///M5

When this whole thing started I threw out mirrorless as well. Still think that for both of you it is the right answer.

Even before, I'd sort through my pictures realizing the different lenses that could be needed and rank which are the most important. Ok, at the same time. Then you will know what focus, fov and such you really need.

Just don't hit him back. He'll be fuxored.

Btw Seth, none of the pictures you shared would I use a 50mm for. The 24mm would be better. If you really want to shoot bugs a macro lens is in your future.

I was actually talking about a portrait. They move just as much. In particular when going from no smile to fake smile....somewhere along the way they actually smile. When they are moving you need that speed as well. My rule of thumb is 1/(4x the focal length). For stills generically 1 over is enough, not with kids.

If you saw one of my laptops after a year you wouldn't buy it. Add to that how many people do you know with 3 year old laptops that are still happy with them?

You just described the need for 3 lenses. Wide, Portrait and Telephoto or a Macro

I buy used everything but would NEVER buy a used laptop

1/60??? Try 1/200. They dont sit still for shit. You need low f

The Delta link you shared is the only other real choice and actually does lock in place. It goes into the Delta one faster and it looks better on the bike, but doesn't do what I need. Side buttons may be tough on it....

Interesting: https://www.yahoo.com/news/talked-ohio-ford-dealer-selling-164500085.html

The rubber pieces are huge and dorky, but I try to spend a bunch of time airborn. Half the fun of biking. Without the jock strap thingee it comes with though it would fall out for sure. If you don't need to reach the back of the phone the Delta is pretty slick. My power button (which I don't need ((double tap screen instead))) and volume control are in the back. I listen to music when I ride and constantly tweak the volume based on the song etc.

Smd dyno is useless. Try again. .

My niece was over for dinner last night. She is 15mo. Was in a great mood and I wanted to catch it. The 17-55 2.8 was pointless for this. Flat out just wouldn't work. The 50mm at 1.4 however took some amazing portrait like shots with all sorts of shit all over the house (4 kids had been playing for 3 hours and took out everything...)

I should add that it does depend on what you are shooting. Just like reading megapixel numbers is pointless, so is the comparison of sharpness. If you make decisions based on either it is foolish. The 1.8 50mm regularly get "tested" as better than the 1.4's, but they forget to include the purpose in the lens for those tests. This is absurd. A 1.4 50 is a portrait lens on a crop. Discounting its performance based on vignetting (which is desirable in a portrait) is stupidity. You really won't shoot anything but people (or people like things, ie animals and such) with the 50. It is terrible for buildings or anything that you can't get a mile away from as it is just too much zoom. Having something on a crop that goes much closer to the teens is really helpful for that. Which brings me to the next point, it is absurd to compare lenses for what they won't be used for. A lot of comparisons on zooms they do this. Let's test a 70mm lens at f22? That would be idiotic, no one should ever shoot at 70mm and F22. Sure if you need to slow the shutter down for some reason and don't want a ton of light you can, but that will be one in a 100,000 shots and not a test to focus on. All of the camera review websites are horseshit in this regard. They focus on specs, and not usability. This regularly misleads the consumer terribly.

Even up at 2.8 comparing to my 17-55 the 50 kills it. You also gain a ton of artistic understanding from NOT having a zoom. Zooms are not helpful for learning and definitely should be avoided at first. I of course started with a super zoom and it set me back a ton.

Yes, inherently WAY better. The more the range of zoom the worse. That and more importantly there are no really low Fstop zooms. My 50mm 1.4 I normally pretty much always shoot below F2. Regularly right at 1.4.

Of course I haven't decided if I am cheap or not yet so I don't own a 70-200. I do have a superzoom that I can use for long shots though.

If you only have a crop I think the 17-55 is better, but of course it won't work on a full so it would make zero sense for you. 17 crop ~ 24 full and I find myself shooting a bunch at 17'ish. If I were being cheap on Canon I'd grab: 24mm 2.8 STM $150 - for video and wide shots. 2.8 is fine when shooting this wide 50mm 1.4 $330 (1.8 for $150 works if really cheap) 85mm 1.8 $350 (would prefer a tighter F stop but the 1.2 is $1900 ) 70-200 F4 $600

And quoting someone who said on the internet they clamped something is like following a moron who charges the line of fire.

Something I shot with my cell phone in China. Wait for it.

Full Frame and 11mm, non-fish eye lol

I guess all I know for sure in that regard is that my colleagues 11-16 Tokina works on his full frame Nikon. It of course vignettes like a mother pucker, but the inside pixels are perfect. Not positive if other Nikkor lenses do.

Matt would probably say grab the 24-70 instead, but that extra premium and losing the wide end I wouldn't do on a crop. IIRC you can still use a crop lens on a full frame Nikon, which is not the case for Canon. If I go full at some point I'll be pissed I have two crop lenses...although I can still sell them for what I paid and don't expect that to change much.

The killer for me on Nikon is the daily zoom. The 17-55 is painfully expensive on Nikon.