(Part 3) Best camera lenses according to redditors
We found 6,102 Reddit comments discussing the best camera lenses. We ranked the 1,118 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 41-60. You can also go back to the previous section.
MFT system has some really good lenses. Olympus 17mm f1.8 is nice prime if you like wide standard lenses. It is quite sharp and good general purpose lens. It has this amazing manual snap focus system which is really handy for streetphotography if you prefer pre focusing. 17mm is the one that is always on my camera. There is also Olympus 25mm if you prefer 50mm kino eq. more, but it does not have snap focus system. For these, you might also want to check Panasonic equivalents if they have something you prefer more.
One of the must have lenses for MFT is Olympus 45mm 1.8. It is dirt cheap and quality of it is really good. Especially great for portraits but works on else too. I carry it with me everywhere.
The best MFT lens in terms of image quality, sharpness is Olympus 75mm F1.8. This is insanely sharp. It is great for portraits. 150mm film eq. is quite hefty, but if you appreciate sharpness and technical quality this is absolutely the best one out there.
For general use Zoom Panasonic LUMIX G X VARIO 12-35 mm F2.8 ASPH is the obvious choice. It is quite pricy, but it has great built quality and image quality. It is also water and dust resistant like your body. Some of my friends only use this lens.
If you want dedicated wildlife lens there is Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F/4.0-5.6 OIS Lens. This is pretty much only option if you want long telephoto lens. Olympus has similar lenses, but they suck. This one is good and will do the job.
Edit: If you ever need really compact lens, there is really cheap pancake lenses. Image quality is not great, but if you require discreet lens they are good enough. E-M1 is quite large compared to PEN series for example, so these pancakes might not work as well for E-M1 than Pen. It probably would be just better to use normal sized prime.
So:
Or just order it from Amazon who has them in stock
Free Stuff:
Low Cost (Under $30):
Expensive:
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/4zb5zt/what_are_the_things_i_should_know_read_about_my/
I'm far from an expert, but I have a 7D, and I can tell you a few things to consider.
Again, I cannot stress enough, that I am not as experienced as many of the photographers in this subReddit, so if they have differing opinions, you may want to consider theirs over mine. I hope I could help a little, at least.
EDIT: Changed the order of my comments.
If you're learning to become a commercial photographer please for the love of fuck don't buy a powershot. That's not me being gear snobby (though some of your clients definitely will be), you won't learn much and a ton of essential skills will be essentially off limits. For $300 Buy an older used DSLR and either this lens or this lens (the latter is wider than the former)
It isn't about quality, any flagship smartphone will get you that, it's about flexibility. If the used camera bothers you, you can spend maybe $150 more and get an entry level dslr
Also, flume is great for instagram from a computer if you have a mac.
You are strong in resisting the gear acquisition syndrome! :-)
I'm not sure if you've read this page, but it has a list of lenses suggested for the nikon dx cameras:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-databases-for-nikon/thoms-recommended-lenses.html
​
Specifically for a mid-range f2.8 zoom, it looks like the recommendation is for the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 HSM lens
​
As for mid-range zoom or a wide fast zoom (like the sigma 18-35mm f1.8), it comes down to what you want to shoot, and if you want to change lenses. The 18-35 f1.8 could be a great lens for you because it doesn't overlap any of your existing lenses, you get that constant f1.8, and they're $675 new. But if you want a zoom that can stand-in for your 35 and 50mm lenses, then the mid-range zoom may be just what you need.
Repost from: Advise on buying semi-universal Canon lens.
First off: I know there is no such thing as an universal lens.
I'm looking for a lens I can use for city walks, portrait and nature. I do have 50mm 1.8 for portraits and I plan on buying wide angle for nature. But I want to have something that I can use most of the time even for portraits and nature without constantly swapping lenses.
Recently I went to Ireland and was doing photographs of cliffs, my friends and small houses and fortresses. Then, some city shots of Dublin. I was not happy with quality of photos produced by 18-55 kit lens (50mm 1.8 had way better sharpness and less distortions), but it was universal and I didn't have to swap lenses.
So, I was thinking its time to buy better lens, but something that is at least to some extend universal.
I have Canon 550D (Rebel T2i) with kit lens 18-55mm and 50mm 1.8. I live in Europe (Poland) and plan to spent up to 1k USD on lens.
These are some options I have come across:
Is it worth investing more to buy this lens? I don't believe I have enough skills to appreciate difference...
Right now I opt for Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM because it is L lens and is relatively cheap. It has 105mm max, but f/4 apperture, so I'm worried about night city shots. Is image quality really good and f/4 something that I should not be worried about? I heard most photos are taken with f/4 and above anyway...
EDIT: I'm doing some reading and people complain that it's old construction, has a lot of chromatic aberration and photos are not that good. Are these claims valid?
TL;DR: I have about 1k USD to spend for a good semi-universal lens and I'm considering Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM. Is it good choice? Are there any better lenses under 1k USD?
Sorry for long post.
It's $110 on Amazon. Can't beat that with a stick.
If that's too much, check out the Yongnuo f1.8. I picked one up on eBay for $40. Amazing value. It takes great photos.
Ask her if she needs a 50mm equivalent or an actual 50mm lens. Because she is shooting with a crop-sensor camera, the 35mm is close to what a 50mm would be on a full-frame camera.
If she says 50mm equivalent, get this: 35mm f1.8
If she says actual 50mm lens, get this: 50mm f1.8
If she says actual 50mm and you have a bigger budget, get this: 50mm f1.4
All three lenses are fantastic.
Edit: If you don't want to ask (and blow the surprise) just get the 50 1.8 - safe bet. Then get her the 35 1.8 for her birthday!
Is there a limit on how wide is too wide for you? I know you prefer autofocus, but the wider you get, the less detrimental precise focus is and you can often leave it at a certain focus distance.
With that said, the [Rokinon 14mm 2.8](Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC Ultra Wide Angle Fixed Lens w/ Built-in AE Chip for Nikon https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NNUN02/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_Eeo6Ab1G6B6MW) is a modern lens at an excellent price at $300, but is manual focus.
There will be a lot of times when the flash will solve problems that fast glass simply won't do. f/1.4 makes good use of available light, but there's not always enough light.
If you can bounce that flash off the ceiling, however, the quality of the light from the flash improves dramatically and your current lenses would work just fine.
I prefer fast glass in general, but I keep a 430 EX II in my bag, just in case.
EDIT -- If you buy a fast prime, go for something in the 24-35 mm range instead of something in the 50mm range. You'll appreciate the wider field of view.
A couple of quick recommendations:
You know, I was about to type a long reply but I've decided to be lazy and copy/paste the contents of an email I sent to a buddy who just bought a T3i. I use a 60D, and use all these things, but most all this stuff should work for you with a 5D.
Crane and eyecup:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003SAHSVI
Cards:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002WE4HE2
I buy 8 or 16 gigs, with the idea being that that's NOT a lot of room. If I had a 32 or 64 gig card and that card failed I'd much rather lose 16 gigs of footage than 64 gigs which could be an ENTIRE production.
Batteries:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003ZSHKIO
Work justs as good as the Canon name brand ones.
My 'Kit' lens:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000EXR0SI
Cheapo plastic shoulder mount we used for the music video:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0036NMQ7S
Gini camera rigs:
http://www.ebay.com/sch/gini-2011/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_from=&_ipg=&_trksid=p3686
I did a minimum purchase right as the auction ended, and snagged their "dslr rig pro 10" for 235 + shipping. If you look at their past auction history, it seems like EVERYONE does this.
Audio Recorder:
http://www.amazon.com/Zoom-Handy-Portable-Digital-Recorder/dp/B001QWBM62/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1315766729&sr=8-1
They just got me this bad boy at work to plug my XLR mics into, so I record audio to it, and video to my dslr and then sync in FCP. Works awesome, however you probably could do the same thing with your HDV camera, they'd be about the same size.
As always: cheesycam.com has the best reviews and whatnot on all this stuff.
Here's KEH.com's listing for the kit lens you are looking at. They have a rating system with UG at the bottom, then BGN, and up. I'd go for BGN though, they tend to be extremely conservative with their appraisals. http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-Digital-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-DC079990648100?r=FE
Remember, it's the glass that matters. so buy the (or borrow my) cheapest lens you can and start saving for the nice lens.
The T2i is an excellent camera, I bought mine shortly after it was released and I still love it.
The image quality is on par with a 7D or 60D but it's much cheaper. The auto-focus system isn't on par with pro-level cameras and it has a mediocre continuous shooting frame rate, but that shouldn't be a deal breaker. I've used my camera to shoot college sports (baseball and basketball), wildlife, landscapes, portraits, etc. and it has always proved to be a capable camera. If you get it, I would suggest getting a vertical grip and then saving up for some nice glass.
While the kit lens is fairly capable for outdoor shooting, you might eventually consider upgrading it to Tamron's 17-50mm lens or Canon's 17-55mm lens.
Keep in mind that the D5000 has a DX Format sensor with a 1.5 crop factor (I think). That 50mm lens will actually be closer to a 75mm lens.
Also, as suddenly_spiders commented, that lens will NOT work with autofocus on the D5000: only AF-S or AF-I lenses will work with the autofocus. Check out the Nikon website for a list of compatible lenses.
A compatible 50mm lens will cost you closer to $500...
EDIT: here's a good 35mm lens.
The majority of my clients are automotive.
All the marketing directors I work with keep trying to do the same thing as you (purchasing gear to avoid hiring a professional videographer like myself). They always do one or two videos, realize it's a lot harder than they think, and end up calling me to do it. A few months later they buy a new toy and try again, only to fall on their face and calling me again.
At a BARE minimum, you should get a G85 and pair it with a great versatile lens that takes advantage of dual IS like this one. A great lav kit is needed for this type of shoot, shotgun mics are not your friend on a live car dealership set. Don't forget an external audio recorder, too. And a tripod with fluid head.
tl;dr Hire a local videographer with gear, then offer them a retainer guaranteeing him/her 20 hours a month. It's a lot easier and you'll probably end up doing it anyway. They'll take of everything for you and you can focus on bigger picture stuff.
Or you can just get an [$898 Panasonic 12-35mm constant f2.8 lens] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00843ERMW/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00843ERMW&linkCode=as2&tag=battleforthew-20) and stick it straight on your GH4. It costs less than either one of them - especially when you add in the cost of the Speed Booster :)
You're going to have to give a budget. Budget friendly means different things to a lot of different people.
I'd certainly recommend the EF 24-70 f/2.8L USM II and the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II.
If you're looking for more reach, I personally like the 200-400 f/4L IS USM with built-in 1.4x extender but you better hurry, there's only 5 left in stock.
Sigma 17-50 2.8
Tamron 17-50 2.8
These are your standard options for that budget. Both have compromises. I went back and forth, umming and aahing over which to get. The Sigma is good but you can be unlucky on build quality. The Tamron is good but the AF is slow and noisy. The Sigma is sharp between A and B but sucks at C, the Tamron is sharp between X and Y but sucks at Z. And so on and so on. Neither of them will give you the sharpness of the 35mm 1.8 throughout their zoom range.
But the Sigma 18-35 1.8 ART will. It's out of your budget new, but I bought it mint-condition second hand for £400 - so you might find one closer to your budget that way. It is one of Sigma's new 'Global Vision' lenses, which is marketing speak for 'we've pulled our finger out in terms of build quality, sorry about that'. It is astonishingly sharp right across the zoom range, even wide open at 1.8: yes, as sharp if not sharper than the 35mm. The AF is fast, silent, and (in my experience anyway) accurate. It is built like a tank. It has FTMF. It looks the dog's.
The drawbacks are: it doesn't have the reach of a 17-50, obviously. In the end, I decided I didn't care: I used the Nikon 35mm 1.8 almost exclusively for 2 years and didn't really feel the need for a longer lens the entire time. Admittedly I don't take many portraits, but when I do I just shoot 3/4 length. As someone who leans towards landscape photography, I was more interested in the wide end. It's quite big as far as standard zooms go, and quite heavy, but I'm a grown up, I can handle it. The image quality more than makes up for it, and on my D7000 with a grip it actually balances perfectly.
^Yeah, ^I ^went ^there ^dasazz
If you're just starting out, learning to "zoom with your feet" while using a prime is some of the best advice I can give. You'll be a better photographer for it. You'll also appreciate the wide f1.8 aperture for low light.
I can't speak to the quality of the 55-210mm, but I've never been a big fan of the cheap telezooms with variable max apertures (f6.3 in this case when zoomed in at 210mm is disgusting). I can appreciate that it would be important if you want to get kid action shots, though. Just know that you'll need really bright conditions to be able to use a fast shutter speed at a reasonable ISO while zoomed all the way in.
Would also recommend comparing the Sony 35mm/1.8 to the Sigma 30mm/1.4 before you buy. I just got the Sigma a few weeks ago and have been floored by the sharpness. It's about $60 cheaper, too.
If I were in your situation, I'd go for your second option (16-50mm kit + a prime). I have the 16-50mm and very rarely reach for it, but understand that it's nice when you start out to have a range of focal lengths to play with.
Alternatively, just get the a6000 body only + a prime, and once you get a feel for what you type of shooting you do most, rent a wide prime or a better quality telephoto to help decide what to buy next. I wish someone had told me not to waste money on the low-end kit lenses early on. If you get serious about photography, these will just clutter your bag, and camera shops will only quote you insulting offers when you try to sell them.
I see people recommending the 50mm f/1.8, but on an aps-c sensor it is a bit long and can feel kind of limiting. I'd recommend getting the Sigma Art 30mm f/1.4, it's closer to 50mm FF equivalent and a super great lens, and it's within your budget. It's versatile, fast, well-built and you'll get beautiful creamy bokeh with it.
https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-30mm-F1-4-Contemporary-Lens/dp/B01C3SCKI6
Sample images: https://www.flickr.com/groups/2955549@N21/pool/
Edit: just saw you mentioned landscapes, easy, Tokina 11-16mm.
https://www.amazon.com/Tokina-ATXAF116DXIIC-11-16mm-DX-II-Canon/dp/B00E3Y4XZM/ref=sr_1_5?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1521639979&sr=1-5&keywords=tokina+11-16mm
Sample images: https://www.flickr.com/groups/2110505@N24/pool/
What's the deal with variable-aperture zoom lenses, and why are they so much cheaper than zoom lenses that maintain a constant aperture, for lenses with roughly the same focal length range?
