Lens advice for a newbie
Discussion
Hello,
I have a Canon 600D which I bought a year or so ago (thread here: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a... ). It came with the standard 18-55mm lens and 75-300 Sigma. It's a great camera and I'm really pleased with some of the shots I've got (few examples):
I'm looking to purchase an additional lens and would be really grateful for some guidance.
I've taken lots of pictures at weddings recently and am looking for a lens which (a) gives much greater depth of field to "static" drinks-party portraits (looks much more pro and less "point and shoot") and (b) takes much better low-light evening pictures. One of the issues with the 18-55mm lens I currently use is that it really struggles to AF in low-light meaning that the pictures are very "hit and miss".
I also want to be able to have much greater depth of field with static car shots - the ones I currently take lack "punch" or contrast.
I think I want a lens which goes down to 1.4 or 1.8 aperature (apologies if the terminology is incorrect). I was all set on the Canon 28mm lens (1.8), but noticed that the 50mm lens (1.8) is very significantly cheaper (£75 versus £300). Will the 50mm be suitable for what I'm looking to do? Am I right in thinking that the difference between them is simply the amount of "zoom" (i.e. how close/far away you need to be). If so, why the significant difference in price?
Interestingly both the 50mm and 28mm were recommended on my original thread, but obviously the price difference is significant.
A pro photographer has suggested the 50mm will be perfect for my amateur requirements but I'd be grateful for any thoughts (in thick-layman's terms if possible!).
Thanks in advance.
I have a Canon 600D which I bought a year or so ago (thread here: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a... ). It came with the standard 18-55mm lens and 75-300 Sigma. It's a great camera and I'm really pleased with some of the shots I've got (few examples):
I'm looking to purchase an additional lens and would be really grateful for some guidance.
I've taken lots of pictures at weddings recently and am looking for a lens which (a) gives much greater depth of field to "static" drinks-party portraits (looks much more pro and less "point and shoot") and (b) takes much better low-light evening pictures. One of the issues with the 18-55mm lens I currently use is that it really struggles to AF in low-light meaning that the pictures are very "hit and miss".
I also want to be able to have much greater depth of field with static car shots - the ones I currently take lack "punch" or contrast.
I think I want a lens which goes down to 1.4 or 1.8 aperature (apologies if the terminology is incorrect). I was all set on the Canon 28mm lens (1.8), but noticed that the 50mm lens (1.8) is very significantly cheaper (£75 versus £300). Will the 50mm be suitable for what I'm looking to do? Am I right in thinking that the difference between them is simply the amount of "zoom" (i.e. how close/far away you need to be). If so, why the significant difference in price?
Interestingly both the 50mm and 28mm were recommended on my original thread, but obviously the price difference is significant.
A pro photographer has suggested the 50mm will be perfect for my amateur requirements but I'd be grateful for any thoughts (in thick-layman's terms if possible!).
Thanks in advance.
I have a 50mm on my full frame camera and personally find its a bit too long for my liking, so I can only imagine that's going to be amplified on your crop sensor
I'm not a canon guy so someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the 50mm only has 5 aperture blades? So if bokeh is your thing then its going to look a little odd compared to the 7(?) blades in the 28mm, but as is with most things in Photography its down to your tastes, here's a comparison image between a 5 bladed lens and a 7 - http://www.pabstphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/...
I personally prefer the focal length of 28mm over 50mm but then I am a wide junky, for the sake of how cheap the 50mm is, id say get it and play around with it to see how you feel with it.
I'm not a canon guy so someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the 50mm only has 5 aperture blades? So if bokeh is your thing then its going to look a little odd compared to the 7(?) blades in the 28mm, but as is with most things in Photography its down to your tastes, here's a comparison image between a 5 bladed lens and a 7 - http://www.pabstphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/...
I personally prefer the focal length of 28mm over 50mm but then I am a wide junky, for the sake of how cheap the 50mm is, id say get it and play around with it to see how you feel with it.
Edited by dele on Friday 28th March 12:13
First, congrats on being able to pan and also resharpen your photos after resizing.
Second, think what the 'depth' part of 'depth of field' means. From the context you don't want a 'greater depth of field' - you could achieve that simply by using f16 - you want LESS depth of field. Hence lenses with a large maximum aperture of 1.8 etc. Low number, big hole, less DOF.
