The lenses you have (28-90 and 75-300) are not exactly stellar performers. In fact, they are considered bottom of the barrel performers. You will get much better results with primes or even with decent zooms such as the 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM. I chose a 24/2.8, a 50/1.8 and a 100/2.8 macro USM.
The 50/1.4 is much better built than the 50/1.8-II, with a steel lens mount and distance scales as well. However my sample of the 50/1.4 had very bad barrel distortion which became worse when focused close, as a result I couldn't shoot *anything* which had straight lines near the edges of the frame. Others have reported better samples. Look at the review on photo.net. My 50/1.4 had to be returned and I bought myself a 50/1.8-II which I'd foolishly sold when I got the 50/1.4 :C
M Kodra wrote:
I will have about $1000.00 to spend. I was looking 28/2, 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8 USM, for a total of about $760, for $200 more, is the 50/1.4 USM that much better of a lens then the 50/1.8? I’m just rookie here, been out of the photo game for about 12 yrs, got back in the game about 6 months ago. I have currently a Rebel Ti with 28-90/4-5.6 and 75-300/4- 5.6 III and an AE-1 Program with a 28/2.8, 50/1.8, 135/3.5 SC, and 200/4. In the past few weeks I have been trying to take pics of my kids with-out the flash to keep red eye down and have found the FD primes I have a lot better in low light than the EF zooms.
* **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