Related: Why is this lens so much more expensive than this lens? They look nearly equivalent to me.
There are a lot of things wrong with this post.
The 50mm/1.8 is one of the cheapest lenses out there. Because it is a prime (instead of a zoom) they can have fairly good image quality and still offer it at a decent price.
There aren't any wide angle prime lenses in this range I'm aware of (there is a 28mm prime for $400+ but that's really not very wide on an crop sensor body). For wide angle shots your best bet is using your kit lens wide open (assuming it's something like 18mm or 28mm) and saving for a true wide angle.
Saying I want a cheap wide angle lens with good quality is like saying I want a cheap computer that can play Battlefield 3 with max settings on at full resolution. You can buy a cheap lens that might be sort of a wide angle but it's not going to perform very well.
The cheapest wide angle for a Canon that's nice is probably the Sigma 10-22mm zoom lens for close to $500.
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-10-20mm-4-5-6-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0007U00X0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320951022&sr=8-1
If you are looking for a good all around lens that can go fairly wide open I'd look at something like this Tamron for $500
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-17-50mm-Aspherical-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000EXR0SI/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1320951205&sr=1-1
For your purposes, a 70-200 f/2.8 is probably your best bet. That said, they aren't cheap. Used, older models can go for as low as $600-800 if you're lucky, but make sure it works before you pay for it. Test it THOROUGHLY, make sure it has no mold, scratches, or other obvious defects, make sure autofocus is fast and smooth even (especially) in low light, and make sure the aperture isn't sticky (resulting in over/underexposure) when shooting at high frame rates. Buying used can be risky, so be sure if you do.
If cost is an issue, go with a prime. It is not the same experience as shooting with a zoom, but they're cheaper and, when compared to the after-market brands or older branded zooms, are usually of superior quality and sharpness. (Newer branded zooms are much better quality, but as you've noticed, are much more expensive. This will, to a certain extent, depend on your camera body. I swear by my 50mm f/1.4, but that probably isn't going to be long enough for your needs, even on a cropped sensor (making it an effective 75mm f/1.4). A fixed focal length will be a pain in the ass when trying to follow fast-moving subjects around, particularly if you're stationary in the stands or on the sidelines, but it can be done.
Another factor to consider when thinking about fast primes is that their smallest aperture isn't always that small. For example: the 50mm f/1.4 can only stop down to f/16. Why is that a bad thing? Well, for one, it means you might have to shoot at a much faster shutter speed under bright lights/sunlight, which might not be what you want if you're trying to show action by allowing a small amount of motion blur by shooting at 1/30 to 1/60 of a second. This is mostly a non-issue indoors or out of direct sunlight, but is worth considering.
Personally, I love my 50mm f/1.4 - it's my most frequently used lens at the moment... depending on the type of event I'm shooting. I used it about 1/3 of the time while shooting some dancers at SF City Hall last week (1/3 was a 24mm f/2.8 and 1/3 was a 70-200 f/2.8, because I could move around), and the low light made me glad I brought it. It is invaluable for live performances, and makes stage lighting look like a studio portrait. I used my 50mm about 60-75% of the time for both of those shoots. It's also good for general portraiture, either medium or close-up. The 50mm barely left camera body for those two shoots. Most of these shots were on a D700, which is a full-frame sensor. I'm guessing yours is a cropped frame, which means the 50mm becomes a 75mm, at which point you might actually have a decent lens for medium and wide shots when at the sidelines. It probably won't be tight enough if you're in bleachers, though. And as I mentioned earlier, the ability to zoom in and out without having to move around is going to make things a LOT easier.
But a 70-200 f/2.8 will run you close to $1,000 used, whereas you can find a 50mm f/1.4 on Craig's List in decent shape for $200-250 fairly regularly. It'll cost you $450 on Amazon.com for the AF-S version, $350 for the SF-D version (slightly slower & louder focusing), or $125 for the AF-D f/1.8 version if you don't mind losing a half-stop of light. $429 will get you the 85mm f/1.8, which also loses the half-stop of light but is a tighter shot and is still fairly fast. You can reasonably expect to find this lens used for about $100-150 less than it's new price, in decent shape.
Insofar as after-market vs. Nikon-branded lenses are concerned, I have never owned an after-market lens that did not develop some kind of problem after 1-2 years of regular use, and I've owned a few of them. Sigma/Quantaray sucks for longevity; I've had to send one of their EX (pro) line back twice, and it still has some of the same problems. Tamron is okay, depending on which version you get... and it seems that some lenses come off the assembly line in good shape while others don't. Tokina seems to get good reviews, but also seems to be more limited in specs. Most of the other after-market brands aren't even worth mentioning. On the flip side, I own Nikon lenses that have been dropped onto cement, smashed into the ground lens-first when knocked over on a tripod, smacked and beaten, which work just as well now as they did when I bought them. The primes are built like tanks. The pro zooms are as well, though much more expensive. The more plasticky prosumer or kit lenses aren't, but still seem to develop fewer problems than after-market lenses. Another thing about after-market lenses: their autofocus is usually slow, and they frequently hunt for focus (focusing in and out, unable to lock) in low light. Pro AF-S will be your best bet for this, but is expensive. AF-D is usually good for sharp, accurate autofocus, but is slower than both pro and consumer AF-S.
I've been shooting for ten years and won't buy another after-market lens if I have a choice for all of these reasons. Yes, I get paid for my work and thus tend to spend more money on my gear than the average amateur, but for me, photography is more like a hobby that occasionally pays for itself than a business; I have a career that's completely separate. As a result, I have many of the same concerns about spending over a thousand dollars on a lens. However, I also know I'll get tons of use out of it over the years. I shoot, on average, 1-4 events per week (work allowing, of course), and many of my events put my gear at risk due to rowdy crowds, so I need that beefier build quality. Much of this may not be as true for you, so bear that in mind when making your decision.
Hope that helps!
Love my 600. Noise is well controlled and it's extremely sturdy. Mine's been wet, cold, dirty and still does the job. I can't imagine you'd regret making the purchase.
Stay away from DX lenses on FX sensors. Vignetting is horrible. (Good image examples here.) For less expensive lens alternatives, check out older Nikkor AF lenses. I have several D series from years gone by that work just fine on my 600. For comparison, I looked up a 50mm 1.4 D on Ebay. It's $180 vs the new 1.4 G on Amazon for $350. Since the 600 has an in-body focus motor, pretty much any Nikon AF lens will work.
Sorry, I can't comment on the video side.
Kit lenses are actually pretty good. Which ones do you have? 18-55mm and 55-200mm?
If you feel like you'd be swapping lenses too much you could get the 18-135mm which would cover most of that range in a single lens.
If it were me I would use your kit lenses to their fullest, and purchase something with a wider aperture like a 50mm f1.8.
Well, neither of those have VR, so you'll be looking at Tamron
I don't know if Sigma has a version with VR, but personally I have the Tamron and it has great build quality and is amazingly sharp.
I know a lot of people like those lenses but I've never been a fan of the bokeh. On the plus side I've heard they are very well made, so there's that. I'm assuming you shoot canon since that's what you linked to, and if that's the case I'd suggest looking at the canon 85mm f/1.8. I used to have one and it is a fantastic lens. Or, if you want/need the extra speed and you don't mind focusing manually check out the Samyang 85mm f/1.4.
They're both great lenses and are sharper and cheaper than the one you linked. The Samyang is currently on sale for $280, while the Canon one goes for about $360. Sigma also makes a pretty good 85mm but it costs about $900.
Here's a review for the canon lens, and here's one for the Samyang version.
That's the exact lens I mentioned in the first sentence :)
It doesn't have IS like the 100mm L does, but otherwise they're largely similar - reviews for both mention the incredible sharpness (which I see first hand in my L), so if you can live without IS (which is why I mentioned tripod use), the non-L version can definitely be a great start to macro photography :)
Note that these two lenses should not be confused with the 100mm f/2, which isn't a macro lens.
I will be one of the people rebuking you. OP said he was new, you're throwing all this information (some of which is inaccurate and misleading) at him, you're bound to confuse him and leave him worse off than he started.
If he's getting a T3i and just starting out, it's probably best that he get a standard kit zoom lens like Canon's EF-S 18-135mm.
For Nikon, the 35mm af-s f/1.8 ($199) is pretty much considered essential. For other primes the 50mm af-s f/1.8 ($220) and the 85mm af-s f/1.8 ($500) are considered to be pretty darn good. If you want a zoom, the nikon ones are fine, but the tamron 70-300 vr is better. If you want an ultrawide, the tokina 11-16mm is good, yet expensive
Unless portability is a huge concern, stay away from superzooms (like 18-200mm lenses)
Af-d lenses are cheaper, louder (no ultrasonic motor focusing), older (duh), and smaller. They usually lack vr.
To start, i would personally suggest a d5100, 18-55mm, and a 35mm f/1.8
If you are doing weddings, definitely go for the 24-70 2.8. It's really good lens for wedding.
I might get downvoted for saying this, but I would recommend the Tamron version. It's thrice the price, and performes just as good. Just my 2 cents. If you have lots of money though go for the new nikon 24-70 VR without any hesitation
I would also recommend as a nifty buy : https://amzn.com/B004NNUN02 if you still want a decent lens for landscape. I have it, and it does okay : it gets the job done.
> I've looked at shots taken from the Fujifilm FinePix X100 and honestly, I find they are jaw dropping. But then I see similar shots from say a Canon EOS550D and I look at them, and they are nice, they are clear, but they just don't have that 'thing'. That I see in photos from a Fujifilm FinePix X100. I'm sure a newer DSLR has more 'flexibility' but that's not generally what I am looking for I think.
> Now I'm not talking about any 1 camera brand in particular. But I know for example that people who've owned rare and expensive cameras can agree. Some cameras just take shots that can make anything look incredible. I've never really seen that in a DSLR camera... the photos look detailed, clear and colour is well reproduced. But I feel like there's no 'essence' in the photos.
> Look at these shots from the Leica M7 for example:
You, my friend, are cursed. Before you even start taking photos you've realized that you can see the differences in how lenses render, and you know that to you the use of better lenses will make a difference in the satisfaction you feel when you get everything else right.
I have a few pieces of advice:
If you wanted to go new the Fuji X-Pro-1 is available in kits with 35mm and 18mm lenses for cheap right now, because the X-Pro-2 has been announced. Any of the X-cameras will work for you, and if you can wait a few months you may find some really good deals out there. The Olympus OM-D is a very capable camera as well that can support some really good lenses. Lots and lots of good, usable cameras in the used market. Just make sure you're looking at the sorts of cameras that take the sorts of lenses you like.
Don't get caught up in the megapixel debates. Full Frame > APC-C (Fuji) > m4/3 (Olympus/Panasonic) as far as objective performance is concerned, but people nowadays are really picking nits here. Wall prints from any of these systems aren't hard once you learn proper technique and the capabilities of your camera, but some lenses draw images in a very special way. If you can see that, and you value it, then that really limits the systems you'll likely be happy with.
And that's a good thing.
(Another thought: before you buy, or as you get discouraged, go a a site like Flickr and filter based on the equipment you're considering, or that you're not making perform to its max. See what photographers better than you can produce, and use that as inspiration. You'll find that all camera platforms are capable of outstanding results, but they all offer different trade-offs. The goal is to find the trade-offs that work best for your situation).
Edit: Wow - thanks for the gold.
u/pastramiswissrye is totally right in that lights, sound, lenses, and media are all more important than the best camera.
My personal favorite camera in that price range is the Panasonic G7 and a good 12-35 lens. The G7 is like the little brother to the GH4 as it does 4k and just is missing some of the more pro features and is $600 for the camera. The lens is another $600 but you could just use the kit lens and upgrade your lens later.
Continuing with what Pastrami said, you should have good audio, lights, and media storage, in addition to the camera and lens. For audio, the rode videomic pro is a good all-around shotgun mic that you can put on a boom pole for good short film on location sound, however you will need someone to help hold your boom pole.
For lights, a good reflector will help you use the sun as a light when shooting outside on location for a short film. If you are in a studio, this four socket CFL light kit will go a long way to help. I personally use one of them and they are great for the price. Just pop in four cfl bulbs and you are good to go. If you would prefer LED lights which are smaller and don't heat up as much, but are pricer, you can get this LED studio light kit.
On the media storage side of things, you are going to want to pick up a few of these 64GB U3 SD cards for use with your G7 or any other new camera you get. Especially if you plan on shooting in 4K.
If you are going to shoot in 4K, your file sizes are going to go way up and you are definitely going to need to get more hard drive space on your computer. You may even have to upgrade your computer to handle 4K video editing. It all depends on what you have and what you want to do.
On the editing side, I personally use Final Cut Pro X on my Mac. It is $300 but a great piece of editing software, used by pros. If you are on a mac but don't want to spend money, just use iMovie, it will probably do what you need it to do unless you edit in 4K. On the windows side, some people use sony vegas, some people use AVID, some people use premiere pro, there is a bunch of them out there and you kind of just have to choose one. (I have never used any of them)
Like he said, there is no canon r6i. I assume you mean T6i, but you still need to do some more research. I hope this helps!
Thoughts on moving to a new Wide angle lens?
I currently own a Canon T5i.
My primary lens is a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L
Its pretty sweet, I'm very happy with the lens and results.
I recently went to a state park near by to shoot some pics of my gf and thought it would've been pretty sweet to have a wide angle lens to capture some more in the scene (especially since we have an adventurous outdoor trip coming up soon)
The majority of my shots in general are outdoors with people doing some stunts/tricks/poses from Acrobatics/Yoga/Gymnastics etc.
