro photography, insects, flowers, etc.. but also low-light portrait photography. The f1.4 lets in a ton of light, and shoots really fast, so you can get a low-light portrait with great bokeh. The second best lens I ever purchased for my camera was the Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM.
  - foldr 12y ago
    Bokeh is kind of subjective, so I won't argue that. If you're not using full frame then maybe having some wider apertures is useful for that, but I would think you'd almost always want more depth of field than f1.4 would give you. Apart from that, you're only letting in around three more stops of light than a kit lens and half a stop more than a cheap 50mm prime. You can almost always work around that with some combination of (i) underexposing, (ii) using a slower shutter speed and (iii) bumping up the ISO. People used to say the same things about f1.4 lenses before digital, but the fact is that shooting at ISO 800 you can get the same overall sensitivity/quality balance at f4 with a digital camera that you could at f1.4 with a film camera. If you spend all your time trying to shoot fast moving completely-flat things in the dark -- and you can somehow focus fast enough at f1.4 -- then maybe f1.4 is useful, but that isn't representative of most photography.

ghshephard 12y ago

I can't upvote this enough. The owner of something old like an EOS 10D would be far better served investing $1000 better glass than they would upgrading their body. I purchased the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM for my EOS 10D ($400), and spent the next two years taking completely new pictures. The pictures that I took with my EOS 7D didn't look that much different from the EOS 10D (though the faster focus and startup was greatly appreciated)

matwood 12y ago

I was about to write this same thing. For $200 you can get either the Nikon or Cannon version of the 35mm and greatly improve every picture you take. It also opens up a lot of artistic options with DoF and lighting.

r00fus 12y ago

The only problem with a fast prime lens is that it can be "too fast" - i.e., super shallow DoF (e.g.: in a portrait, parts of the face are in focus while others are already seeing bokeh). The Canon 50mm 1.4 is in this range - you need to be very good to avoid the super-sharp DoF. Personally, the best benefit of a DSLR is the external (bouncable) flash. That's something that smartphones aren't going to solve anytime soon.

foldr 12y ago

Who are these people who regularly take photos at f1.8? At least with a full-frame sensor you'd almost always want more depth of field that that. Having a super-wide aperture may be an indicator of lens quality but it's not all that much use in itself.

ghshephard 12y ago
I loved the pictures I could take with my f1.4 - particularly macro photography, insects, flowers, etc.. but also low-light portrait photography. The f1.4 lets in a ton of light, and shoots really fast, so you can get a low-light portrait with great bokeh. The second best lens I ever purchased for my camera was the Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM.
- foldr 12y ago
  Bokeh is kind of subjective, so I won't argue that. If you're not using full frame then maybe having some wider apertures is useful for that, but I would think you'd almost always want more depth of field than f1.4 would give you. Apart from that, you're only letting in around three more stops of light than a kit lens and half a stop more than a cheap 50mm prime. You can almost always work around that with some combination of (i) underexposing, (ii) using a slower shutter speed and (iii) bumping up the ISO. People used to say the same things about f1.4 lenses before digital, but the fact is that shooting at ISO 800 you can get the same overall sensitivity/quality balance at f4 with a digital camera that you could at f1.4 with a film camera. If you spend all your time trying to shoot fast moving completely-flat things in the dark -- and you can somehow focus fast enough at f1.4 -- then maybe f1.4 is useful, but that isn't representative of most photography.