# lenses!



## minimadgriff (Jul 8, 2007)

Why are there so many different ones? It's all to confusing! 

Is there a simple rule of thumb or chart to explain? 

Im after a more gereral purpose lense as the only one I have is a 18-200mm lense which came with my A350. 

What I photograph most is cars. 

Thanks 

Ben


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

There's no basic rule of thumb other than you pay for quality; photography is a complicated science.

I'm not familiar with Sony lenses, but if you post a few links to possible lenses you're considering i'll tell you what all the numbers mean and what you'd be paying for.


----------



## minimadgriff (Jul 8, 2007)

rmorgan84 said:


> There's no basic rule of thumb other than you pay for quality; photography is a complicated science.
> 
> I'm not familiar with Sony lenses, but if you post a few links to possible lenses you're considering i'll tell you what all the numbers mean and what you'd be paying for.


thats the problem I havn't got a clue what im looking at


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

Something like this:

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-sony-11-18mm-f4-5-5-6-dt-af-lens/p1013640

would give you a wider angle and be a more "general" lens.

TBH this is the big problem with the Sony cameras, the lens range is no where near as comprehensive as the major players such as canon or nikon.


----------



## fozzy (Oct 22, 2009)

Is really down to quality of lenses used to make them up. As a general guide the lower the f-stop number, i.e. f2.8, the more low light ability the lens will have. However most mid price zoom lenses will have a range for instance a 24-70mm lens may be f2.8-f5.6, so it would be better in low light conditions at 24mm than it would be at 70. This is also linked to the shutter speed, if it needs less light it can use faster shutter speeds. The lenses which stay constant tend to be the pro sets, so a 300mm f2.8 lens constant would be priced around £3000, were as a 70mm-300mm f.2.8-f6.3 would be around £300.
hope this helps


----------



## minimadgriff (Jul 8, 2007)

rmorgan84 said:


> Something like this:
> 
> http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-sony-11-18mm-f4-5-5-6-dt-af-lens/p1013640
> 
> ...


Minolta lenses fit too and also another make which widens the choice quite abit.


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

I'd look at a Sigma 24-70 2.8 and a 50mm 1.4 or so. That should use up around £600 of your non-existent budget 

Tamron, Tokina and Sigma all do Sony lenses, it's not as small a choice as oly.

Bret


----------



## minimadgriff (Jul 8, 2007)

bretti_kivi said:


> I'd look at a Sigma 24-70 2.8 and a 50mm 1.4 or so. That should use up around £600 of your non-existent budget
> 
> Tamron, Tokina and Sigma all do Sony lenses, it's not as small a choice as oly.
> 
> Bret


:lol: erm yeah not looking to spend as much as that :lol: got an alloy rad, alloy chargecooler, carbon bits and ceramic coating on my new manifold that are all on there way to pay for :

p.s not to mention the repair to my sensor when i try to clean it tomorrow :lol:


----------



## fozzy (Oct 22, 2009)

You'll only need to get into f2.8 lenses if you fancy some high speed or low light photography or both  go for the cheaper options, if you need a longer shutter speed buy a cheap tripod you can still get some fantastic results:thumb:


----------



## minimadgriff (Jul 8, 2007)

fozzy said:


> You'll only need to get into f2.8 lenses if you fancy some high speed or low light photography or both  go for the cheaper options, if you need a longer shutter speed buy a cheap tripod you can still get some fantastic results:thumb:


hi-speed as in moving cars? as it will be for that too.

I bought myself a redsnapper last week :thumb: awesome bit of kit!

this is the lense I have at the momment.

http://www.sony.co.uk/product/ddl-zoom-lenses/sal-18200#pageType=TechnicalSpecs

just out of curiosity what is that lense Ideal for shooting?


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

it's an allrounder.

2.8s mean higher quality glass, which isn't just useful for certain things, and it gives you a lot of flexibility. I would not buy cheap consumer-grade lenses (I just bought a 10-24 and have my eye on a 24-70 myself) simply because in the medium term, they'll disappoint.

24 is, for me, the "both eyes" view, like this:










10 is unnaturally wide, like this:










50 is "one eye"










There is another good reason to go 2.8: selective focus.

