Recent content by M4FFU

I'm looking at this lens. How are you finding it compared to the 18-55 in terms of IQ, colour rendition and overall performance?

Often puzzles me, the bad 'rep' the 28 1.8 gets. Mine's been superb over the 2 years I've owned it, and it's my go-to lens for every day snaps. Suitably sharp at 1.8, too. Solid build, USM, Canon-build quality. Cost me a bit more than the Sigma 30, but don't regret it.

I've only just picked the 100 F/2 up. I choose it over the 85 as, I read, it's a little sharper, better colour, less CA, etc. Yes, it's more money, but a mini-135L if you will. I'll try and get some purposeful shots on the weekend and show.

I had a similar issue and opted for the Canon. It was more expensive, 'only' 1.8, but it's bulletproof and perfect for my needs. I bought it knowing I'd not have to send it back, worry about AF, etc, etc. I'd do the same again.

I think I've got 15-85 aspirations. I want something a little better than the kit 18-55 that I don't need in low light as I've a trio of primes. All purpose day time lens. I think this is it.

Similar to you, Dave, but I went 28, 50/1.4 and 100/2 as I aimed for a doubl-ing focal length [ish] approach, and I think the 100 performs a little better, at a price. I'm going to look at the Sigma 50 soon, as I've not been wow'd with my 50/1.4.

I don't think you'll get lightweight without plasticy. My 28 1.8, if I banged it against your head, would come off better. Not sure the 35/2 & 50/1.8s of this world would fair so well. Infact, I'd say my 28/1.8 is more of a tank, build quality wise, than my 70-200/4. It won't make your arms...

How so? Doesn't the 600D have a far better sensor in it?

I'd consider the 28 1.8 bulky. IIRC, weighs more than my 50 1.4. Low weight you're looking at the 35/2.

I upgraded from a 1.8 to a 1.4 and was a little disappointed. It's not 'proper' USM and the build quality isn't in the leage of my 28 1.8 and 100 2.0. The lens design is old, and it feels it.

Thanks mate. Interesting. Seems the body for me, but I've 5 lenses for my Canon. Makes a switch less easy to achieve. Still, appreciate the thoughts - looks a cracking camera. :thumbs:

I think #1.

Interesting! How you finding the Nikon? Did you have many Canon lenses? Missing them? How are you finding the high ISO performance compared to the 450D? My bug is crappy 800ISO performance. Be interesting to hear some of your thoughts on the camera, coming from a 450D.

Being drawn to this camera. Twin mem card slots - one for raw, one for jpeg - great AF, great high ISO performance. I'm coming from a Canon system but the 17-55 Nikon lens looks far better built than the Canon and seems to perform a little better, too, and I can swap my 28, 50 and 100 primes for...

Well, stick your zoom lens @ 35mm and walk around with it. That's the focal length you'll get. Always. However, fun, for me, begins at ~f/2.8. A prime lens will be sharper than a standard non-pro zoom and there's much much fun to be had with a small depth of field. I don't know about the Nikon...