Hello
I have a Sony A350 which believe it or not i like.
I have a wide angle lens and a 70/300 lens.
The lens that came with it now seems poor in comparison, Its the standard Sony 18-70.
Im after somthing similar which is better, or somthing new and not too expensive.
Any suggestions?
Thanks
recommend me a news lens
just for journalism?
General picture lens, sort of the one i'd pop on when i dont know whats happening, can shove in my camelbak etc.
50mm prime lens is great for really sharp photos. F1.8 tend to be a lot cheaper than the F1.4 lenses as well. I paid about £100 for my nikkor one.
Won't have the benefit of zoom capability though but you get the hang of it quickly enough. Just have to remember to walk towards/away from your subject...
yup the 50mm F1.8 canon i have is a fun fit and shoot lens, seems quite sharp, takes great potraits too
[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4078/4778338808_9f2d8f1359_z.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/rocketdog/4778338808/ ]365/191 9/7/10[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/rocketdog/ ]rOcKeTdOgUk[/url], on Flickr
so something similar?
A 50mm is more of a portrait lens on a DSLR (I don't know the conversion rate for Sonys..)
I've got a 35mm 1.8 prime for my Nikon which is more or less the equivalent of a 50mm in old money and I love it. It's great for large aperture depth-of-field effects and it's also really useful for low light too...
I have a 50mm f1.4 on my Nikon - love it - super sharp and getting down to f1.4 is so good for low light. Great for food work if you're into that.
I don't know anything about the Sony, but I quite like the 28mm f2,8 I have for the Canon. It works well in low light, give nice and sharp pictures and I really like the distortion it can give in cycling photos.
As it's fixed you're not going to get the benefits of a zoom.
The zoom I have is a 17-40mm, which is a great lens but I find a little short at times. Maybe something in the 18-70mm range would be a reasonable allrounder.
A 'normal' lens is traditionally the diagonal length of the film/sensor, (or thereabouts), so you'd want a 28mm prime lens. No zooming, you have feet for that, but larger aperture and generally far better optical quality than a zoom.
Or maybe a better quality smaller range zoom?
Check out the lens tests here: http://www.photozone.de/
takes great potraits too
and ones with distracting orange blobs coming out of peoples heads.
Personally I'd be tempted by a good wide prime 24mm or 35mm. The Sony 35mm f/1.4 might be worth looking at reviews for.
Consider that you'll spend a lot less time in post when you shoot with a nice lens and that it'll hold value better than any camera body. The difference in sharpness, contrast and colour put a real edge on an image.
General picture lens, sort of the one i'd pop on when i dont know whats happening
a prime lens in no way fulfils this brief
whilst i enjoy using a prime lens, the edge it gives in sharpness, DOF etc are a massive price to pay considering the inflexibility it offers if i'm only carrying one lens.
look at the offerings from Sigma/Tokina et al. You want a mid range zoom, like the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 (£328.00 from warehouseexpress) or similar. then have a look at reviews on the web. check ebay as well.
a prime lens in no way fulfils this brief
please get with the program Mike! Whenever anyone asks about a lens you have to say 'prime', 'depth of field' and 'glass'. Nothing else is acceptable.
you forgot the word 'bokeh'
a favorite word of measurebators and gearqueers on camera geek forums
[url= http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-sigma-17-70mm-f2-8-4-dc-macro-os-hsm-lens-sony-fit/p1518709 ]this one[/url] Sigma 17-70mm HSM os lens
A great lens for the money and way better that what Sony would have supplied as standard
you forgot the word 'bokeh'
But it's important. 🙄
But it's important.
not if you crop out all the blurred bits 🙂
But it's important. 🙄
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
What's bokeh?
It's such a tough job to choose a lens for someone else.
For my Canon 40D I was deliberating between the Sigma 17-70mm (older version) versus the constant aperture Tamron 17-50 for ages. I just couldn't stretch to the Canon L lenses. In the end I went for the Tamron and am very happy.
But they've no released a new 17-70 with optical stabilisation (don't know how this combines with the in-camera stabilisation). It's about £300 from onestop-digital so not super cheap, but it's a nice focal range. I haven't actually used one of these new ones though.
I second everyone's comments on getting a cheap wide aperture prime lens though. My nifty fifty transformed my photography - for only £50.
Best you spell it correctly too, not like the PLOPS (Particularly Loud and Obnoxious Phonetic Spellers):boke 😉
please get with the program Mike! Whenever anyone asks about a lens you have to say 'prime', 'depth of field' and 'glass'. Nothing else is acceptable.
He has got a point though.
Sounds like you've got a bee in your bonnet SFB?