Bret


----------



## gt5500 (Aug 6, 2008)

bretti_kivi said:


> it's an allrounder.
> 
> 2.8s mean higher quality glass


What? no it doesn't, 2:8 refers to the maximum aperture it does not mean it has higher quality glass, I am sure there are some very poor quality 2:8 aperture lenses around. I guess what you meant was that lenses with 2:8 maxuimum apertures tend to be higher quality but that is not a given. The thing that has been missed regarding max aperture sizes is DOF or depth of field. This is something very important and can be explained fairly simply, at smaller apertures it is possible for most of the background and the foreground to be in focus. At larger apertures the depth of field is reduced so if the focus is on the foreground the background will be partially or completely out of focus. This is very important when doing portrait style photography where you want the emphasis on the foreground like all those professional car shots you see with the car beautifully in focus and the background soft. When you have a constant aperture such as a lens that is described as 24-75mm 2.8 it means that the aperture can open to 2:8 at any zoom. When you have a variable aperture such as 150-300mm 4.5-5.6 it means that at 300mm the aperture can only open to 5.6 as opposed to 4.5 at 100mm. As a rule of thumb the bigger the max aperture the more expensive (and heavier) the lens, and with zooms constant apertures will always be more expensive. If you want a lens to shoot fast moving cars from a distance you are going to need something with a good range 100-200mm is adequate at a lot of tracks but ideally something in the 300-400mm. And you will also want as big an aperture as you can afford, the bigger aperture will mean you can use a faster shutter speed and get the soft focussed backgrounds. Of course these lenses get expensive quickly, at Brands you see a lot of people shooting with 300 or 400mm canon prime lenses, these are over a grand each. To be honest if you are on a budget you will have to make do with one of the cheap 100-300mm type lenses.


----------



## Gleammachine (Sep 8, 2007)

18-200mm should give you more than enough scope Ben, I have a Sigma 18-200 on my Nikon and it pretty much covers all car situations other than real close up shots.
The only other lense I use is the 50mm f1.8 for panel shots with the background out of focus, happy to pop down at some point so you can have a go if you like.


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

> What? no it doesn't, 2:8 refers to the maximum aperture it does not mean it has higher quality glass, I am sure there are some very poor quality 2:8 aperture lenses around.


For me, the high quality of glass is implicit in any serious zoom lens with a constant aperture. Yes, you're paying for the constant and again for the light, but the step down is the one where the glass is improved and the zoom motor gets better on the next step up again.



> At larger apertures the depth of field is reduced so if the focus is on the foreground the background will be partially or completely out of focus. This is very important when doing portrait style photography where you want the emphasis on the foreground like all those professional car shots you see with the car beautifully in focus and the background soft.


... and it won't work like that, because the DoF is so short that you won't get the entire car in focus - at least that's my experience. I personally like the effect of my f2 and f2.8 lenses, especially the bokeh and feel of the 85/f2. Classic portrait lens, works really well because it's not too sharp; the rendering is very flattering. 
Lenses provide a way of viewing the world - they all have their foibles and strong points. You must work with these to get the best out of them. Sharpness isn't everything - rendering is.



> When you have a constant aperture such as a lens that is described as 24-75mm 2.8 it means that the aperture can open to 2:8 at any zoom.
> 
> When you have a variable aperture such as 150-300mm 4.5-5.6 it means that at 300mm the aperture can only open to 5.6 as opposed to 4.5 at 100mm. As a rule of thumb the bigger the max aperture the more expensive (and heavier) the lens, and with zooms constant apertures will always be more expensive.


 Absolutely.



> If you want a lens to shoot fast moving cars from a distance you are going to need something with a good range 100-200mm is adequate at a lot of tracks but ideally something in the 300-400mm. And you will also want as big an aperture as you can afford, the bigger aperture will mean you can use a faster shutter speed and get the soft focussed backgrounds.


Again, I don't think this will work. A 70-200 with a 1.4 TC (TeleConverter) is probably a good choice; I see buckas uses a 70-200 a lot of the time for motorsport. I also don't think you should be worrying about the background: panning is far more important and stopping down will give you the DoF flexibility to have more of the car in focus than you need. Therefore: 1/125-1/[email protected] f11-f16 (no higher, you'll lose IQ) and ISO to suit, IMO.



> Of course these lenses get expensive quickly, at Brands you see a lot of people shooting with 300 or 400mm canon prime lenses, these are over a grand each. To be honest if you are on a budget you will have to make do with one of the cheap 100-300mm type lenses.


... or get a manual 300 or older 70-210 and see just what you can do with it, whether it will fit the bill. I was really lucky with the icetrack stuff to be able to go along and test different techniques and ideas - and it only costs me petrol and time.

