Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RockyNH_RIP" data-source="post: 161672" data-attributes="member: 10784">With the 50, I liked the portrait type results (though some times I had to back up too much).&nbsp;&nbsp; It worked fine as a Prime.&nbsp;&nbsp; I was taking product shots here at work and was having to back up too much and then crop (small parts) so I tried the 35mm.&nbsp;&nbsp; It seemed to produce images (sharper) so I kept using it.Not too long ago, I did some flowers with the 50, close up, and it was pointed out that the images were a little soft.&nbsp; I went back and adjusted to a stopped down aperture and took samples of both 50 and 35 and they were same...I have good luck stopped down or when I am back from the subject but as I get close and use a more open aperture, I believe (at least in my case) that the 50mm shallow dof works against when using it &quot;as a macro&quot; more so than the 35mm.&nbsp; &nbsp; I in essence find my 35 is used much more than my 50mm.Pat in NH</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RockyNH_RIP, post: 161672, member: 10784"] With the 50, I liked the portrait type results (though some times I had to back up too much). It worked fine as a Prime. I was taking product shots here at work and was having to back up too much and then crop (small parts) so I tried the 35mm. It seemed to produce images (sharper) so I kept using it. Not too long ago, I did some flowers with the 50, close up, and it was pointed out that the images were a little soft. I went back and adjusted to a stopped down aperture and took samples of both 50 and 35 and they were same... I have good luck stopped down or when I am back from the subject but as I get close and use a more open aperture, I believe (at least in my case) that the 50mm shallow dof works against when using it "as a macro" more so than the 35mm. I in essence find my 35 is used much more than my 50mm. Pat in NH [/QUOTE]

Verification