Gene51 wrote:
The 35mm F1.8 does not offer the max magnification that the 55-200 does - .16x vs 23x or .29x with the non-VR version. So if you want to get in really close, the 35mm would not be as good as the zooms. With only a 7 blade iris, the bokeh is green-edged and nasty looking. I would suggest using the 55-200 - it is more than sharp enough, particularly in the center and when used wide open, it will give you greater working distance, and unless you need to go to 1:1, will give you plenty of magnification. The 18-55 on the other hand offers a magnification of .36x, enough to almost fill the frame with a compact flash card. It has great bokeh, is almost as sharp as the 55-200, provides excellent sharpness at F8 or smaller, and is a nice alternative to using the 35mm as well. The down side is that you give up some on the working distance. The maximum aperture of the 35 may help a little at or close to the minimum focus distance to give you shallower depth of field if that is what you want, but other than that, there is no clear advantage to using the 35mm over the 55-200. But since you have them already why not try some test shots with all three and see which ones you like best.
The 35mm F1.8 does not offer the max magnification... (
show quote)
Thank you so much - I think you are right. I was very happy with the handheld photos I took using my cheap 55-200 kit and some closeup pics I took of my dog with the 18-55 so as you say, I need to get a feel for all three of my lenses in different settings and exposures. I am going to try to duplicate what I think his studio will give me as far as light and practice practice practice before I go. Appreciate your time in explaining what you think I can accomplish!