I was thinking of getting a Canon EF 11-24mm F/4L
It'll be my first UW lens. I'm looking to continue making similar kinds of shots but being able to capture much more of the landscape/ scenery.
Any thoughts on this? (Also don't factor cost into your response)
final note: I'm very much a beginner, been shooting on and off for a little over 2 years.
*edit
you might be wondering why Im putting top shelf lens on entry level camera...
I got the T5i first, then purchased the 24-70 after. I'm currently in a situation where I can purchase either the UW lens or a full body, but not both :P. I suppose I could save a bit longer and get both
You literally have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The fact that you even claim this tells me that you have not actually done the comparisons you suggest doing.
Cases in point:
Nikon D810--$2,796.00 in America, $2,436.48 at Yodobashi, [$2,191.12 at Map Camera] (https://www.mapcamera.com/item/4960759143532)
Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II--$1,699.00 in America, $1,702.54 at Yodobashi, $1,530.49 at Map Camera
OM-D E-M5 Mark II--$879.99 in America, $882.99 at Yodobashi, $794.67 at Map Camera
Fuji 35mm 1.4--$599.00 in America, $570.15 at Yodobashi, $518.76 at Map Camera
I could go on, but you get the picture. Also keep in mind that these Japanese prices include tax, whereas the American ones do not. And also remember that purchases at Yodobashi are eligible for 10% back in points. Moreover, foreign shoppers can shop duty free at both Yodobashi and Map Camera. Yes, it is possible to find isolated incidences where the Japanese price is higher, but in the vast majority of cases the price of cameras and lenses in Japan is the same or lower than it is in America. Trust me--I know this shit. I've been buying and selling cameras and lenses for years in both America and Japan.
And I made the point of saying this applies to modern cameras and lenses because vintage gear in Japan is not necessarily cheaper--primarily because there's a larger market for it, because it's generally better taken care of, and because people are more aware of it's actual worth (in America people tend to severely over or under value vintage photo gear, and they are often unable/unwilling to check if it's in working condition before selling it).
Edit: I love that people downvote this even though I've provided ample evidence to prove my point. If you have a good argument to the contrary, present your evidence.
Hi /u/Kirbyjerby - I'd [rent] (http://www.borrowlenses.com/product/Panasonic_Lumix_G_X_Vario_1235mm_f28_Asph_Lens_for_Micro_43_?blpid=1234) or [buy] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00843ERMW/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00843ERMW&linkCode=as2&tag=battleforthew-20) a Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 lens to go with the [GH4 rental] (http://www.borrowlenses.com/product/Panasonic-Lumix-DMCGH4-Mirrorless-Micro-Four-Thirds-Digital-Camera?blpid=1234). Wide open, you'll get nice bokeh, and it's wide enough to work in close quarters.
I have shot with this lens (on the GH3, before I bought the GH4) and it is absolutely made for these cameras. - crisp images, image stabilization, lightning fast video autofocus. Highly recommended.
Hope this is helpful!
Bill
Do you also need autofocus? If so, only Panasonic's native lenses will provide AF and IS. Depending on your focal range needs, either the 35-100mm f/2.8 you mentioned, or the companion 12-35mm f/2.8 are the best zooms with these features.
If you will be handling focus manually, then you can use a wide variety of stabilized EF-mount lenses with Metabones' EF Speed Booster, such as Sigma's 17-50mm f/2.8.
Hey there!
By fixed focal lengths as opposed to variable focal lengths, I can only assume you're talking about prime lenses (e.g. 50mm F1.2) vs zoom lenses (e.g. 35-70 F3.5)...
However, fear not as one of the awesome things about the MFT mount is that it can take a lens with practically any mount, as long as a provided MFT adapter/speedbooster is used.
Now here's where it gets a bit tricky. Some lenses (mostly older and cine versions) have a manual ring just like zoom or focus, but for aperture (cine lenses have a smooth aperture ring while vintage/still lenses have a click for each available F-stop). If your lenses do NOT have a physical aperture ring, then you will need a device with the capabilities of changing that lens' aperture like this, not including a power source for it.
Now I come from the BMCC crowd, so I have a dumb (no electronics) MFT mount on my camera while the BMPCC has an active MFT mount, so I'm not sure how that works with adapters/speedboosters.
What I personally recommend (if budget allows) is to get the Tokina 11-16 F2.8 and the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 both for Nikon as well as a normal Nikon-MFT adapter which controls the aperture for you so no sweat there...
If that's a bit expensive, then look into vintage M42-mount lenses on eBay as well as a m42-MFT adapter, and you'll be well on your way with some very filmic looking creamy lenses that match BM cameras really well..
Also, check out www.bmcuser.com as it's a great community of brutally honest, and very intelligent BM owners and operators from the pocket cam to the URSA. If you peek at the forums long enough I'm sure you'll find more than you need to know about lenses for the BMPCC.
Good luck!
You can follow the photographer on Flickr, linked here to learn more about how he shoots and pay attention to the camera data to see what aperture and focal length he uses for each image.
For the first photo, linked here, you will see that he shot this photo at f/11.0 and 57mm. The wide aperture (f11) will keep both the foreground and background in focus. Zooming in (57mm) will compress the foreground and background, which is what makes the hills and mountains in the background more prevalent in his photo.
His photo also appears to have been taken at a low angle, probably on a knee, which will make the truck appear larger and more impressive. Finally, the composition will play a big part in the final image. Pay attention to how the photos that you like are framed, where the photographer was likely standing, and how the image was composed. This matters more than the equipment.
I would also note that he is shooting with a Canon 60D and a 18-135 f/3.5-5.6, which compares similar to your lens, other than giving him more range to zoom in. With the a5000 and your lens zoomed all the way in, you already have the equipment to get this same quality of image. I would just keep your setup and keep practicing and honing your skills before you worry too much about equipment upgrades.
If you are dead set on getting a new lens, I am very happy with the SELP18105G as an all around lens, especially for video use.
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-18-135mm-F3-5-5-6-APS-C-mount/dp/B078T2184C/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=sony+18-135&qid=1564230441&s=gateway&sr=8-3
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-SELP18105G-PZ-18-105mm-OSS/dp/B00ENZRQH8/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=sony+18-105&qid=1564230464&s=gateway&sr=8-3
These two lenses. They are out of your budget by a bit.
If $700 is a hard cap, I'd go with the A6000 with the kit 16-50 only and then spend $300 on a Sigma f/1.4 30 mm or Sony f/1.8 50mm when you get an extra $100 available in your budget. I think you'd benefit with a prime as a secondary lens over the 55-210 for your applications.
Sony A6000 + the 18-105 F4 for general photography, this should be a good start and will get her a quality lens that will get her plenty of reach. This should be right around $1100ish
down the road she can add these options:
add the 35 f1.8 for great portrait photos with better background separation. Alternatively you can start her with this lens first, being smaller and lighter means she will be more likely carry it around with her.
add the 16 2.8 for hiking thanks to the compact size and theme parks, or just anywhere she needs it in a more compact size.
more size comparisons
If you can only have one lens at a reasonable price, I'd recommend the 18-105 f4 G http://amzn.to/2i8AJUN Much more versatile for the money, constant aperture, etc. Having a minimum of 28mm would very limiting on a crop body like the a6300. Most filmmaking (especially dialog scenes and such) happens around 30-35mm (20-24mm on the a6300)... I wouldn't want to lose that range.
PS... if you're doing filmmaking or other well-controlled videography, consider manual/vintage lenses and adapters. If you play your cards right, you can get really exceptional quality video for peanuts.
I second this. You should be able to get this combo with about 200 bucks to spare right now. If you buy used, maybe even cheaper. The only problem is that the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is highly sought after right now. So if you purchase it, it may take a day or two to come in. I wouldn't waste your time with the FE version of the 50mm f/1.8 since its autofocus in the dark environments can be quite unreliable. The 85mm f/1.8 is a really great bang for buck prime you can get for around $500 bucks.
There's also the option of upgrading what you already have. I don't know too much about Canon lenses since I'm a Sony user. But for your A6000, I'd consider getting either of the Sigma f/1.4 lenses (16mm, 30mm, 56mm) if you got any left over cash. That way you'll have a body with a nice creamy prime and another one with a solid zoom for more versatility. Telephoto options for Sony are scarce and I think all the ones that are f/2.8 will eat up your entire budget. There's f/4 options or you can adapt a Canon telephoto for much cheaper.
a7ii
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-Alpha-Mirrorless-Digital-Camera/dp/B00PX8CHO6/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=a7ii&qid=1556891983&s=gateway&sr=8-3
Tamron Lens
https://www.amazon.com/Tamron-28-75mm-Mirrorless-Limited-Warranty/dp/B07CSLM1X8/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=tamron+28+75&qid=1556892002&s=gateway&sr=8-3
Sony 85mm f/1.8
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-SEL85F18-1-8-22-Medium-Telephoto-Camera/dp/B06WLGFWGX/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=85+f%2F1.8&qid=1556892184&s=gateway&sr=8-3
Sigma 16mm f/1.4
https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-16mm-DC-DN-Contemporary/dp/B077BWD2BB/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=sigma+16&qid=1556893117&s=gateway&sr=8-3
Sigma 30mm f/1.4
https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-30mm-F1-4-Contemporary-Lens/dp/B01C3SCKI6/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=sigma+30&qid=1556893096&s=gateway&sr=8-3
Sigma 56mm f/1.4
https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-Contemporary-Advanced-Travel-Bundle/dp/B07KSFNG5H/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=sigma+56+f+1.4&qid=1556893069&s=gateway&sr=8-1
Sigma MC-11 Canon EF mount to Sony FE mount converter
https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-Converter-Adapter-EF-Mount-Essential/dp/B01D0JN6NU/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=sigma+mc11&qid=1556893034&s=gateway&sr=8-3
Canon
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-Telephoto-Zoom-Cameras/dp/B000053HH5/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=CANON+EF+70-200&qid=1556892462&s=gateway&sr=8-3
Gift One: This lens. I want it I have just the kit lens and I really want an OK telephoto. This one is really nice for the price from what I've seen.
Off this list
Gift Two: This. Same WL I just don't want a neck strap and this is cheap :)
C'mon...gimme
Also, Damn gurl! You look nice today!
30mm on a crop is ideal for indoor shots. I started with the Canon 50 1.8, and moved to the Sigma 30 because I was spending too much time pressed into corners.
Also, while I disagree with your Canon vs Sigma opinions, Canon makes a 28 1.8 if you're more comfortable with 1st party lenses
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-28mm-Wide-Angle-Cameras/dp/B00009R6WU
Might I suggest the Tamron 18-55 as a nice lens upgrade? This has a constant f/2.8 aperture, lovely bokeh, and marvelous colour.
I've used mine for 4 years now and loved it on an older Rebel XTi.
Since you are pushing $1000 with the t3i I would say this winning combo is in your price range:
t2i body only |
best lens for the money
The T3i is ever so slightly better for video, if that is your priority. I like the 50mm 1.8 for video on either camera.
EDIT: I have both the 18-55mm and the 55-250mm. Both are decent, but you will outgrow them in 30 days.
The T2i is one of my cameras.
I replaced a 24-70mm f/2.8L with a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. I know it's a bit out of your price range, but I like the lens and it does a good job for the price:
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-17-50mm-Aspherical-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000EXR0SI/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1334387378&sr=1-1
Pros: good image quality, sharp at f/2.8
Cons: bad flare even with hood, aberrations are a lot more obvious than on an L lens, the AF motor is noisy and AF is not all that fast
ignore that advice, a kit lens can still produce crisp images. This is just due to the ISO being set high, if you lowered it to 400-800 you will notice a very large difference in image quality. If you are interested in getting a lens for indoor, that you can open up your aperture a little more, i would suggest this
Just a heads up - this isn't actually a lens. It's an attachment for the front of one of your current lenses. And that lens needs to have a filter size between 25mm and 37mm. It will (essentially) multiply the focal length by 0.3.
I'm going to assume you have the 18mm-55mm kit lens. It has a 58mm filter size, so this fisheye adapter would never actually work with your camera.
Also, keep in mind that every bit of glass (ESPECIALLY the glass that isn't part of your finely tuned orchestra of glass that makes up a modern lens) you put between the sensor and the scene will lower image quality. If you want the best, you should look at getting a true fisheye lens like skrshawk posted. Your camera has the EF-S mount.
Edit: It looks like that 8mm Rokinon is the ubiquitous low budget fisheye. One thing to keep in mind: it's manual focus only. It looks like people on Amazon like it though. And here's a DPReview forum thread. Sounds like it's soft at f/3.5, so plan on using it in lighting conditions where you can use f/5.6.
This is the most expensive item on my wishlist.
Call it what you want.
Do you think pros don't use 100mm macros? https://www.amazon.com/Canon-100mm-Macro-Digital-Cameras/dp/B002NEGTSI/ref=sr_1_2?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1482709335&sr=1-2&keywords=canon+l+macro
What lens/lenses do you have already?
The lens you list is versatile in that it has a decent zoom range. However for your camera Canon's 18-135mm would be even better and it's cheaper. The lens you list is made for "full-frame" cameras that usually cost $2000 or more. They require larger lenses that are typically more expensive. The lens I list here is made specifically for the sensor in your camera and therefore can offer a bit more useable range at a cheaper price.
However if your issue is blur... neither of these lenses will help.