Whether you choose 28mm or 50mm is up to you and the way you work. 28mm is too short for nice portraits, 50mm is too long for groups. I came this way almost a decade ago and settled on a fast wide angle zoom - 17-55mm f2.8. Note that a zoom lens has variable focal length; both the 28 and 50mm lenses are called primes. Personally I find primes too restricting for weddings but it's up to you. If you take somone else's recommendation you will simply end up with what they like and not necessarily what you like.
Second, think what the 'depth' part of 'depth of field' means. From the context you don't want a 'greater depth of field' - you could achieve that simply by using f16 - you want LESS depth of field. Hence lenses with a large maximum aperture of 1.8 etc. Low number, big hole, less DOF.
Whether you choose 28mm or 50mm is up to you and the way you work. 28mm is too short for nice portraits, 50mm is too long for groups. I came this way almost a decade ago and settled on a fast wide angle zoom - 17-55mm f2.8. Note that a zoom lens has variable focal length; both the 28 and 50mm lenses are called primes. Personally I find primes too restricting for weddings but it's up to you. If you take somone else's recommendation you will simply end up with what they like and not necessarily what you like.
Simpo Two said:
First, congrats on being able to pan and also resharpen your photos after resizing.
That's the first thing I thought too! 
Simpo is your go-to guy for wedding photography advice. I don't shoot weddings much but I love primes for all things portraiture. They force me to consider my position and framing and make me move around more. My 85mm rarely leaves my 5D (so 50mm on crop would be about equivalent). A wide angle prime might be good too - as suggested. Just avoid getting too close to the subject as there will be some facial distortion. People tend to look most attractive at around 135-200mm, so banging a 28mm in someone's mush is going to cause them to look quite odd. I think a 50mm f/1.4 would be your best bet for your needs, or as Simpo said, a fast zoom (although it won't be kind on your budget).
Many thanks all for your comments. Really helpful to get some pointers, much appreciated.
Some comments on your comments!
You're absolutely right, I want less depth of field then - can you tell that I'm a bit fresh to this?
V useful reply, thank you.
Do "primes" (new jargon for me!) tend to take better/sharper pictures than zoom lenses (because they are fixed) or is there really no obvious difference between a 50mm lens and an 18-55mm lens at 50mm?
As an amateur I'm afraid that £500 for a lens is just not value for the number of pictures I take - although I see the benefit of having a "one size fits all" lens.
I think what I ought to do is run around with my 18-55 stuck at 50mm and see whether that is practically useful for the type of pictures I take. But for a saving of £225 I can't discount the 50mm, even if I have to stand further back (that's a gross over simplification, isn't it!)
The prices of these things doesn't seem to be that consistent I have to say!
Some comments on your comments!
dele said:
I have a 50mm on my full frame camera and personally find its a bit too long for my liking, so I can only imagine that's going to be amplified on your crop sensor
I'm not a canon guy so someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the 50mm only has 5 aperture blades? So if bokeh is your thing then its going to look a little odd compared to the 7(?) blades in the 28mm, but as is with most things in Photography its down to your tastes, here's a comparison image between a 5 bladed lens and a 7 - http://www.pabstphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/...
I personally prefer the focal length of 28mm over 50mm but then I am a wide junky, for the sake of how cheap the 50mm is, id say get it and play around with it to see how you feel with it.
Had to google "bokeh"! And I'm afraid "aperature blades" and the differences between them is well over my head, as is the relevance of a crop-sensor! Nonetheless in my mind I'm sort of at the same conclusion you are - for that money it's worth getting it and seeing?I'm not a canon guy so someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the 50mm only has 5 aperture blades? So if bokeh is your thing then its going to look a little odd compared to the 7(?) blades in the 28mm, but as is with most things in Photography its down to your tastes, here's a comparison image between a 5 bladed lens and a 7 - http://www.pabstphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/...
I personally prefer the focal length of 28mm over 50mm but then I am a wide junky, for the sake of how cheap the 50mm is, id say get it and play around with it to see how you feel with it.
Edited by dele on Friday 28th March 12:13
Simpo Two said:
First, congrats on being able to pan and also resharpen your photos after resizing.
