Quote:
Originally Posted by firebox40dash5
I'm mostly wondering if the 2/3-stop smaller aperture is going to limit it's usefulness as a macro (shallow DOF) or portrait (large aperture for low light) lens?
|
Look at it this way. When you are that close, f/2.8 is as thin as a rasor blade. Take this shot for example, aperture was f/11 and the body is not even in focus (taken with the 105mm):
Same thing for portrait. You want the eyes and the nose to be in focus therefore you cannot open to large.
I'm also seriously considereing this lens. I tend to get an eye more for portrait then wide-angle and sometime I would like to get closer to capture more details. DX doesn't bother me, if I ever upgrade my body it's going to be for something in the D300 category. At first, I was wandering if the f/3.5 would be a trade-off I couldn't live with only to realize most people don't open that much for macro.