this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2025
34 points (97.2% liked)
Photography
4745 readers
24 users here now
A community to post about photography:
We allow a wide range of topics here including; your own images, technical questions, gear talk, photography blogs etc. Please be respectful and don't spam.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Thanks, great insights. Could you recommend one or a few prime lenses for 600usd or so? For R50. And is it worth upgrading to a full frame camera or would R50 be great for a long time in photography in general?
No problem!
I did so in another post, there are a few decent options. If I had to choose one for you, it would be the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN Contemporary, although that might not be wide enough for your needs. Go check out the other reply.
I used crop-sensor DSLRs for 10 years before moving to full frame when I went to a mirrorless setup. Why did I move? Low light performance, a touch more subject isolation, and not having such a limited budget. That and most lenses these days being made for full frame sensors. You can use these lenses on a crop-body, but you're not getting any size/weight savings out of it beyond the extra focal length thanks to the crop factor (eg I would probably have a 70-300 lens instead of the bigger and heavier 150-500 I have now). The standout exception here is Fujifilm, since all they make are crop bodies, but their autofocus just wasn't as good as Sony/Canon. If it was more reliable than i would very likely be talking to you as a Fuji owner.
Full frame also comes with some downsides: more expensive bodies, more expensive lenses, shallower depth of field can work against you if you want more light, etc.
I would personally stick with the R50 while you learn. You're very unlikely to hit a wall on it any time soon and the "need" of full frame just isn't there for 80-90% of scenarios.
I've come to a conclusion that I'm either getting the stock lens (the RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM) or this sigma one (the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN Contemporary).
But as a beginner, I'd still love to ask you: It's five times the price of the stock lens, but does the quality improve proportionally? Would the pictures generally also be about 5x better, in some way at least?
5x better? My initial reaction would be no. The only exception would be if you're going to be doing a lot of low light photography. On the wide side, the Sigma gathers 1.5x more light. On the narrow side, the Sigma gathers 3x more light. That could be the difference between getting or not getting a shot.
The Sigma will give you better subject isolation, better image quality/rendering, and better feel in hand. I suggest googling both lenses and looking at sample image galleries.
Wether or not this is worth the extra cost is your call.