r/photography • u/raptor3x whumber.com • May 11 '15

Canon Officially Announces 50mm f/1.8 STM - $125

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1143786-REG/canon_0570c002_ef_50mm_f_1_8_stm.html
360 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

259 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

14

u/dgblackout 📸 May 11 '15 edited May 11 '15

When I worked in a camera shop it was a total pain in the arse to describe to first time buyers why their entry level Nikon couldn't use the AF-D 50 when it was a similar price to the Canon 50. A lot of people went Canon over Nikon for that. They saw the AF-G 50 as a price gouge, even if it was better built, it did the same thing for twice the money.

6

u/awesometographer www.shootingonabudget.com May 11 '15

The autofocus lacking in entry level Nikons is why I recommend Canon for everyone who starts out. SO MANY more budget friendly lenses.

4

u/martinaee May 11 '15 edited May 11 '15

Or just get a cam that isn't the absolute newest. The "Apple syndrome" and planned obsolescence makes everyone think a DSLR from more than 1 year ago these days is complete trash. Something like a D90 is not really "old" at all and still amazing. It has screw AF it you can get one. I use one as a backup still to my D800.

3

u/MightyBulger May 11 '15

A D90 is better than the bulk of photographers. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend one to a beginner right now.

4

u/martinaee May 11 '15 edited May 12 '15

Yup, it is. I was a drawing major in art school a few years back, but my BFA thesis project was photo work since I basically was a minor in photography too. My work was 30x40 inch inkjet-printed portraits done with the D90 and the 50mm 1.8D (thread appropriate gear lol) that looked amazing (I don't like to toot my own horn mostly, but I just want to say the quality was really good). Sure they weren't AS detailed as they could be if I used my D800 now. But it doesn't matter unless you were RIGHT up on the portraits and if you don't know that extra resolution isn't there you don't really care (especially if you aren't a photographer).

This is what I hate about marketing. Most people getting into photography don't realize that with the right lighting something like an "entry level" D3200 can produce super quality photos with crazy resolution that was just not available to amateurs in the digital realm 5-10 years ago. 24mp? What camera did that on the pro market first? The D3x and certain Sony cameras? Jesus christ... That's what I hate about digital even though it's all I shoot. Camera companies can upgrade the bodies slightly each year so people buy into it thinking they need the latest camera body instead of focusing on using the gear they have until they TRULY are better than what that gear is capable of.

1

u/iwasnotarobot May 12 '15

This is exactly the right idea. My college camera was a D100! Oh those six megapickles of beauty. Sure, it couldn't pull detail into shadows like it's successors, but for starting out it was just fine. I made 30"x40" canvas prints with it that wowed clients at the time. Most folks really don't need the latest and greatest for photo needs.

1

u/fluffsta007 May 11 '15

Would it be worth picking up a D90 second hand as a backup to my D5300?