Second, think what the 'depth' part of 'depth of field' means. From the context you don't want a 'greater depth of field' - you could achieve that simply by using f16 - you want LESS depth of field. Hence lenses with a large maximum aperture of 1.8 etc. Low number, big hole, less DOF.
Whether you choose 28mm or 50mm is up to you and the way you work. 28mm is too short for nice portraits, 50mm is too long for groups. I came this way almost a decade ago and settled on a fast wide angle zoom - 17-55mm f2.8. Note that a zoom lens has variable focal length; both the 28 and 50mm lenses are called primes. Personally I find primes too restricting for weddings but it's up to you. If you take somone else's recommendation you will simply end up with what they like and not necessarily what you like.
Thanks - those pictures are straight out of the camera and onto Flicr.Second, think what the 'depth' part of 'depth of field' means. From the context you don't want a 'greater depth of field' - you could achieve that simply by using f16 - you want LESS depth of field. Hence lenses with a large maximum aperture of 1.8 etc. Low number, big hole, less DOF.
Whether you choose 28mm or 50mm is up to you and the way you work. 28mm is too short for nice portraits, 50mm is too long for groups. I came this way almost a decade ago and settled on a fast wide angle zoom - 17-55mm f2.8. Note that a zoom lens has variable focal length; both the 28 and 50mm lenses are called primes. Personally I find primes too restricting for weddings but it's up to you. If you take somone else's recommendation you will simply end up with what they like and not necessarily what you like.
You're absolutely right, I want less depth of field then - can you tell that I'm a bit fresh to this?
V useful reply, thank you.
Do "primes" (new jargon for me!) tend to take better/sharper pictures than zoom lenses (because they are fixed) or is there really no obvious difference between a 50mm lens and an 18-55mm lens at 50mm?
As an amateur I'm afraid that £500 for a lens is just not value for the number of pictures I take - although I see the benefit of having a "one size fits all" lens.
RobbieKB said:
That's the first thing I thought too!
Simpo is your go-to guy for wedding photography advice. I don't shoot weddings much but I love primes for all things portraiture. They force me to consider my position and framing and make me move around more. My 85mm rarely leaves my 5D (so 50mm on crop would be about equivalent). A wide angle prime might be good too - as suggested. Just avoid getting too close to the subject as there will be some facial distortion. People tend to look most attractive at around 135-200mm, so banging a 28mm in someone's mush is going to cause them to look quite odd. I think a 50mm f/1.4 would be your best bet for your needs, or as Simpo said, a fast zoom (although it won't be kind on your budget).
This is pretty much where I had got to with my thinking, thank you. Simpo is your go-to guy for wedding photography advice. I don't shoot weddings much but I love primes for all things portraiture. They force me to consider my position and framing and make me move around more. My 85mm rarely leaves my 5D (so 50mm on crop would be about equivalent). A wide angle prime might be good too - as suggested. Just avoid getting too close to the subject as there will be some facial distortion. People tend to look most attractive at around 135-200mm, so banging a 28mm in someone's mush is going to cause them to look quite odd. I think a 50mm f/1.4 would be your best bet for your needs, or as Simpo said, a fast zoom (although it won't be kind on your budget).
I think what I ought to do is run around with my 18-55 stuck at 50mm and see whether that is practically useful for the type of pictures I take. But for a saving of £225 I can't discount the 50mm, even if I have to stand further back (that's a gross over simplification, isn't it!)
The prices of these things doesn't seem to be that consistent I have to say!
will_ said:
Do "primes" (new jargon for me!) tend to take better/sharper pictures than zoom lenses (because they are fixed) or is there really no obvious difference between a 50mm lens and an 18-55mm lens at 50mm?
It's not so much the prime vs zoom issue but the quality of the glass inside. 50mm lenses are generally good to very good because they have few elements (individual lenses) inside. A cheap midrange zoom like the 18-55 is built down to a price so won't be as good. But spend £1,000 on a 17-55mm f2.8 and bingo, very good. If budgets are limited it's a trade off between the convenience of a more affordable zoom and the inherent quality of a prime. As with all things, the more you pay, the better it will be. Comsider also third party makers like Sigma if you find the main brands too expensive.will_ said:
I think what I ought to do is run around with my 18-55 stuck at 50mm and see whether that is practically useful for the type of pictures I take. But for a saving of £225 I can't discount the 50mm, even if I have to stand further back (that's a gross over simplification, isn't it!
