Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 473859" data-attributes="member: 12496">This is just a distraction, since a $400 budget won't be enough, but my own preference is a good zoom covering the same 35-85 mm (FX needs at least 120mm). Unless you just crave f/1.8 for some perverted reason.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; I think f/1.8 results are always too poor, f/2.8 lenses are better. And prime lenses are not versatile, too limited in where we have to stand.&nbsp; But in particular, the depth of field of a f/2.8 telephoto can always blur a distant background better than a shorter f/1.8 can&nbsp; (focal length is also a big factor).&nbsp; Plus of course, the biggie is that then the camera position can actually choose the smaller portion of the more narrow background that will be seen behind the subject.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 473859, member: 12496"] This is just a distraction, since a $400 budget won't be enough, but my own preference is a good zoom covering the same 35-85 mm (FX needs at least 120mm). Unless you just crave f/1.8 for some perverted reason. :) I think f/1.8 results are always too poor, f/2.8 lenses are better. And prime lenses are not versatile, too limited in where we have to stand. But in particular, the depth of field of a f/2.8 telephoto can always blur a distant background better than a shorter f/1.8 can (focal length is also a big factor). Plus of course, the biggie is that then the camera position can actually choose the smaller portion of the more narrow background that will be seen behind the subject. [/QUOTE]

Verification