You need to know what you want to do with it before you buy any lens. I bought my last one with a rig in mind. The next one will be with indoor parties in mind (weddings, christenings) because I know that's where I will always have "stuff" to do and it will get used.

I recommend a 50 for the fact that they're not expensive and will frequently get down to 1.x - which is great for highlighting details. If you want to take the motorsport stuff and the 200 isn't enough, start with a siggy 75-300 to see if it floats your boat and then spend real money on real lenses.

Bret


----------



## minimadgriff (Jul 8, 2007)

holy ****e you guys are confusing me :lol: 

Thanks for the offer rob! I have a job for you btw!


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

if it's confusing maybe the last paragraph is the most useful 

Bret


----------



## minimadgriff (Jul 8, 2007)

bretti_kivi said:


> if it's confusing maybe the last paragraph is the most useful
> 
> Bret


my 18-200 is pretty good for motorsport shots to be fair.


----------



## gt5500 (Aug 6, 2008)

bretti_kivi said:


> ... and it won't work like that, because the DoF is so short that you won't get the entire car in focus - at least that's my experience. I personally like the effect of my f2 and f2.8 lenses, especially the bokeh and feel of the 85/f2. Classic portrait lens, works really well because it's not too sharp; the rendering is very flattering.
> Lenses provide a way of viewing the world - they all have their foibles and strong points. You must work with these to get the best out of them. Sharpness isn't everything - rendering is.


Sorry what won't work like that? I never mentioned what aperture value to use so how can you say the DOF will be too short? and you don't always want the entire car in focus anyway. You can get some really striking shots of say a headlight beautifully in focus with the rest of the car blurring out behind it.


----------



## gt5500 (Aug 6, 2008)

minimadgriff said:


> my 18-200 is pretty good for motorsport shots to be fair.


So what exactly are you after? your question is a bit of a 'how long is a piece of string' question.


----------



## Barnsley-Bill (Jan 15, 2010)

My Canon 300mm f/2.8 L is. is the best lense I own but my 70mm-200mm f/2.8 comes a close second.


----------



## minimadgriff (Jul 8, 2007)

gt5500 said:


> So what exactly are you after? your question is a bit of a 'how long is a piece of string' question.


It was more of a "what lenses are best suited for" really. As there are so many different ones they must be for certain purposes or there would just be a one does all.

My 18-200mm is ok for motorsport but it seems a little over kill zoom wise for taking pictures of cars close up like at shows or work.

This thread has gone alittle over head now to be honest.


----------



## gt5500 (Aug 6, 2008)

minimadgriff said:


> It was more of a "what lenses are best suited for" really. As there are so many different ones they must be for certain purposes or there would just be a one does all.
> 
> My 18-200mm is ok for motorsport but it seems a little over kill zoom wise for taking pictures of cars close up like at shows or work.
> 
> This thread has gone alittle over head now to be honest.


Ahh now you are making sense, well until your last comment anyway. I don't understand what you mean by a little over kill zoom wise for taking close ups? At 18mm you are about as wide as you would want to go for photographing cars anyway even on a crop sensor camera, on a full frame 18mm is probably too wide for car shots. The whole point of the zoom is it means you have one lens to do the job of many, at 200mm you have the reach for motorsport and 18mm should easily be enough for static shots. You are right though there are many many lenses and its easily confusing, rather then explain all of them here I suggest you search out some guides on the tinternet. I found this site useful, if you read the sections on best lenses it gives brief descriptions of why each lens is suited to each application.


----------



## minimadgriff (Jul 8, 2007)

Cheers :thumb: 

I think, the other problem I have is not knowing how to use it to its full ability and not knowing how to get the best from the lense etc.


----------



## gt5500 (Aug 6, 2008)

minimadgriff said:


> Cheers :thumb:
> 
> I think, the other problem I have is not knowing how to use it to its full ability and not knowing how to get the best from the lense etc.


The canon DSLR tutorial is a good first step to understanding the settings and how to use them, when navigating the tutorial don't forget the next page buttons at the bottom, I missed them at first and thought the tutorial was rather brief!!. But fear not its a very good guide and has lots of example photos so you can see what they mean.
http://www.canon.co.jp/imaging/enjoydslr/


----------



## technics100 (Jul 9, 2008)

I use a Nikon D80 and have the 18-200mm lens, I sold all my other lenses and replaced them with this one as it does everything I need. The only other lens I have is a 50mm prime for messing about with.


----------