Standing further back in a room can be tricky... but if it's cheap shallow DOF you want, the 50mm 1.8 has to be the best value by far. What's most important, shallow DOF or angle of view? 'Both' costs more 
Bokeh is the blury, out of focus bits in an image.
To minimise the depth of field and maximise the blur you can:
Use a wider aperture (lower f. number),
Increase the magnification by using a longer focal length or getting physically closer,
Increase the subject to background distance.
Different lenses give different quality bokeh, a subjective view on how smooth and creamy the blurry bits are.
An out of focus point of light will blur outwards in an image. Lenses which have fewer aperture blades, say 5, will cause the blurs to be more pentagonal in shape. The higher quality lenses with more blades will have rounder edged blurred bits.
Most DSLRs have a sensor smaller than the 35mm film/full-frame DSLRs which many people use. The image is projected inside the camera as normal but the sensor isn't big enough to cover the whole image. The edges which are not over the sensor are not recorded and are 'cropped' hence the term crop sensor. You would get the same result by cropping an image taken from a camera with a full sized (35mm) sensor.
For people used to shooting 35mm/full-frame, using the same lens on a smaller sensor camera gives a narrower field of view as if you'd used a longer focal length. The difference is called the 'crop factor', 1.6 on Canon's range, so a 50mm lens on your camera would give the same field of view as using an ~85mm lens (50mm * 1.6) on a full-frame. Although frequently referred to as 'equivalent focal length', it would be more accurate to call it an 'equivalent field of view' as the focal length of the lens does not change depending on the camera attached.
Tied to this, the smaller sensors don't need lenses to produce a full sized image so the lenses can be made smaller and cheaper.
Both systems are popular so this frequently comes up and confuses people
Put simply, most cameras will appear to be more zoomed-in for a given focal length when compared to the more expensive full-frame cameras.
As an extra point, if you didn't know already, the f number is the ratio found by dividing the focal length by the size of the aperture. It's a way of setting an exposure to be correct for any focal length. As the f number goes down, or the focal length goes up, the amount of glass needed gets progressively larger to cover the aperture needed. A 200mm @f4 will have a physically larger aperture than a 50mm @f4.
Back to your choice of lenses
I have a 50mm lens (Sigma f1.4) and on my 500D it's excellent if I have enough room. Unfortunately I'm frequently trying to use it inside and can't step back far enough to get everything in. It's more practical on my other camera which gives the wider field of view. I wanted something to replace my kit lens so bought a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, covers the same range but to a higher standard and allows the use of f2.8 through the whole range of the zoom. Definitely worth considering.
Wider lenses can be used for portraits but you need to be careful about getting too close. Get close enough for a head & shoulders shot and their ears are twice as far away as their nose so their nose looks twice the size
To minimise the depth of field and maximise the blur you can:
Use a wider aperture (lower f. number),
Increase the magnification by using a longer focal length or getting physically closer,
Increase the subject to background distance.
Different lenses give different quality bokeh, a subjective view on how smooth and creamy the blurry bits are.
An out of focus point of light will blur outwards in an image. Lenses which have fewer aperture blades, say 5, will cause the blurs to be more pentagonal in shape. The higher quality lenses with more blades will have rounder edged blurred bits.
Most DSLRs have a sensor smaller than the 35mm film/full-frame DSLRs which many people use. The image is projected inside the camera as normal but the sensor isn't big enough to cover the whole image. The edges which are not over the sensor are not recorded and are 'cropped' hence the term crop sensor. You would get the same result by cropping an image taken from a camera with a full sized (35mm) sensor.
For people used to shooting 35mm/full-frame, using the same lens on a smaller sensor camera gives a narrower field of view as if you'd used a longer focal length. The difference is called the 'crop factor', 1.6 on Canon's range, so a 50mm lens on your camera would give the same field of view as using an ~85mm lens (50mm * 1.6) on a full-frame. Although frequently referred to as 'equivalent focal length', it would be more accurate to call it an 'equivalent field of view' as the focal length of the lens does not change depending on the camera attached.
