50mm F1.8 Or 55-200mm F4-5.6 Vr

[Mozikillah]

Heres the problem tho..

Getting the 50mm 1.8 will be hard to manually focus at 1.8 ... dof is 5cm .. and my Camera does not have an auto focus motor feature in its body (D40x ).. So im reconsidering

[RAZZELL]

In my experience, successfull people rarely gloat or belittle others.

BUY QUALITY/OWN QUALITY is my advice.

Avoid the cheap zooms.

Believe me I totally agree with you.

I'm a professional who owns 2 x Canon Mk2's, 1.4 convertor (x2), x2 convertor (2), 16-35 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 300mm 2.8, 400mm 2.8 and assorted strobes, flash wizards, Apple mac's, etc etc probably nearly 2 million baht's worth or £25-30k's back in the UK.

The OP asked about a portrait lens. I told him my opinion. You think differently. Up to you

And like I said, it's my living. If I don't get the picture...I don't get paid.

Your's in photography...

RAZZ

P.S. By the way it's successful :D

Edited November 5, 2007 by RAZZELL

[PadThaiGuy]

A Pro Shooter with no Primes under 300mm.

Whatever.

[percy2]

A Pro Shooter with no Primes under 300mm.

Whatever.

Do you need them to shoot golfers on the first tee box

There are pro's and there are Pro's.

Cheers

[Mozikillah]

A Pro Shooter with no Primes under 300mm.

Whatever.

Do you need them to shoot golfers on the first tee box

There are pro's and there are Pro's.

Cheers

[RAZZELL]

A Pro Shooter with no Primes under 300mm.

Whatever.

Do you need them to shoot golfers on the first tee box

There are pro's and there are Pro's.

Cheers

Phil Mickelson?

RAZZ

[RAZZELL]

A Pro Shooter with no Primes under 300mm.

Whatever.

Proof?

Crespo scoring for Chelsea, from the wrong end on a Canon 400mm.

Archer at the Old Bailey, Nikon D1 200mm (about f4 )

Charles Bronson at the High Court in London, 300mm plus 1.4 convertor, manual focus through 2 iron fences (read about circles of confusion) after a 3 hour wait in the pissing rain!

But up to you!

RAZZ

Edited November 6, 2007 by RAZZELL

[PadThaiGuy]

I had a feeling you from England.

[RAZZELL]

I had a feeling you from England.

Thank you...And I had a feeling you didn't know what you were talking about...

I respectfully withdraw from this thread...Point proved

RAZZ

[PadThaiGuy]

I think you were the one recommending the cheap zoom to the OP.

[RAZZELL]

I think you were the one recommending the cheap zoom to the OP.

You won't let it lie will you?

Right, stand VERY near to a subject with a 50mm shoot at f1.4

Do the same at 200mm f5.6.

See which has the background "blown out" more.

RAZZ

[kash]

I don't really get what the images you posted illustrated? The background wasnt blown (boekhe) out in either of them, however it should have with such great tools as the 300 and 400 2,8's ... and of course a 50mm with 1.4 would give a totally different image than a 200mm at 5.6

[kash]

...and those illustrated what fact, he being a "pro"?

[Mozikillah]

Lets just give it a rest eh??!

[RAZZELL]

I don't really get what the images you posted illustrated? The background wasnt blown (boekhe) out in either of them, however it should have with such great tools as the 300 and 400 2,8's ... and of course a 50mm with 1.4 would give a totally different image than a 200mm at 5.6

Not from the wrong end of Stamford Bridge or from 70 plus metres away at the High Court in London.

The photo of Jeffery Archer wasn't blown out???

RAZZ

[astral]

This forum is for sensible discussion on photographic matters, not a free for all.

Topic closed