Leaderboard

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.

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

What you need to focus on are: 50mm 1.4 $450 Either the 35mm 1.8 $200 or the 17-55mm 2.8 $1500 and 70-200mm 2.8 $2100 11-16mm 2.8 Tokina $450 *all prices msrp from Nikonusa/Tokina I put them in the order I would buy. You could argue that jumping to the 70-200 before the 35/17.55 but that wouldn't work for me. The 50 will take the bottom end of the 70 pretty darn well and getting the width to take more than portraits inside or during gatherings you will probably want. The ultra wide is just in case you start to dig on big outdoor shots with a tripod.

Scott Bowman cockbox Not allowed to post competitors links. Careful googling that without Scott's name in it! Lmao

Zoning permit acquired! 20% down on the building! Monday I go get the building and code permit! Then I hope to be 4 weeks out from construction!