




"It is human nature to be fascinated by unanswered stories and in the abandoned scene portrayed within the cage the designers have deliberately given little away allowing for individual interpretation of the intriguing spectacle. This encourages the onlooker to take ownership of the product, provoking thoughts and allowing them to create their own narration of the scene." - shapeways.com
"don't get a 35mm or 50mm lens if you have a D7000" - michaels
yes, i do own a 35mm f1.8, so perhaps this makes me a tad biased, but i'm pretty certain a majority of DSLR owners out there have at least one of these lenses. and don't get me wrong, i am a fan of michaels. what i'm not a fan of is bullshit advice. pardon my french.
you can't judge a prime lens by its focal length. i'd like to see you try to find some justifiable reason to do so. okay, sure - perhaps it isn't worthwhile for some individuals to purchase a 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm lens, but that's not to say the difference in focal lengths is non-existent. certain focal lengths are used achieve different shots and perspectives. shooting with a 35mm lens, isn't going to help you achieve the best portrait shots; neither is shooting with an 85mm lens for street photography. the metrics are there for a reason. your disregard and lack of acknowledgement for its significance makes you an ignorant photographer, and that's coming from me ... a self-proclaimed mediocre photographer.
i'd also like to query your reasoning behind advising against the 35mm or 50mm for the D7000, specifically. how else would you suggest the photographer shoot street or portrait photography? and how exactly does the body change the metrics of a prime lens' focal length ? regardless of the body, the 35mm lens will always be the same distance between the lens and image sensor ... unless there is some miraculous change that occurs between the body switch. highly doubtful. so please, explain yourself ... or don't - i think i've heard enough from you.