Tied to this, the smaller sensors don't need lenses to produce a full sized image so the lenses can be made smaller and cheaper.
Both systems are popular so this frequently comes up and confuses people
Put simply, most cameras will appear to be more zoomed-in for a given focal length when compared to the more expensive full-frame cameras.
As an extra point, if you didn't know already, the f number is the ratio found by dividing the focal length by the size of the aperture. It's a way of setting an exposure to be correct for any focal length. As the f number goes down, or the focal length goes up, the amount of glass needed gets progressively larger to cover the aperture needed. A 200mm @f4 will have a physically larger aperture than a 50mm @f4.
Back to your choice of lenses
I have a 50mm lens (Sigma f1.4) and on my 500D it's excellent if I have enough room. Unfortunately I'm frequently trying to use it inside and can't step back far enough to get everything in. It's more practical on my other camera which gives the wider field of view. I wanted something to replace my kit lens so bought a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, covers the same range but to a higher standard and allows the use of f2.8 through the whole range of the zoom. Definitely worth considering.
Wider lenses can be used for portraits but you need to be careful about getting too close. Get close enough for a head & shoulders shot and their ears are twice as far away as their nose so their nose looks twice the size
Thanks for all the advice.
I've decided to bite the bullet and get the 28mm, even though it is much more expensive. Fact is, if the 50mm isn't that usable then it's not worth even £75!
Any suggestions for the best place to buy such a lens? Want to avoid e-bay, cheapest I could find was this at £280 delivered:
http://www.eglobaldigitalstore.co.uk/canon-ef-28mm...
Any comments on this supplier or suggestions for alternatives?
I've decided to bite the bullet and get the 28mm, even though it is much more expensive. Fact is, if the 50mm isn't that usable then it's not worth even £75!
Any suggestions for the best place to buy such a lens? Want to avoid e-bay, cheapest I could find was this at £280 delivered:
http://www.eglobaldigitalstore.co.uk/canon-ef-28mm...
Any comments on this supplier or suggestions for alternatives?
Craikeybaby said:
Not heard of them. Camerapricebuster.com is worth a look, although if I haven't heard of the place with the cheapest price I call up warehouse express and ask them to match it.
Thanks for those links, very useful.Having looked into my original link, it's a warehouse in Hong Kong and the price would therefore be subject to import duty. As such, whilst still cheaper, it's not significantly cheaper to take the risk of an unknown/reputable site.
Amazon seems to be the cheapest at £369.00?
will_ said:
Any suggestions for the best place to buy such a lens? Want to avoid e-bay, cheapest I could find was this at £280 delivered:
http://www.eglobaldigitalstore.co.uk/canon-ef-28mm...
Any comments on this supplier or suggestions for alternatives?
I bought a Fuji X20 from EGlobalDigital last year, it was a lot cheaper than anyone UK based. It arrived from Hong Kong 2 days after ordering.http://www.eglobaldigitalstore.co.uk/canon-ef-28mm...
Any comments on this supplier or suggestions for alternatives?
At the time they paid duty/VAT/customs. They changed policy shortly afterwards and made the buyer responsible.
danjama said:
Many thanks for the link - unfortunately they don't seem to have any 28mm 1.8s in stock.will_ said:
Thanks for all the advice.
I've decided to bite the bullet and get the 28mm, even though it is much more expensive. Fact is, if the 50mm isn't that usable then it's not worth even £75!
Will, you already have 28mm and 50mm....so no need to guess if 50mm will or won't be useful! Just set your kit lens at 50mm next time you are out taking pictures, resist the urge to twist the zoom ring and see how you get on. Do the same for 28mm, then once you've figured out what suits you, you can blow the cash on a nice fast prime, safe in the knowledge you've made the right decision. I've decided to bite the bullet and get the 28mm, even though it is much more expensive. Fact is, if the 50mm isn't that usable then it's not worth even £75!
Has anyone mentioned the Sigma 30mm 1.4 yet? I don't know much about it, but might be worth reading up on that Will.
tim-b said:
will_ said:
Thanks for all the advice.
I've decided to bite the bullet and get the 28mm, even though it is much more expensive. Fact is, if the 50mm isn't that usable then it's not worth even £75!