General picture lens, sort of the one i'd pop on when i dont know whats happening, can shove in my camelbak etc.
My Camelbak lens is most often a 24mm prime, due to its weight and being unfazed by whatever is going on with the light. Quite often I don't know what is going to happen when I drop this in my bag, but I don't find it restrictive.
Perhaps I am alone in finding a lack of zoom helpful when composing shots in a hurry?
Check which focal lengths you use now with your 18-50 zoom you got. If you tend to use one or the other end mostly then maybe you don't need a new one and you are covered by your wide and/or zoom lenses.
Otherwise I'd suggest the Tamron 17-50 2.8 . Got one and it is a really food lens.
you forgot the word 'bokeh'a favorite word of measurebators and gearqueers on camera geek forums
Using the word 'bokeh' is definitely preferable to 'measurebator' or 'gearqueer' - where do you learn this stuff? 😕
I find a fast 20mm prime lens (40mm full frame equivalent) perfectly fine for the vast majority of my photography. Sometimes, less is more - you can have too many options.
Is she really short or what?
And does she have any clothes on?
As much as a prime might be considered "limiting" and I might still be wrapped up in the novelty value of a prime lens, it really does spend a huge amount of time on my D90 when I just go out for a wander. The F1.8 works well in lower light/shaded areas.
I've become a bit of a believer that every camera bag should have a prime lens because you might just surprise yourself how much fun you can have with one. Given the relatively small cost of these in comparison with many other lenses they're well worth it.
Perhaps I am alone in finding a lack of zoom helpful when composing shots in a hurry?
Nope. When i'm out "happy snapping" it doesn't bother me (admittedly it took a bit of getting used to in the early days).
I find a fast 20mm prime lens (40mm full frame equivalent)
I'm a bit confused here, the Sony has, [url= http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA350/AA350DAT.HTM ]according to here, [/url]a focal length multiplier of 1.5, making a 20mm prime and equivalent of 30mm. My Canon has a crop factor of 1,6 making it an equivalent of 32mm. What are you using to get a result of 2X and 40mm?
I'd guess micro four thirds.. unless someone has an EPSON RD-1 (I think)
GF1?
It's such a tough job to choose a lens for someone else.
For my Canon 40D I was deliberating between the Sigma 17-70mm (older version) versus the constant aperture Tamron 17-50 for ages. I just couldn't stretch to the Canon L lenses. In the end I went for the Tamron and am very happy.
Sigma 17-70, older version, on a 400D......
[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4101/4770092865_1ddb084f7d_b.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/peter_atkin/4770092865/ ]IMG_8520[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/peter_atkin/ ]PeterPoddy[/url], on Flickr
Same camera, Canon 50mm f1.8 prime (Cost £56)......
[url= http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2047/2256896679_aa9e70cd94_b.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/peter_atkin/2256896679/ ]IMG_2643[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/peter_atkin/ ]PeterPoddy[/url], on Flickr
Sigma 10-20 f4.....
[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4097/4920037105_60c521a8d1_b.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/peter_atkin/4920037105/ ]BBB 2010 594[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/peter_atkin/ ]PeterPoddy[/url], on Flickr
Ebay cheap, (£55) Tamron 55-200.....
[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4064/4648312648_afc35d05e7_b.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/peter_atkin/4648312648/ ]IMG_7075[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/peter_atkin/ ]PeterPoddy[/url], on Flickr
It's not the lens, it's how you use it 😉
Although to be fair, I did my homework before buying each of my 4 lenses. Those 55-200 Tamrons are cheap and a bit slow, but all the reviews say they're sharp and very good value.....I tend to agree.
😀
simonfbarnesplease get with the program Mike! Whenever anyone asks about a lens you have to say 'prime', 'depth of field' and 'glass'. Nothing else is acceptable.
Sorry
I'm going to look at every picture i've ever taken at 200% in lightroom and fiddle with sharpness controls as punishment
I'm of the opinion (from my own experience as well) that the 'prime lenses changed my life' thing is to do with it forcing you to think a bit more about composition, once you've grasped that you can do the same with a zoom then you get over it.
Micro 4/3 or normal 4/3.
On my Olympus the multiplier is 2x, which gives lovely zoom in small cheap lenses 🙂
OK, thanks.
Yup Micro four thirds.
Peter your second pic is great.
I am a great believer that using mostly prime lenses has helped my photography to develop faster/better. Might not be true, but I think so. Not as any kind of purist thing - just that sometimes limitations can help you to concentrate on the fundamentals.
that sometimes limitations can help you to concentrate on the fundamentals
if you [b]had[/b] a camera 🙁