To combat blur without using flash, you're going to want more light coming through the lens. So you either want to make the room brighter or you want a lens that can pull in more light. For the latter you want a lens with a wider aperture (smaller f/number). A 50mm f/1.8 lens can be had for about $100 and will let quite a bit more light. There are also some 30 or 35mm lenses with wider apertures that can be had for about the price of the lens you're looking at. Be aware all of these lenses are fixed-focal-length meaning they have no zoom ability at all. They trade off the zoom ability to be able to gather more light. So you need to carefully choose the focal length of the lens you want to buy. If you have a lens like an 18-55mm you can use that lens to see what focal length you like to shoot at when you need more light. If you find you're usually closer to the 55mm end, then you'll probably want the 50 f/1.8. If you're usually closer to the middle, around 28-35mm, you'll want a to get a lens that is about that focal length. There is one final option is to get a zoom with a wide aperture, Sigma makes an 18-35mm f/1.8 zoom lens that has a little bit of zoom but a very wide aperture, Canon makes a 17-55mm f/2.8 lens that has a little wider aperture than you have but still has the same amount of zoom. The problem is both of these lenses costs a lot, $800 or more.
Check out the Sigma or Tamron 70-300. There are two versions, one with stabilization and one without. The version without is really cheap and bad. I got my Tamron used for $250, although I'm not seeing them that cheap now.
Here are a couple of shots I got at an outdoor concert with that lens.
With your $350 budget, you could get a used Tamron or Sigma 70-300. Be careful, they both have good versions and cheap versions. This is the good version--the bad version will cost under $200 new. That would be a good one to replace the 80-400. It will be a little dark for stage photography, so you'll likely have to play with the ISO to get usable shots.
Alternatively, you can go with a 35mm or 50mm f/1.8 lens. I'm not sure what kind of stage photography you'll be doing, or where you'll be doing it from. Either of those will be very fast and bright, but probably won't get the whole stage into one frame unless you're physically pretty far away. If you're trying to get close-ups of specific actors from fairly close in, the 50mm would be a good one.
Why not try this? Best of both worlds and on a crop its a 105-450. Tamron has great VC and you can always return. For the price you can add a good teleconverter. Just like Sigma you could get a dog so don't be satisfied of you don't think it's good enough.
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-300mm-4-0-5-6-Digital-Cameras/dp/B003YH9DZE/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1341588126&sr=8-7&keywords=nikon+70-300
[Tamron 70-300 mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD] (http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-300mm-4-0-5-6-Digital-Cameras/dp/B003YH9DZE/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1452518596&sr=8-2&keywords=tamron+70-300+nikon)
With my D5100 it's a great combo.
I got this lens for landscape and astro photography: Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC Ultra Wide Angle Fixed Lens w/ Built-in AE Chip for Nikon https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NNUN02/ref=cm_sw_r_other_awd_ZlMxwbY9J67ME
It doesn't have AF so I suggest using it with a tripod. Here's one of my picture I shot with the lens: https://flic.kr/p/sky3TK
> It's not so much the focusing aspect that has been tricky - it's more been understanding the interplay of settings on the camera vs the settings and focusing on the lens itself. I have ended up with the "flashing setting" on my camera screen, indicating I can't exposure properly at the settings I'm attempting.
You need to effectively learn how your camera works. Try r-photoclass.com, it'll get you up on the basics.
> Anyway, is there a good entry-level lens you'd recommend (maybe one with autofocus to help me minimize the number of new things I'm trying to learn) for establishing that good depth of field?
Depth of field can be influenced by a couple things, f-stop being one of them. A lower number for your f-stop (f1.4, f1.8, etc) will give you more of that blurry background than a higher number will (f5.6, f8, f11). Also, a generally longer focal length will give a more pleasing and less detailed background blur than a shorter focal length will, such as your Rokinon. Even better if you can get both.
Lower-budget: Olympus 25mm f1.8
Higher-budget: Panasonic 25mm f1.4 Summilux
Highest-budget: Olympus 75mm f1.8
That sounds good.
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-Lumix-Micro-SUMMILUX-Aspherical/dp/B0055N2L22
This one would be perfect but it's a bit expensive. I might be able to find a used one.
if both pictures and photos are important to you, I would probably go with the A7iii and pair it with a good all rounder lens like the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 referral links included throughout. If you want to save a little you could buy the sony 24-70 f4 it's not as fast or sharp, but it does have a little bit extra on the wide angle.
If pics are important but not overly so i'd also look at the pansonic G9 with the new firmware it's now extremely capable for video and better stabilised than the GH5. You could then buy a couple of lenses like the 12-35 f2.8 and the 25mm f1.4 and still have a load of budget for audio/lighting
I got the 40mm f/2.8G AF-S DX Micro for my D5000 a few months ago and it's now my everyday lens. It's a nice walk around lens with macro capability. You can check out digitalrev video review and PM me if you want to see some of my macro shots.
I'd take the 12-40mm for the larger maximum aperture (= better low light performance and potential for shallower depth of field) and because it goes wider and will be sharper.
You could always add a cheap telephoto zoom if you want more reach: http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-40-150mm-F4-0-5-6-Panasonic-Cameras/dp/B0066J6EOU/ref=sr_1_1
I have a cheap UV filter I bought just basically to protect the lens. It is by Tiffen. The lens was a Cannon EF75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III. It is an ok lens and serves its purpose for me as a beginner to DSLR photography.
Had my eye on the 85mm 1.8 USM for awhile. Anyone have any experience with it on a crop camera?
Thanks for the links. Are you shooting with Nikon or Canon? Since both these lenses are made from different manufacturers.
To speak in a general sense, most lenses will do pretty much the same thing, to capture an image. What you're paying for is convenience, performance, and build quality. Expensive lenses tend to have better weather sealing protection, sharpness (higher IQ), low light shooting, and added bells and whistles like image stabilization (IS), faster auto-focus mechanics, less optical distortions and light refractions, etc.
Here's a comparison between the Canon lens above and this one:
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-85mm-Medium-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00007GQLU/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=canon+85mm+f1.4&qid=1563837424&s=gateway&sr=8-4
Both lenses are prime lenses. They're both at an 85mm focal length. But the cheaper one (above) only reaches a maximum aperture of 1.8, compared to the $1,500 F/1.4. It might not seem like a huge jump, but certain professional photographers need that extra .4. The expensive lens also has IS, aspherical lens coating, and high-speed AF (all those added things which make for a better-built lens). For example, If you're a wedding photographer, having an expensive lens that you can run-and-gun with makes it easier for you while on the job. If you're shooting indoors and have a lens that handles well in low-light, you won't waste precious time setting up a tripod or worry about blurry photos with the help of the IS.
While it's easy to say an expensive lens will produce a better image, the difference is typically unnoticeable until you enlarge the photo or when shooting low light. I always tell beginner photographers that expensive gear won't make you a better photographer. Experience will. Being able to utilize any lens at your disposal is what will separate you from the novices. However, I'm not telling you how to spend your money. If you plan on sticking with photography in the long haul, it could be worth buying one expensive lens compared to five inexpensive ones. It's a matter of preference. I hope this helps!
Thank you for your input. The 7D is a 1000 dollars cheaper.
I am not too familiar with photography, I searched for the lenses you mentioned in Amazon. But I'm not clear about the difference between them. Which one would you recommend?
This is what I found:
50 mm
35 mm
85 mm
I only meant telephoto in that it's narrower than a "normal" perspective (50mm for a FF 35mm sensor).
An 85mm lens is very lightweight and portable (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-85mm-Medium-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00007GQLU), not what normally comes to mind when you think "telephoto". The advantage over a shorter focal length is that it's easier to blur out the background for portraits, whereas a wide angle will keep more of the background in focus.
I'm looking into getting a new lens for my Canon Rebel Xti. Mostly, I want it for portraits and to get the shallow DOF. I Found two choices on Amazon that I can't seem to decide on. The first one is the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 50mm link for around $100. The second is the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Medium Telephoto Lens 85mm link for $369. I know that the 85mm would be ideal for portrait photography because of the flattening but would there really be that big of a difference between 50mm and 85mm? And does anyone have any opinions on these lenses? TIA!
I would buy 7DII over a 6D in a heartbeat hands down more versatile. But I encourage you to buy an older camera since you're just starting out the
BUY THIS 7D with a low shutter count only $600. Still a hell of a camera to start with, lenses are more important.
Canon 10-18mm lens $300
Canon 50mm f/1.8 $120
Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 $650 OR buy a 70-200mm f/4 IS L lens USED off FredMiranda, or buy a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mkI L USED off FredMiranda I got my f/2.8L mkI for $1,300 last year the MKII goes for $1,900 or so used but wasn't worth the $600 for me.
Card reader $18
Then get some Sandisk 16gb or 32gb cards
___
Other stuff to think about:
Canon 85mm f/1.8 $360
$130 Flash
Tripod $200
Canon 50mm f/1.4
---
Big purchases way down the road
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS mkII L $2,200
A 300mm f/2.8 or even f/4 wouldn't be a bad thing to shoot for either if you really want to do wildlife but not spend over $6,000 on a lens
Canon 1.4 teleconverter $500 this only works with L lenses buy this way down the road if you need more reach.
Canon 16-35mm or 17-40mm L lens
Thanks everyone for the input honestly it's so so appreciated. Thanks especially for clarifying the issues that the Sig will have with a full frame: KNICKS was right to point out I'll likely be using the 6D far more (although since I magic lantern and Cinestyled my D600 / t3i he's become a lot more useful, so knowing a great lens for that is still super useful!) - with that in mind It looks like I'll go for the Canon 28mm 1.8 for now (https://www.amazon.com/Canon-28mm-Wide-Angle-Cameras/dp/B00009R6WU#Ask) and maybe invest in that Sigma down the line.
[EDIT] Hold on wait, fuck I missed the Rokinon 24 1.4 recommend. Will seriously check that out too!
> What I have been considering is the Canon 40D, and while I know it is quite an old model, I was curious to see how well it would hold up.
It's solid. Built tough. The pentaprism viewfinder, second control dial, and joystick controller make life easier on you as the photographer. People shot great photos with it and similar technology in 2007 and you can shoot the exact same photos with it today.
Samples from the 40D at f/1.8:
https://pixelpeeper.com/adv/?camera=714&aperture_min=1.8&aperture_max=1.8
> The lens I was considering is this 28mm f/1.8
The shorter focal length works against you as far as pronounced bokeh, especially if you aren't focusing relatively close by. Here's the 40D with that lens wide open:
https://pixelpeeper.com/adv/?lens=37&camera=714&aperture_min=1.8&aperture_max=1.8
> I'm curious to know how big of a deal the body would make if I got the 40D or if it would be better to get a newer model.
Depth of field and bokeh are more lens issues than body.
But maybe consider the original 5D. The larger sensor gives you a wider field of view for a given focal length so you could use something like a 35mm f/2 for a similar field of view and the bokeh could be more pronounced.
According to this tracking site, the price of a 28 F/1.8 dropped right when the rebate program started, so I'm guessing Amazon counts as "participating authorized Canon U.S.A. dealer or reseller" (fine print at the bottom of the rebate pdf). Good point, though.
Oh, to expand on that, it was a Canon 5D Mark II with a 24-105 f/f L-series lens. I was shooting at around f/9, I believe, and I white balance on the camera before shooting using white balance cards. I often use a reflector as well to fill in the front, but this time I didn't.
Post processing was in Photoshop. I did just a tiny bit more white balancing using a curves layer, then I punch up the highlights and bring down the darks (a standard S-curve). I also use the shadows/highlights tool to bring up the darkest darks so they aren't just straight up black.
I then make a mask around the parts that I really want to feature (in this case the beef and the folded towel on the right), the do a minor Gaussian blur on everything else to just slightly blur it, which makes the meat and texture on the towel pop a little more. Too much and it ends up looking like an Instagram photo.
Similarly, I use that same mask to blow out the lights and darks in the un-masked sections slightly so that the beef and towel pop even more. The key is really being subtle about it though. I probably did a quick sharpen on the whole image as well.
Actually, the REAL key is good lighting. You get good lighting and you're 99% of the way towards a good photograph.
I'm running a Rebel XT from 2005. I currently have the 18-55 EFS kit lens, a 75-300 EF lens, a 50mm prime EF Lens and a Sigma 24mm Super-wide II lens.
Assuming I could only buy one or the other, would I be better served by getting the 24-105mm L IS USM lens here;
or the Canon 6D here?
1.) Something that is grey.
2.) Something reminiscent of rain. (It sprinkles all over you!)
3.) I've heard these are delicious
4.) For my best friend because birthdays! Also he loves superheroes!
5.) You must read this because I mean... V for Vendetta. The movie was fantastic, this will blow you away
6.) Well, it can be... ;)
7.) I am the crazy cat lady, so...
8.) I mean... It's beautiful
9.) Not the actual movie
But seriously, everyone needs to see this movie. It changed my life, really. I mean, it changes how you perceive things. Even your littlest actions. Not to mention, fantastic movie score... 10/10 would recommend.
10.) May not be real, but it still shoots...
11.) Definitely this or this but they're wicked expensive. The lens would absolutely change my photography career so much because photography is a lot more about equipment than people like to admit. The Macbook would help me with my photo editing, music mixing, and even my coding and programming. These things would open up so many possibilities for me...
12.) Ugh, stupid add-on... I just want to cure my chapped lips! :(
13.) This is the most expensive and I'd love it for photography... The MacBook, my second dream item, is only $100 less...
14.) Definitely bigger than a bread box...
15.) Earring are small.
16.) This smells glorious
17.) Because neurology <3
18.) This would be extremely helpful!
19.) I CAN'T STOP. I also may or may not have already finished the second volume...
20.) THIS COMIC OMFG but seriously, it is one of the best comics ever (according to statistics)
Thank you for the contest! :) <3
EDIT: Bonuses
fear cuts deeper than swords.... muahahahahaa!
Is...is the original online anywhere?
Also, how well do you think this could have been replicated with a mark II and their 24-105mm L lens? (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-24-105mm-USM-Lens-Cameras/dp/B000AZ57M6)
Tokina 11-16 is a good choice.
You are being downvoted because you make the same mistakes as everyone else starting out. Good move getting the 35mm prime, it's a great lens. Most people would have preferred to get a 17-50 f/2.8 lens instead of the 18-200 zoom you got, however. Superzooms lenses like that one (which can zoom waaay in and out) have horrible image quality. Sure, they're convenient: everything in one package. But spending so much money on a camera to get images that are somewhat blurry isn't the best move.