Will, you already have 28mm and 50mm....so no need to guess if 50mm will or won't be useful! Just set your kit lens at 50mm next time you are out taking pictures, resist the urge to twist the zoom ring and see how you get on. Do the same for 28mm, then once you've figured out what suits you, you can blow the cash on a nice fast prime, safe in the knowledge you've made the right decision. I've decided to bite the bullet and get the 28mm, even though it is much more expensive. Fact is, if the 50mm isn't that usable then it's not worth even £75!
tim-b said:
Has anyone mentioned the Sigma 30mm 1.4 yet? I don't know much about it, but might be worth reading up on that Will.
Thanks for suggesting this, I'll also look into it as it is a fair bit cheaper than the Canon.OK, having thought that I'd made a decision I'm almost no closer than before I started the thread!
Options appear to be (within budget):
Canon 28mm 1.8 - £370 (new)
Canon 28mm 2.8 - £160 (second hand)
Sigma 30mm 1.4 - £380 (appears to have good reviews)
Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 - £280 (somewhat mixed reviews but good value)
All of these have generally good reviews and their own good and bad points no doubt.
In some respects the second-hand Canon 2.8 looks like the best "value" as it is £400 new. But will I miss that extra 1.0F?
The Tamron seems like good value and is clearly the most flexible, but will it produce significantly better pictures (I don't particularly "need" the flexibility of the zoom but obviously it does make things easier). Some comments about slow AF in low light put me off.
Any final thoughts before I take the plunge - given that I want a lens to (a) give me less depth of field and (b) fast autofocus in low light conditions?
Options appear to be (within budget):
Canon 28mm 1.8 - £370 (new)
Canon 28mm 2.8 - £160 (second hand)
Sigma 30mm 1.4 - £380 (appears to have good reviews)
Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 - £280 (somewhat mixed reviews but good value)
All of these have generally good reviews and their own good and bad points no doubt.
In some respects the second-hand Canon 2.8 looks like the best "value" as it is £400 new. But will I miss that extra 1.0F?
The Tamron seems like good value and is clearly the most flexible, but will it produce significantly better pictures (I don't particularly "need" the flexibility of the zoom but obviously it does make things easier). Some comments about slow AF in low light put me off.
Any final thoughts before I take the plunge - given that I want a lens to (a) give me less depth of field and (b) fast autofocus in low light conditions?
will_ said:
OK, having thought that I'd made a decision I'm almost no closer than before I started the thread!
Options appear to be (within budget):
Canon 28mm 1.8 - £370 (new)
Canon 28mm 2.8 - £160 (second hand)
Sigma 30mm 1.4 - £380 (appears to have good reviews)
Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 - £280 (somewhat mixed reviews but good value)
All of these have generally good reviews and their own good and bad points no doubt.
In some respects the second-hand Canon 2.8 looks like the best "value" as it is £400 new. But will I miss that extra 1.0F?
The Tamron seems like good value and is clearly the most flexible, but will it produce significantly better pictures (I don't particularly "need" the flexibility of the zoom but obviously it does make things easier). Some comments about slow AF in low light put me off.
Any final thoughts before I take the plunge - given that I want a lens to (a) give me less depth of field and (b) fast autofocus in low light conditions?
Don't get confused by the 28mm 2.8 lenses - there are two. The old version is likely what you are seeing second-hand (prices range from ~£100-170). There is also a new 28mm 2.8 IS which adds image stabilisation and USM (fast, silent focussing) which is ~£400 new and is a completely different lens.Options appear to be (within budget):
Canon 28mm 1.8 - £370 (new)
Canon 28mm 2.8 - £160 (second hand)
Sigma 30mm 1.4 - £380 (appears to have good reviews)
Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 - £280 (somewhat mixed reviews but good value)
All of these have generally good reviews and their own good and bad points no doubt.
In some respects the second-hand Canon 2.8 looks like the best "value" as it is £400 new. But will I miss that extra 1.0F?
The Tamron seems like good value and is clearly the most flexible, but will it produce significantly better pictures (I don't particularly "need" the flexibility of the zoom but obviously it does make things easier). Some comments about slow AF in low light put me off.
Any final thoughts before I take the plunge - given that I want a lens to (a) give me less depth of field and (b) fast autofocus in low light conditions?
In your shoes I'd probably go for the Sigma.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff