>>4208941No, they couldn't. A lot of my photos rely on textures, sometimes textures running to edges or corners, as part of the composition and the kit lens is pathetically soft. I've also shot wider that f5.6 on the long end for 90% of my favorite portraits - f4 specifically.
If you said I could have used the nice constant f4 kit lens you'd be closer, but 1: I always know what kind of photos I'm going to take and a prime is always lighter and better 2: I use f2.8 and even f1.8 sometimes 3: it's missing the telephoto range and macro capabilities.
>hundreds of hoursResearching gear takes 30 minutes
>dollarsHoly shit get a job. Dollars are literally meaningless. People who are objectively worthless are receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars for being female and living in california. How does that make you feel?
Like it or not, photography is an expensive hobby for people who are successful enough in life not to sweat the purchase of a $1000 lens that will survive 10+ years. From a strictly economic and common sense point of view, I would say you should not be wasting one fucking second even thinking about doing photography with anything but your phone until you have at least $10,000 of disposable income per year AFTER all reasonable investment contributions. You are only setting yourself back. And I really wanted to say $20,000 there. If you think this is a big deal what the fuck are you doing with your life? Go to college, get an employable degree. Fuck. Imagine working at McDs and slinging a canon rebel. You know pretty much every famous photographer and filmmaker was fairly well off before they really started right?