The 35mm lens is a great lens, made even better at its low price at $200. The 18-200 superzoom is around $650. The Tokina is around $600. You could probably switch out the superzoom for the Tamron 17-50 and a 50mm f/1.8G, which is another great lens.
All the previous lenses mentioned are a great starter kit, very general-usage based, and suitable for everyone. In that senario, instead of buying the Tokina 11-16 now, you have a choice: Get a super wide angle lens (The Tokina 11-16) or get a nice telephoto lens, such as the Nikon 70-300, or lastly, some macro lens. Your choice depends on your style: whether you like to zoom in, take ultrawide shots, or come in close to your subject. Either way, you end up with a nice set of lenses that you will enjoy using.
I guess it's a matter of preference. What most zooms lack is the speed that primes have. For instance, that Sigma 30mm is a very fast lens at f1.4. Will you ever use 1.4? Maybe, it's kind of tricky in itself since there such shallow depth of field. The zooms on the other hand are fairly slower (f3.5 vs f1.4) but are more convenient when it comes to being able to frame shots. I know a fairly solid DP who uses one zoom lens and her work is fantastic (granted, it's nice glass and currently is ~$2000 on Amazon)
I'm a prime guy myself. My kit is nothing but primes save for a couple of zooms (I guess you can count the Tokina 11-16 as a zoom too, if you'd like). If you're set on a zoom, consider getting the t3i body and perhaps this lens...it's pretty fast for a zoom and gives you a fairly solid range.
Just bought a GH2. I got this lens, used. It's (comparatively) expensive, but covers a lot of bases. The Crop factor of the Tamron means that that each lens is actually a double. A 20-60 becomes a 40-120, which isn't wide angle at all. Any smaller than 17 (which is 34) though, and you have distortion. Of course, most other cameras in this price range do this too, just 1.6 times instead of 2 times. I haven't gotten the lens in yet but it seems really solid. Other than that I was primarily going to use FDs. I didn't want anything slower than 3.0, as the best feature of the GH2 is probably it's sharpness. I would be very interested in what everybody else recommends.
I don't know where you get your prices from but the 50mm 1.8g is $216 and the 1.4g is $424 on US amazon so about a $200 difference. I think you are talking about the 85mm in which case you are correct.
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-NIKKOR-Digital-Cameras/dp/B004Y1AYAC
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Prime-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001GCVA0U/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1409987206&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=nikon+1.4g
The Nikon D5000 doesn't have a built in autofocus drive so you'll want to shop for a lens that has AF-S. The 85mm f/1.8G comes to mind as a good portrait lens, due to its focal length. There's also the 50mm f/1.8G and 50mm f/1.4G which is within the focal length she's familiar with when using the kit lens.
I have this 50mm but have never seen a macro tube before, very interesting. I wonder what happens if you use a macro tube with a macro lens? Probably just even more simulated focal length?
What kind of post processing?
Absolutely. The key issue here for me is that the d7000 is the cheapest nikon with an in body focus motor. Honestly, the camera IMO is not what holds you back, but lenses.
I think it's well-known that a good rule of thumb is that crappy body + great lens > great body + shitty lens.
Kit lenses are getting better and better so ymmv, but if you have an in-body focus motor you can use nikon af-d lenses where as the d3300 cannot autofocus with af-d lenses.
One example to illustrate this is the nikon 50mm 1.4 af d at $334 on amazon vs the nikon 50mm 1.4 af s at $446. Make a couple of lens purchases and choose af-d over af-s and you'll recover any price premium you pay for an in body focus motor very quickly.
In general, you may be sacrificing a bit going with af-d vs af-s but for the budget oriented, I have preferred to take this route.
So about a year ago I got my first Nikon DSLR (D3300) and have been playing around with styles, and I definitely believe that portraits is the way I want to go. I've been using the 18-55mm kit lens so far and have looked into what lenses a portrait photographer should use and I think a 50mm would fit me. Somebody near me is selling a nikon 50mm and a sigma 50mm
they have the same maximum aperture so I'm trying to figure out what the differences are and what I should choose for my final decision. Also why should I buy these and not one of the $100 50mm lenses like this one? I would really appreciate an explanation on the differences. Thank you!
Rokinon makes a good, affordable, but all manual fisheye.
That seems like a pretty good choice. If you don't need Cine style lenses, I can talk about a couple of ultra wides that have served me well.
I have the [8mm Rokinon] (https://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-FE8M-C-Fisheye-Fixed-Canon/dp/B002LTXQUE) and love it. It's much cheaper, wider, but less low light capable, more distorted. Might be too wide for some uses but great for landscape and style shots.
The [14mm Samyang] (https://www.amazon.com/Samyang-SY14M-C-Ultra-Fixed-Angle/dp/B006MI1T4A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1492303917&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=samyang+14mm) might also be worth considering. On a full frame camera, it gives a wonderful wide look and goes down to f2.8. I'm not sure how wide it feels on a crop sensor, probably similar to the 10mm on apsc. Pretty sure there is a Rokinon version that is the same thing rebranded. But 14mm on a full frame is my favorite setup.
All 3 are a great value for what you get, especially if you can find them used like I did.
Good luck!
i wanna try to go for under 600 if im ganna go higher i'd buy the canon 100mm 2.8
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-100mm-Macro-Digital-Cameras/dp/B002NEGTSI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1394675859&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=canon+100mm
Look at prime lenses my friend.
Regarding your Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8: If you're shooting wider than 15mm make sure you take off the hood, otherwise you'll end up with some funky vignetting. :)
/u/jeffster888 pretty much already covered everything I was going to say. It is indeed the "Nifty Fifty" and it's a lens I decided was a great value after doing a lot of research into it.
I don't actually own the stock lens. Somehow my camera body didn't come with it. The lens I normally use is a Canon 18-135 mm lens (pretty sure it's this one), and it's great because it has a huge range of zoom. IMO it far surpasses the stock lens. :P I only got my 50mm one pretty recently but I absolutely love shallow depth of field so I'm still playing around and learning how to work with it.
IMO, lens is more important than the body (as long as your body is at least decent) because you can do a lot more with different lens than you can with a different body. Also, lens are interchangeable, which makes them really handy in different situations. You definitely should consider some other lens. The stock one I've heard is decent (never personally used it though as I don't own one), but if you want to get a little deeper, definitely look for other lens. I highly recommend both lenses I have. :)
I'm doing well! How bout yourself? I know this isn't exactly the range you are looking for but I've always liked the Canon 18-135 its pretty sharp, relatively fast and I find it to be a good zoom range. Because if you are looking to fit an entire building in a frame, especially assuming you have a crop sensor camera, 75mm is going to be tight
18-135mm f/3.5 is not bad at all - this one, I assume? That's a decent starter lens, it's definitely not cheap.
It's a great jack-of-all-trades lens for walking around, but where it falls short will be in specializing on certain things.
Pro: good wide angle at 18mm which is great for landscapes, decent closeup at 135mm, f/3.5 will be fine for close portrait photos.
Con: f/3.5 is not a good aperture for night photos unless you have a flash engaged or it's stable enough to take a longer exposure, if you want to zoom further than 135mm focal length, you'll need a separate lens, and if you want soft 'bokeh' you'll want a bigger aperture.
So all in all, it's a great lens to learn with, and I think you'll do fine with it for now, but if you want your photos to stand out more for the gear used, or you want to do more night photography (which is heavily dependent on big apertures and/or good flashes) then start looking at larger apertures and more expensive lenses :P
OP's girlfriend here. Some are the shots are with my Canon 18-135 kit lens.
what about Canon's 18-135?
Yeah. My next lens is probably gonna be a telephoto lens. But really, the one I got with my camera is better than the normal 18-55mm stock kit lens it normally comes with. This is the one I have. I got it in a bundle deal, as the camera normally doesn't come with that lens.
Well it's wide to normal to near telephoto. Not super long telephoto, but somewhat.
It's a good general purpose lens, it is widely available and will not cost a lot. It is actually probably exactly like the 35-80 on a full-frame film camera.
And here's a money-saving trick.
You can take an image and crop it to do the same as telephoto.
However, you cannot do anything to an image to make it "more wide angle".
If you really need a lens that does longer telephoto, I would add a 75-300, it will complement the 18-55.
Canon also makes lenses that do wide to more telephoto, like the 18-135 or the 18-200, but they are more money.
Here it is. One of those two is on my list of lenses to get for my D5100, but I'm a broke high schooler so it might be a while.
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-300mm-4-0-5-6-Digital-Cameras/dp/B003YH9DZE
Comparable to Nikon, about $100 cheaper after rebate. I might take a grey market Nikon 70-300VR if it were $300, though.
The Tamron 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 VC is great and you can get it used at the high end of your price range (e.g., US version, grey market version).
Yes, this: https://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-Ultra-Angle-Fixed-Built/dp/B004NNUN02/
I feel you on the dslr, I just bought this
when it was on sale the other day. More expensive to do than smoke and more addicting lol
Your best bet if you want to shoot the night sky at a budget is look for refurbished or used units (on the net - Amazon, Cameta, or your local classifieds.) From a very quick browse, if you want a dedicated night sky shooter, then the Nikon D3300 (refurb $295 from Cameta) and the Rokinon f2.8 14mm = 21mm equivalent ($279 new from Amazon) will let you take amazing night photos. The Nikon D3300 is a great low light shooter - large sensor, paired with a solid image processor. The Rokinon gives a large field of view (equivalent to 80° horizontal) and is fairly fast at f2.8. With this setup, all that's needed is you going to a nice location with little light pollution, snapping away in raw, and then maybe doing some required post-processing.
Also note that I've seen way better deals for the D3300 - seen it at $250 with Kit Lens after discounts and cashback, new, you might be able to find something like that with the Black Friday sales. If you need a more general purpose lens then the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 (~300 Amazon) is a great alternative to the Kit Lens - it's faster at f2.8 and slightly wider angle 25mm-75mm in 35mm equivalent. Also, you could look for an equivalent Canon DSLR (1200D from the top of my mind) with a similar lens. Good luck!
Edit: Also note that ultra wide angles <20mm are really expensive new. The 21mm will get you fantastic results, or if you want panoramas, then you might have to stitch pictures together - an entirely different topic!
I also have a D3100 and would recommend :
Rokinon 14mm F2.8 Ultra Wide Angle Lens with Automatic Chip for Nikon (Black) - currently $322.99
I used a Leica lens -- this one ... I really like it. Works great at night, and in low light. Daytime is excellent as long as there is some cloud coverage. When I shot this, I wasn't too lucky, so I had an ND filter on for most of the shots.
If you want a nice shallow DOF similar to the 35mm range you'll be wanting to look at the Panasonic Leica 15mm f/1.7 as the closest equivalent (30mm).
If you want 50mm, go for the Leica 25mm f/1.4.
The thing is that the GH5 has the 5 Axis IBIS like the GX85 / G85 series which means you can get some good footage on these lenses which have no stabilization on them.
If you want a full duty zoom go for the Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 II as the original version does have issues with aperture flickering while zooming.
The Leica lenses are notably sharp and provide a great amount of bokeh given how hard it is to get shallow depth of field on MFT.
You'll want to look for a Panasonic lens with a large aperture, and low focal length (<=50mm, f/2 or lower). A good candidate is the Panasonic Leica 25mm. On your camera, it would have an equivalent 50mm focal length, with an f/1.4 aperture. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like you have too much choice for low focal length, high-aperture lenses, so that Panasonic is probably your best bet.
The Panny 12-35 f2.8 is by far my most used lens, and it compliments your friend's 35-100 f2.8 nicely.
I also have the Panasonic 25mm f1.4 which is a great lens - there's no OIS, which is a downside for a lot of people but if you have a steady hand or a tripod you're ok. I use this a lot on weddings. You could by the 25mm f1.7 for sightly less.
The next lense I'll be buying is the Voightlander 10.5mm f0.95 - it's pricey but a fast wide lens is something I've been looking for for awhile on the m43 system. Voightlander has a variety of f0.95 prime lenses compatable with your sytem - I think a 25, 35, 50 and 80mm IIRC. Had I not alreaday had those focal lengths covered I may have picked one of those up too.
for only $80ish bucks this 9mm BLC (body lens cap) fisheye lens is awesome. Lot of people overlooking it. It's locked at f7 but that's not an issue since I am ususally shooting with it during the day or timelapsing with it in low light with a slowshutter (great for wedding or even timelapses - like this one of mine). I keep it on my camera instead of normal lens caps.
Similar I'd recommend looking into some older lenses and using an adapter. To cover my longer focal lengths I use an older Zeis 50mm f1.4 prime from my analog photography days - it's effectly 110mm with the crop factor.
For extremely cheap ($10-$50 bucks on ebay) you can buy c mount tv lenses. Almost all are f1.4 and have a real milky dream like look to them. They can be cool - check this video out for an example HERE. 16mm lenses can be converted aswell but they'll be way more money.
All my suggestions by the first two are fully manual lenses. That's not everyone's thing sometimes FYI, but I feel like those people are more from the photography side of things. I basically shoot the same stuff you do from the sounds of it - concerts, music vids, commercial stuff, weddings. etc.
I would have recommend the GF1 with 20mm f1.7 lens.
It is the reason for this: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/dont-be-ugly-by-accident/
Photos taken by a Panasonic camera were by far the most attractive. This is because they sold the camera with a prime lens as the "kit lens" (the first lens you get with the camera).
Prime lenses usually have a smaller f-number, which means they have a larger physical aperture.
The largeness of your aperture is directly proportional to what is in focus. The larger the aperture... the less stuff is in focus. Which is what you want in the photos that you described.
You can still buy a Panasonic or Olympus camera, and throw on the 20mm f1.7 lens, but none of their new cameras does not come pre-packaged with that lens anymore, and I don't think they're making any more GF1s.
The new kit lens is a 14mm f2.5 lens, which is still good, but won't have as blurry a background.
You can also get a compact camera to do it... but it will be more fiddly for you to do. (Whereas with the Lumix GF1 setup, almost all your photos will have that nice blurred background, without any fuss).
This is the successor to the GF1 - the GX1. It is the camera that I use to take photos like this.
The lens that you want is the 20mm f1.7 - The price fluctuates, but the cheapest you'll find it is for $300 used. It is a very popular lens because it is small, sharp, and fast (it lets light more light in).
If you can't find a cheap 20mm f1.7, the Leica 25mm f1.4 would be even better, and for not much more money. Leica is the Porsche of cameras. They're expensive, well made, and you don't see them on the street. (Nikon and Canon would be more like ford and toyota)
If you don't plan on processing your photos on your computer, Olympus Pens are better to use. They have better in-camera JPG processing. (I process my photos on my computer, so in-body processing does not matter to me)
There are wide variety of olympus micro four thirds cameras, from the cheapest interchangeable lens camera on the market - the E-PL1 ($270) to the semi-professional OMD EM-5 ($1300). I say semi-professional because it is not supported by professional services. (Canon and Nikon let you pay money for a service to get your lenses repaired faster and have loaner cameras etc. if you break your camera just before a job)
I recommend you get the E-PL1 with the kit zoom, and a 20mm f1.7 lens, or 25mm f1.4 lens. It is good to spend more money on your lenses than on your body, because after a few years, the body gets old and superseded by newer ones, but the lenses will always be good to use on your new cameras and can often be sold for close to the price you bought them for. The 20mm f1.7 lens was $300 a few years ago when it first came out, and it is still that price on the second hand market.
TL;DR, the features you're looking for is a large mm and low f-number. (25mm is better than 20mm AND f1.4 is better than f1.7).
Compact cameras are usually about 8mm f3.5
You could also get a canon or nikon dslr and throw on a 50mm f1.8 (costs about $120 for this lens)
Thank you so much! Do you mean this lens? http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-40mm-2-8G-Micro-NIKKOR/dp/B005C50H2Y/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1312470154&amp;sr=1-1
do you know why it's preorder only?
What kind of macro photography do you want to do? Generally, the smaller your subject, the longer the macro lens you want to use.
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-AF-S-Micro-NIKKOR-40mm-2-8G/dp/B005C50H2Y
Use a tripod. Your focus depth of field is determined by aperture. At close focus a wide aperture will have an extremely narrow depth of field. To get depth, you'll need to stop down which means less light, which means longer exposures - so get a decent tripod.
You don't need a manual-only lens - a decent automatic can just be put in manual mode like this 40mm Micro - it's automatic, but flip a switch on the lens and you can focus manually.
You could get the body only and get Nikon's 40mm Micro DX lens.
https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-AF-S-Micro-NIKKOR-40mm-2-8G/dp/B005C50H2Y
But as you said, unless you're getting like SUPER close, you may not really need a macro lens. Either way, that 40mm is super sharp at any focal length (I own one) and is a great general purpose lens. I use it occasionally as a walk-around lens.
The cheapest option would be to just add the kit lens to your purchase. I shot this with the 18-55 kit lens that came with the D3300: https://www.instagram.com/p/_2r6YBMSjd/
I have a D5600 as well. Here are some good lenses:
For filters, you'll want a CPL (Circular Polarizer/Linear) and either a set of ND filters or a variable stop one. Buy filters for your largest size lens and get step-down rings so they will work on your other lenses (rather than buying filters for each size lens you have).
I appreciate all the fast responses. I have researched a a bit and decided to go with these.
Macro Lens:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B005C50H2Y/ref=ox_sc_act_image_3?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&amp;psc=1
Uv lens:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00XNMWCF8/ref=ox_sc_act_image_1?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&amp;psc=1
Polarizer lens:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00XNMXNV0/ref=ox_sc_act_image_2?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&amp;psc=1
Camera:
https://www.ebay.com/p/Nikon-D3400-DSLR-Camera-Body-Only-black/886214437?iid=172511228968&amp;chn=ps&amp;ul_ref=https%253A%252F%252Frover.ebay.com%252Frover%252F1%252F711-117182-37290-0%252F2%253Fmpre%253Dhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.ebay.com%25252Fp%25252FNikon-D3400-DSLR-Camera-Body-Only-black%25252F886214437%25253Fiid%25253D172511228968%252526chn%25253Dps%2526itemid%253D172511228968%2526targetid%253D313776934696%2526device%253Dm%2526adtype%253Dpla%2526googleloc%253D9052898%2526poi%253D%2526campaignid%253D833559251%2526adgroupid%253D39417365901%2526rlsatarget%253Dpla-313776934696%2526abcId%253D1123856%2526merchantid%253D8567664%2526gclid%253DCjwKCAjwt5DXBRAtEiwAa3vyEijalntN16m4qbG8DRZvYmt-5wBg5dFSSbEBT5f7NBkTr8MSWfoBPhoCNgkQAvD_BwE%2526srcrot%253D711-117182-37290-0%2526rvr_id%253D1514306914752%2526rvr_ts%253D0f7ac2661630aad93b312adbfffe4164
Tripod:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/366230-REG/Nikon_822_Compact_Tripod_with_2_Way.html?ap=y&amp;c3api=1876%2C92051678402%2C%2C&amp;gclid=CjwKCAjwt5DXBRAtEiwAa3vyEpvng7_mfdC4T8JpbT4Q9RTy9EbGakAcC4xrgV7FQjh9FnJOUU6KvRoCb-AQAvD_BwE
Will this be sufficient for this use? Any recommendation other assessories that would be helpful?
Maybe desperadow meant this one?
I started off with the Olympus E-PL5 to test the mirrorless waters then jumped to the Olympus OM-D E-M10 after about a couple years. So take this advice for what it's worth /u/CarlyleCasper . I'll throw some links to Amazon for you as references.
First figure out your budget. Your camera body and lenses should be two separate decisions on how you're going to spend your money. You can blow through a lot of $$$ trying to figure out what works for you because there are tons of bodies & lenses to choose from.
For the camera..... I suggest you go to a physical store where you can fingerbang a couple different cameras that you're considering. Play with the controls, see how easy it is to work the settings, etc. Depending on where you're located, that could range from easy to difficult to downright impossible (if you're in a rural area). I ended up going with the E-M10 not based on the specs of the camera, but how it ended up feeling & ease of use. In my opinion, unless you're after certain capabilities in a body, the minutiae on the specs of all the cameras tend to all blur into one another.
For the lens/lenses..... Again, your budget may come into play here. You've got a choice between zoom or primes. Everyone will tell you different things: zooms are more versatile, primes are sharper, zooms let you carry one lens for all sorts of shots you could run into, primes force you to concentrate on composition, etc etc etc. All those arguments are valid, and yet they all carry different weight with different people.
If you don't want to spend a lot of $$$ on lenses right away, I'd say get kit lenses like the Olympus 14-42mm and the Olympus 40-150mm then shoot with them for a while so you can figure out what focal lengths you use the most. That way if you decide to try some prime lenses later, you already have a reference of what focal lengths you've shot with most often as a way to figure out which primes you may be interested in.
Me personally, I have a good zoom Panasonic Lumix 12-35mm f/2.8 that is just about permanently attached to my E-M10. It probably gets the most use out of all the lenses I owned the past several years and it's a great little "walk-about" lens for me. And believe me, I went through lenses (mostly primes, buying & selling used to save $$$) playing around to see which I liked the best. Along with the 12-35mm zoom, I have a Bower 7.5mm f/2.8 fisheye lens and a Panasonic Lumix45-150mm telephoto zoom in my camera bag all the time. I also still have the E-PL5 but I mostly use it with all the retro legacy lenses (manual focus stuff) that I like to play around with.
Hopefully this was helpful and not overwhelming. :-)
Just wanna point out that you can actually get the Oly 40-150 new for $99 (it's technically "on sale" right now).
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0066J6EOU/
I say "technically" because looking at a price chart, it's spent half it's life on sale, you just gotta wait for the right moment (and they come often).
If you do stay with the 14-42 you'll probably also want a longer zoom. I just noticed this Olympus 40-150 is on sale for $99 right now.
I've got a Cannon T3i and assuming your kit lens doesn't get bashed in by Delta Airlines baggage handlers like mine was your next best lens should either be a 50mm or in my case I've been considering This baby. Keep an eye on lens release dates too because if something has been on the market for a long time it could be possible that the new version is about to come out and you can pick up previous iterations for cheap. I got my 50mm f1.4 for pretty cheap that way however the new lens that came out replaced the old f1.8 at the time.
Another good source for gear is craigslist since a lot of old film camera lenses and most of the gear will work on DSLR bodies. Unfortunately the lenses won't have auto focus or image stabilization but if you are taking scenery shots or pictures of things not moving they can be great.
Lastly if you are looking to get all fancy with your pictures you might want to consider buying a copy of Lightroom or signing up for Adobe's subscription service for Photoshop+Lightroom for about ten bucks a month. Personally for my value I just bought the straight license instead of the Creative Cloud because I can go a few months between actually needing the software.
Are there any difference between the two?
https://www.amazon.com/Tamron-24-70mm-2-8-USD-Canon/dp/B007RKL1KE/ref=sr_1_2?s=photo&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1491638136&amp;sr=1-2&amp;keywords=24-70
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-24-70mm-2-8L-Standard-Zoom/dp/B0076BNK30/ref=sr_1_3?s=photo&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1491638136&amp;sr=1-3&amp;keywords=24-70
You should have labeled this as an AMA at this point, thanks for the answers though man. you're a good OP.
I've got one question left though, is the amount of investigation based solely on price? for instance would [a $2000 camera lens] (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-24-70mm-2-8L-Standard-Zoom/dp/B0076BNK30/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1421285964&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=canon+24-70+f2.8&amp;pebp=1421287169245&amp;peasin=B0076BNK30) come under less or more scrutiny than a macbook pro in your opinion? Obviously you don't work for amazon, but you seem to be more knowledgeable about this than most so I'll trust your judgement.
Are you trying to do a baby photoshoot for someone or taking pictures of your own baby and kids?
For the 7Dm2, I'd strongly consider the [17-55mm f/2.8 IS] (https://smile.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-Lens-Cameras/dp/B000EW8074). In theory, I love prime lenses... but I'm taking candid pictures of my kids most of the time and rarely have any time to position myself correctly. Being able to zoom in and out right then is fantastic. I <3 the [24-70mm f/2.8L II] (https://smile.amazon.com/Canon-24-70mm-2-8L-Standard-Zoom/dp/B0076BNK30) on my 5Dm4 and even when I used it on my 7Dm2, wish I'd known about this lens when my 7Dm2 was my primary. I picked one up to just keep on it a month or three ago.
Broken down:
I will end on this note: You like these videos because they are well shot, well composed, and well edited. I could hand you the best camera system in the world and you're going to make a shitty video if you don't know how to use it. Whereas I could hand a great cinematographer a crappy camera and he'd make something awesome. It's more about what you shoot than what you shoot with. With that in mind, the GH5 is fucking awesome (I just got mine) and it's a great tool to learn on and grow with.
> I was planning on getting the kit lens and then buying a cheap non electronic adapter for Canon lenses, is this a good idea or would it just be cheaper to go m4/3?
The electronic features in the lens, like aperture control and focus, won't work without that electronic connection, so it's pretty much worthless. You can buy a not as dumb adapter with manual iris adjustment, but as someone who bought one, waste of money and not efficient. If you don't even have a camera that will let you adjust the canon lenses apertures as wide open as possible in the first place, then you're completely wasting your time and money. The trick is to set them as wide open as possible and then use the dumb adapters adjustment abilities.
You pretty much have to buy the metabones adapter if you want the functionality of the ef lenses on a m/43 mount. They currently retail for around $650 for the adapter. I know they are awesome and people will swear by them, but the price is more than most lenses available for m/43 systems.
I agree with u/CameraRollSoundSpeed in regards to ef lenses being more useful in the long run, but budget restrictions are very really. I still stand by my recommendation of the Panasonic 2.8 12-35mm as the best overall lens you can get for for m/43 cameras for the price.
https://www.amazon.com/PANASONIC-12-35mm-Professional-Mirrorless-H-HS12035/dp/B00843ERMW
Dig on ebay and you can probably pay around $500 for the lens.
I would start with the PANASONIC LUMIX G X Vario Lens, 12-35mm, F2.8 for ~$700. MFT makes this more like the 35-70mm Canon EF for focal/zoom range. Plus when shooting 1080 video you can use the digital zoom (accesses the full 4k sensor) which makes it act like a 70-200mm lens. So you can get a lot out of one lens.
Next I would look at the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO for ~$1.1k. this would be for a wide fisheye lens if you do steady cam stuff.
Remember all cameras and lenses are just tools. You're the one that makes your content great. Those are my recommendations, good luck.
EDIT: added links.
Hmm... not a very easy question. If you've got a good manual focus game, you might wanna look at old canon FD lenses or Nikon AI(s) lenses along with an adapter. I do the same with M42 lenses, but those really are a hit or miss, so that's only if you wanna risk getting some good and some shitty lenses. There are some notoriously bad M42 lenses, while the Canikon family is almost guaranteed smooth and sharp enough for video.
If you want a modern lens, you can look at something like the G vario 14-42mm or if you want to spend more, the 14-140mm is a real do-it-all. Be sure to get the non-power zoom version for the first lens (it has an X in the name), and if you get the 14-140mm, the second version (f/3.5-5.6) is a whole lot better than the first (f/4-5.8). I've always underestimated kit zooms until I got a chance to use mft kit lenses. There are some really good ones.
I've fucked about with the 20mm 1.7 longer than necessary, great for pictures, borderline masochism for video. I'm selling it and getting the glorious 12-35mm 2.8 second hand.
Thanks, most of it was shot with the Lumix 12-25mm. I have a full gear list here too
The sensor is the same for all of nikons cameras in the D3xxx range, even the d5xxx are the same.
When it comes to the final product your lense is going to be way way way way way more important than the camera body itself.
That being said If I were in your position I would find a used D3300 body or buy it cheap on black Friday. If you can do that, then get yourself a prime lense like the 35mm or 50mm f/1.8. The image quality will be like night and day. I found my 50mm for $100 on Craigslist.
If you really want zoom or primes sound too restrictive then get a Sigma 17-55 f/2.8. It's around $250 new but well worth it. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003A6NU3U/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_9Sn7BbX57NZK7
If you want to spend a little more and get INSANE image quality get a Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 for around $600. It's like a zooming prime, the only one of its kind and its phenomenal when it works. Chances are you'll have to spend some time calibrating it. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DBL09FG/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_1Qn7BbP45FKSJ
Good luck.
While this isn’t a Black Friday deal, I found it. I could save a little if I don’t get the bundle and I just get the lens
Thank you so much for responding.
&#x200B;
It was this Sony lens: https://www.amazon.com/Sony-SELP18105G-PZ-18-105mm-OSS/dp/B00ENZRQH8 , which I do my best to keep the firmware updated on, same with the a6500 body. Hence the frustration here. Especially at 4Fstop and ideal filming conditions all-around. In hindsight I should have pushed for more time to get manual-focus ready in that space.
&#x200B;
I don't mind some sacrifices on quality but the pulsing seems like a very fixable issue. I must be doing something wrong. I need to explore this subreddit further too as it relates to Sony's focusing options.
&#x200B;
Interestingly, I totally agree with you on the Sigma 30mm art lens being junk with the a6500...at least with video. It's utterly useless on a gimbal because it seems a half second short on communication with the body. Never will go non-Sony again.
Get the Sony G 18-105 F/4 it’s about $600 but you can sometimes get it on sale!!
Edit:
Here’s a amazon link,
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-SELP18105G-PZ-18-105mm-OSS/dp/B00ENZRQH8/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?crid=3MLUSXZTVZEZA&amp;keywords=18-105+sony+e+mount&amp;qid=1550415503&amp;s=gateway&amp;sprefix=18-105&amp;sr=8-3
Besides the closer minimum focal distance, is there any reason to buy this lens over this one?
Thanks!
I actually got mine brand new, many many years ago. It was the first real camera I ever actually owned, so we have a long history together. It's treated me well for a very long time and I've grown to really enjoy shooting with it.
If you're looking for a cheap EF lens I would recommend this one. It says it's for shooting digital, but I use it for both.
Okay, here is a better list, sorry for the mess:
Flash -- around $65.
Transmitter --around $35
Light stand + umbrella + flash bracket // around $30. I got this one used for $20 on Amazon. There are different ones and with different quality.
Canon 24mm f/2.8 -- around $150
Canon 50mm f/1.8 -- around $110.
Also, Yongnuo makes their version of the 50mm ($50), the 35mm ($88) and some others. I can only vouch for the 50mm, I either got a great copy or it is just great.
vast majority were shot with this cheapo actually haha
http://www.amazon.com/YONGNUO-YN50mm-F1-8-Aperture-Camera/dp/B00QEXM4YC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1450236120&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=50mm+yongnuo
half the price of the already cheap canon version.
And the camera was a t3 for all but one, which is worth less than 100 now
50mm is very nice for portrait-style photography on an APS-C camera--shallow depth of field with great bokeh. It can feel rather 'zoomed in', though, especially indoors. A 24mm lens is pretty versatile indoors, and the Canon STM lets you get in real close if you want. Bear in mind, you can buy a third party 50mm for only $53 if you're feeling noncommittal. I own it and it's quite nice for the price.
get a 50mm 1.8 from canon or this one https://www.amazon.com/YONGNUO-YN50mm-Standard-Aperture-Canon/dp/B00QEXM4YC/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1526851994&amp;sr=8-3&amp;keywords=Yongnuo&amp;dpID=4184rTci0eL&amp;preST=_SX300_QL70_&amp;dpSrc=srch
Same thing as santhonyl but cheaper third party version
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00QEXM4YC/ref=mp_s_a_1_5?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1502897239&amp;sr=8-5&amp;pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&amp;keywords=canon+50mm+1.8&amp;dpPl=1&amp;dpID=4184rTci0eL&amp;ref=plSrch
Sigma 33B965 30 mm F1.4 DC DC Sony E-Mount-Black https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01C3SCKI6/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_srIUBb8DW4S6D
When buying lenses specifically made for crop sensors, do you still have to convert the focal length and aperture from the full frame equivalent? E.g. if I were to get a Sigma 30mm f1.4 for a Sony a6xxx would it look like 30mm or would it look like 46mm (30*1.53)?
If not does that mean it would have a wider focal length if mounted on a full frame camera?
You have an a6000. Invest in a decent flash and a diffuser and learn to use them. Since you're talking about portraiture, you need a flash, especially if there's no/little ambient light. Even in brighter light a flash can be very useful. There are a LOT of youtube videos on using flashes that can help you out.
Note, the video linked above is A: not mine, he's a guy who does a lot of good gear reviews for Sony APS-C gear, and B: is a decent, yet inexpensive, flash, you can go up in price from there.
Also, you never mentioned what lens you're using. Assuming you're just using the 16-50mm kit lens, invest in a good fast lens for the kind of photos you're describing. The Sigma lenses are fantastic and a great value for the a6000 series cameras. I absolutely LOVED the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. They also make fast 16mm and 56mm lenses for e-mount APS-C cameras that should be just as good as the 30mm is.
Finally, after all that, the a6000 isn't the best low-light, it's an older sensor, so it's not going to be as good as an a6400 or a6500, but it does do well. IMO it's only good up to ISO 3200, beyond that it gets grainy.
https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-30mm-F1-4-Contemporary-Lens/dp/B01C3SCKI6
Sony 50mm F1.8 is supposed to be bokeh heaven and is $300.
If you want a wider focal length, you can get the Sigma 30mm for $289.
I switched from m4/3 to the sony a6500.
It has its flaws, for sure.
I've taken some really great photos with it, huge improvement, miles better than with my old m4/3. I mean its triple the price, so I hope it would be better. I bought it with the sigma 30mm f1.4. So far besides how much the body costs and the few flaws I do love it. and the auto focus is SO GOOD.
Not gonna lie, I have had second thoughts of "I coulda bought a gh4/g85 and used the extra money to buy so much other stuff" so consider that.
I'm still an amateur, but I now understand why the GH5 would be the better camera for professional work. It has everything.
Any other canon lens you're looking for. I have this for sale
&#x200B;
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-24-70mm-2-8L-Standard-Zoom/dp/B0076BNK30/ref=sr_1_3?crid=2GQIC7I0NH1RP&keywords=canon+24-70mm+f+2.8l+ii+usm&qid=1566326388&s=gateway&sprefix=canon+24-7%2Caps%2C136&sr=8-3
Just fyi, $500 is cheap for a lens. Professional lenses come in closer to the $1500 range.
Canon 24-70 f/2.8L - $1,599
Sony FE 85mm f/1.4 GM - $1,798
Nikon AF-S FX NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E - $1,897
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0076BNK30/ref=mp_s_a_1_fkmr3_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1511110534&amp;sr=8-1-fkmr3&amp;pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&amp;keywords=canon+24-70+2.8+non+is
Hap hap hello there! I am a bot and you linked to Amazon.
This comment contains 2 pricing graph(s)
____
Product 1: JVC GY-LS300CHU Ultra 4K HD 4KCAM Super 35 Pro Camcorder &amp; Top Handle Audio Unit (B00USBVISE)
Imgur pricing graph
||Amazon|3P New|Used|
|--:|:--|:--|:--|
|Cur||$2,595.00|$500.00|
|Hi||$3,495.00|$2,525.00|
|Lo||$1,454.75|$1.00|
|Avg||$2,656.56|$1,333.67|
____
Product 2: PANASONIC LUMIX G X Vario Lens, 12-35mm, F2.8 ASPH., Professional Mirrorless Micro Four Thirds, POWER Optical I.S. H-HS12035 (USA BLACK) (B00843ERMW)
Imgur pricing graph
||Amazon|3P New|Used|
|--:|:--|:--|:--|
|Cur|$997.99|$997.99|$570.00|
|Hi|$1,299.99|$1,299.00|$1,207.22|
|Lo|$629.99|$420.00|$400.00|
|Avg|$789.75|$759.29|$605.26|
_____
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot. ^^Please ^^PM ^^any ^^bugs
The panny 12-35:
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-H-HS12035-LUMIX-12-35mm-Series/dp/B00843ERMW
Its pricy, but really nice (from my limited use). Also take a look at this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-Lumix-Micro-SUMMILUX-Aspherical/dp/B0055N2L22/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1412097703&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=25+f1.4
Not sure which lens is gonna work best for my webcam setup but I'm getting these two lenses...
PANASONIC LUMIX G X Vario Lens, 12-35mm, F2.8 ASPH., Professional Mirrorless Micro Four Thirds, POWER Optical I.S. H-HS12035 (USA BLACK) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00843ERMW/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_jTP4ybHPHN28Z
Panasonic LUMIX G X VARIO Professional Lens, Mirrorless Micro Four Third Mount, POWER Optical I.S., 35-100mm, Black (H-HSA35100) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MU3WOVP/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_HVP4ybAJJ3C61
I'll be mounting the camera with a Rode swivel arm and a a ball head
RODE PSA1 Swivel Mount Studio Microphone Boom Arm https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001D7UYBO/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_yZP4ybGXX0XX2
Pergear Heavy Duty Photography Camera Tripod Ball Head 360 Degree Fluid Rotation Tripod Ballhead https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00MGJH5U6/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_g0P4yb3BM7EYH
If you want Zooms:
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-H-HS12035-LUMIX-12-35mm-Series/dp/B00843ERMW/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pd_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&amp;colid=1YYV5B7Z6HUSO&amp;coliid=I3B3Q8L277YQ6V
or if you can wait
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&amp;sku=967345&amp;Q=&amp;is=REG&amp;A=details with a metabones adapter
If you want primes http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rokinon-Cine-Lens-Set-for-Nikon-85mm-T1-5-14mm-T3-1-35mm-T1-5-24mm-T1-5-/330920968971?pt=Camera_Lenses&amp;hash=item4d0c6d430b
with an adapter.
Youre gonna want a ton of batteries.
Looking for some feedback on my lens setup (researching before I save/drop lots of money):
Panasonic LUMIX G X Vario 12-35mm f/2.8 link
Panasonic LUMIX G Leica DG Summilux 15mm f/1.7 link
Olympus Zuiko EC-20 2x Teleconverter link
With the converter have I got the majority of my bases covered? I enjoy shooting architectural, candid portraiture, nature/outdoors, sports, low light/long exp. I'm hoping to get this down to a compact but functional travel setup.
For the curious I'm shooting on the Olympus OM-D EM5 (MFT) so don't forget to double the focal lengths when considering.
What do I need to know about degradation of image quality/sharpness with converters?
As a Youtuber who's invested in the wrong gear before the right gear, here's a quality list that I've found works for my needs and will likely be great for you.
Camera
Panasonic GH4: This is a great camera that shoots 4K. If you are shoot in 4K, downscale to 1080p, you have the option to reframe and zoom into a closer shot without losing quality. It has a flip out screen so you can see yourself, focus peaking to show you on screen if you're in focus, and can record longer clips (in select modes) than the Canon T3i to make syncing easier. This camera is also great for when you want to deliver in 4K one day.
$1699
AC Power adapter: No worrying about batteries for the indoor shooting. $20
Lens
Panasonic 12-35mm: Versatile lens that gives you great range. $1000
14-42 kit lens: Cheaper alternative. $120
Audio
Zoom H4N: Great recorder for your mics. Monitor each mic's level independently. $250
Rode NTG-2: Shotgun mic. $270
Sennheiser Wireless Lav: Expensive, but great quality. $640
Audio Technica ATR-3350s: Cheap corded lavs with long wires. $30
You'll need one long XLR cable, a light stand to use for the boom, and some kind of shotgun mic shock mount. $60 for all.
Lighting
3-light softbox kit: Great kit, been using it for a year with no issues. I don't use the over head light, as I don't have the space. I can use the light stand to boom or for another light. $170
Neewer CN-160: Small LED light to help light certain situations or to use as a hair light. $30
Tripod
Manfrotto Tripod w/Fluid Head: Great set up, worth the investment, but there are cheaper alternatives. $350
Memory Card
64GB Sandisk Extreme Pro: Great card which will allow for smooth 4K recording. $100
____
If you have any questions about any of this gear, let me know and good luck with everything!
I've thought about that one, but the one I've had my eye on is the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 Art just because I've heard it comes highly recommended. Although the Nikon lens is far cheaper and I don't mind it being prime. I think for the price difference I might just go with the Nikon lens instead unless someone can give me a compelling reason to go with the Sigma.
Well the best regardless of price for crop lenses, everything else I can find in that focal range is, at best, f/3.5.
If you don't want to get as wide as that there's also the $800 Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 Art. It's sharpest DX lens from what I've read, but I've also heard issues with focus calibration with it.
The Sigma Art 18-35mm f/1.8 is what I would get, although that would stretch your budget a bit.
You could get 2 f/1.8 prime lenses (35mm + 85mm maybe), depends on what you like to shoot. If you like wide-angle shots, Tokina makes a few wide-angle zooms in the 10-20mm range that are worth their money.
Hey! thanks for replying.
I've read that as well haha, Sigma 18-35 f.18 got it. Is there any significant difference between the nikkor lens and the sigma lens though? Nikon costs 650$ and Sigma costs $800
This is confusing...
I know this Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 exceeds your price, but it is a dream of a lens and much better image quality than the Sigma you posted. Shorter zoom range, but very sharp and great low-light capabilities. I'd say it's worth saving a bit more. It would be amazing for street photography and would really serve you well in difficult lighting (like indoors).
Thanks for the replies.
For a multi-purpose/general photo shoot, I wanted to avoid having to carry around a lot of lenses, but it sounds like the 18-300 might not be ideal. It sounds like the 70-300 would probably be a better lens for image sharpness at high zooms. For wide-angle shots, I do have a Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens, which I think performs fairly well.
If I might want to take shots at varying zoom ranges, I'm wondering if it would be practical to carry the 18-140, 70-300, and 18-35 all together.. Perhaps I'd opt to carry 2 of them so I'm not so loaded down.
Landscape and portraiture are completely different with respect to lens needs. Here's some thoughts, but get ready to open your wallet.
Landscapes will be the Sigma 16mm F1.4 DC DN Contemporary https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0783J5BWP/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_XKeHDbA4H058S
Portraiture would be good with with the 50mm F1. 8 OSS Sony https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00EPWC30O/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_6MeHDbSH3FX9K
You'll be served well with the excellent Sony 24-105 G PZ OSS if you want a single travel companion. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ENZRQH8/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_bIeHDbD47B6XM
Thanks, is this the one you're referring to https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-SELP18105G-Mount-APS-C-18-105/dp/B00ENZRQH8/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8
Sony. get the A6500 and a sony lens. Maybe the 18-105 F4 if you really want that focal length coverage. That lens isint going to be great for low light but the 6500 is a low light beast. If you really need that fast glass you could go with the sony 35mm f1.8. In my opinion Sony is where its at right now, super portable and blowing anything in its price range out of the water!
It all depends on how close you can get to the action. There aren't many great telephoto lens for the E-Mount system so you'll have to look at third party lenses. Since the a6000 is APS-C, you can take good photos with this 50mm f/1.8 if they're close enough but you definitely won't be able to get tight shots unless they're literally right in front of you. You could definitely use this 15-105 f/4 if the field is lit well, but you'd have to bump your ISO up a bit. But sports at f/4 with a APS-C sensor is definitely pushing it.
I'm in the same situation and unfortunately there aren't a ton of options, especially if your budget is $400. I think the only thing that fits your budget would be the SEL1855 18-55mm kit zoom. Brand new it's $300 but you can get a gray market / white box for a little over $100 on ebay.
Otherwise, you're looking at $600 for the Tamron or $750 for the Sony 18-200mm or $600 for the Sony 18-105mm.
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-SELP18105G-PZ-18-105mm-OSS/dp/B00ENZRQH8
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-SEL35F18-35mm-Prime-Fixed/dp/B0096W1P5W/ref=pd_sim_421_4?_encoding=UTF8&amp;pd_rd_i=B0096W1P5W&amp;pd_rd_r=M6Y227QVTB5Q0BMV9FGS&amp;pd_rd_w=ogf56&amp;pd_rd_wg=Qx7dq&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=M6Y227QVTB5Q0BMV9FGS
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-SEL50F18-Mount-Cameras-Black/dp/B00EPWC30O/ref=pd_sim_421_10?_encoding=UTF8&amp;pd_rd_i=B00EPWC30O&amp;pd_rd_r=M6Y227QVTB5Q0BMV9FGS&amp;pd_rd_w=ogf56&amp;pd_rd_wg=Qx7dq&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=M6Y227QVTB5Q0BMV9FGS
Yeah not sure, here is the price history on Amazon.
You mean the aperture? Why is that?
And no not temperature, it feels like it's getting jarred slightly and i'm just surprised that it would be that easy for it to change the focus like there should be more resistance, I'm thinking
And it's this lens: https://www.amazon.com/YONGNUO-YN50mm-Standard-Aperture-Canon/dp/B00QEXM4YC Yongnuo 50mm f1.8, maybe this should teach me not to buy an off-brand lens?
This is $50, with an 80mm equivalent on a crop. You can get some good results from it.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00QEXM4YC/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_jdghAbXGEFMB4
You really need to define "something cheap" for this crowd.
For example the 70-200 F4L is described as "cheap" (and it totally is cheap.... relatively), but $600 for a lens ($470ish used) if the $300 body is a stretch may not seem "cheap" to you.
As other's have said the 50mm is your best bang for buck. If every $$ is critical you may save an a bit on a used older MK II version which isn't as good or as quiet but on the 5D may be just as fine. If you want to go really cheap YONGNUO has a 50mm F1.8 for $50 new. Going with a name like Yongnuo can be scary (compared to canon) but the 50mm (unlike the other yongnuo knock offs) gets good reviews by users on amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00QEXM4YC/
If you want some more flexibility, a bit more reach, and a cheap price, something like the much derided, gets no respect, 70-300 can be had for $100ish used/refurbished or you can get tamron/sigma version for $100-$200. You'll get the flexibility of a zoom and you can get some decent pictures (in good light) with the 5D.
Other lens to consider are the 85mm F1.8 ($350ish new) and the 100mm F2.8 USM ($600 new but $300ish used). These may be a bit better for traditional portraits as the 50mm is a bit wide for that use. Like the 50mm they both deliver a lot of bang for the $$.
Unfortunately on the wide end it's a bit more challenging: The 40mm is not much wider than the 50 and goes for $200ish. Even at that price and the slower speed it's a fine alternative to the 50mm . The old version of the 35mm/F2 still goes for $200 used as does the 24mm F2.8. YONGNUO has a 35mm F2 knockoff that sells for $90 but reviews are fairly meh. For a wide/normal zoom the 28-70 F35-45 for $100ish is probably the best bang for your buck but here are a slew of other options in that range (35-80, 30-80 etc) that may be worth researching:
http://www.opticallimits.com/Reviews/187-canon-ef-28-70mm-f35-45-ii-test-report--review
Consider adding a flash to your kit. The low-light AF/performance on the 5D is abysmal but with a flash equipped with an AF assist lamp/beam it improves greatly. I use a 580EX (Version 1 sells used for $100ish) but there are some 3rd party knock offs that may work just as well for a few less $$. The 580EX AF asssit lamp is really.... gentle. It paints your target with faint red stripes that are so great compared to the blinding white light or blinding strobe used for AF assist on other cameras.
The 5D is fun but it can be really challenging. One thing I did not realize when I first started using the camera is that there are two different "on" positions and the camera behaves differently depending on which one is selected. I was driving myself crazy, thinking I had a defective model "It just worked a few minutes ago!"
Also check on the status of the mirror repair for the 5D you are buying. It's a known issue and if it has not been repaired using the original canon repair kit (no longer available) it may fail. Mine failed after a month and the vendor fixed it but for me and since then has been fine. (knock on wood) but as it's not the genuine canon repair with the re-enforced mount I figure it will fail again, hopefully not before I get my $300 worth out of the camera.
https://petapixel.com/2015/05/13/canon-warns-the-original-5d-may-suffer-from-mirror-separation/
I used a cheap 50mm to get this photo last weekend that's similar
https://i.imgur.com/adTHYJg.jpg
&#x200B;
This $45 one to be exact: Yongnuo 50mm
From reading the other comments I'm guessing you don't so I would either get a used camera or use your phone. The budget of yours is quite limiting to fit in audio, lighting and a decent camera however it may work if you get a slightly older camera.
I would get the t3i body only which you can get at an average of $300. This has an articulating screen, good for interviews, and is still a good beginner camera years on from when it was released. The lens I would get is the YONGYUO YN50mm f.18 which is an cheap autofocus lens at a fixed distance to achieve the best quality.
For microphones I would reccommend the Takstar SGC-598 which is really cheap and surprisingly good. You can put this on a mic stand and get it as close to both the interviewer and the interviewee for the best sound. You will then need a wire to connect it to the camera. However if you have extra money you can save up for a Zoom h1 which you plug the mic into and it records seperately for better audio.
All in all this kit will cost you $500 for just the audio and no lighting. This would cost you about $50 extra for softboxes however if you shoot in daylight it will be much easier and require less lighting.
Another kit you could try is using your phone for video and then buying just audio and lighting. For this I would get the Rode Videomic Pro, the Zoom h1, a mic stand, a softbox lighting kit (2 lights) and any other things like memory cards etc. This would cost you around $400.
YONGNUO YN50mm F1.8 Standard Prime Lens Large Aperture Auto Focus Lens For Canon EF Mount Rebel DSLR Camera https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00QEXM4YC/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_.YCtybX997SSW
Found a few YouTube reviews that said it was a better lens
Ultra low budget option if you're using Canon :
https://www.amazon.com/YONGNUO-YN50mm-Standard-Aperture-Canon/dp/B00QEXM4YC/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=50mm+1.8&amp;qid=1554167516&amp;s=gateway&amp;sr=8-3
$47.97
Most of the reviews on amazon cite the Sigma 30mm 1.4 purple chroma fringing problem, so keep that in mind if you think you can tolerate that.
>Noted! Obviously I need to do much more studying considering when I search for 30mm and 35mm lenses I get lenses that range from $75 to $3000 with obviously a variety of different technical details. Is there one of each you would reccomend on a tighter budget (sub $250 new - if that's even doable) so I can do a little reverse digging while I watch some videos/read guides? I think for the moment there is way too much information floating around in my head like others have said can easily happen. I definitely just need to get out and take some pictures.
They are talking about the sigma 30 1.4 DC DN for sony e mount (Amazon link) and the sony 35mm 1.8 for sony e mount (Amazon link). The sigma is about $330 new and the sony is $450, although you can usually find them slightly cheaper used.
The sub $200 30mm/35mm lenses are usually older manual focus lenses. These are cheap, but have no autofocus and usualy require an adapter to be used with sony (The sony you have uses e mount so make sure any lenses you buy are for e mount). There are converters from various mounts to the E mount that can allow you to use these other lenses. Some are very cheap so thats an option if you ever want to play around with different lenses. These are harder to use though since you need to manually focus every shot and may not give you the same photo quality as the newer modern lenses do.
The more expensive lenses are usually for for full frame cameras (bigger sensor than the camera you have). The Sony full frame mount is FE instead of E and while the actual mount is the same so you can use FE lenses on your camera, it's not really worth it since those are more expensive and usually bigger and heavier and designed for a larger sensor.
Sigma 30mm F1.4 Contemporary DC DN Lens for Sony E https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01C3SCKI6/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_h7GrzbY92XXKK
Sure! https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01C3SCKI6/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_apa_i_.DEKDbREA5EDY
The seller was PIXIBYTES.
I'm looking for a lens that will give me shots most similar to my favorite photographer: Cameron Hammond. I have a Sony a7 iii and I'm torn between the Sony 35mm f1.8 and the Sigma 30mm f1.4. Any tips?
Hey!
New-ish hobbyist here. For a tele lens, I'm currently using an old Vivitar 80-200 from the 80's adapted onto my Canon T3. Inherited it, and I'm having a ton of fun with it.
Only thing is, when it comes to wildlife photography (particularly birds), I always find I'm lacking a bit of range, and the lack of autofocus is particularly noticeable. I found a bird park of sorts nearby that I really want to take advantage of, but I'm somewhat lacking in funds right now.
I've been keeping an eye on the Canon EF 75-300 4-5.6 III on Amazon.ca (I'm in Canada), and it's dropped in price by 10% since I've been following it. I know it's the cheapest of the Canon tele lenses, but... thoughts?
Should I wait for it to be cheaper? Is it an okay lens? Or should I try another brand of lenses instead?
Last thing I want is something that I'll grow out of quite soon, so I want to make sure I'm making the right purchase.
I would head to my number one vacation spot that I have wanted to go to. Alaska. I would look to rent a cabin in the woods somewhere very dark so I can enjoy the stars and the silence. Something with a campfire pit, water close by to go fishing, hopefully a dock and a row boat, and maybe a hammock. Do some bird watching, nature walking, take piles of photos, roast marshmallows. Just get away from people, away from technology, and just relax. Of course, I would have to bring my wife. As much as I would like to bring my kids I think I would see if they could stay at my parents house. just some alone time for my wife and I to lay under the stars together.
I would bring this Lens for my camera. I would want to get the best pictures I can and sometimes that always is't possible with a regular lens.
Haha you're right, it can be overwhelming. You should be warned that photography equipment can get pretty damn expensive. This is the lens I have, it goes for $200 but like I said I got a deal on it. $200 may sound expensive for just a lens but it really is the low end of the spectrum.
You may also be interested in this link, which shows you what different focal lengths do to a shot.
Edit: It should also be noted that the T3i has a crop sensor, so focal length values are skewed slightly, but that's next-level shit and you can read up on that on your own if interested.
I got a "deal" at Target where I got the Canon 75-300 mm telephoto for $100 when I bought my body. I've seen other people say it doesn't have great optics, but come on it's $100. It takes decent quality pictures if you know how to operate your camera. There is no built-in IS though, so either shoot during the day or use a tripod.
Honestly, 99/100 of the pictures I take are with the kit lens and I'd recommend on holding off for now unless you're doing sport or nature photography.
As for figuring out how "far away" you can see, try reading through the Photoclass that was on reddit a few months ago. It's got some great information about what focal length means in terms of images.
A 75-300 4-5.6 costs around $150.
Difference between these 2 lenses? Would the 75 - 300mm be a good beginner zoom lense or is there something out there for about $300 that is better?
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras (Bulk Packaging)
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-III-Telephoto-Packaging/dp/B003MOHM0C/ref=sr_1_1?s=photo&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=undefined&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=canon+lenses
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-75-300mm-4-5-6-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00004THD0/ref=sr_1_6?s=photo&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=undefined&amp;sr=1-6&amp;keywords=canon+lenses
Un 75-300 de Canon, de esa linea que son baratos pero funcan bien con las Rebels (T6i tengo yo).
Tengo el stock, el tele y uno para retrato que es una bomba.
Hello all,
I have some Lens questions.
I recently bought a new camera Sony Ax 6000. The kit came with a E 3.5-5.6 16-50mm lens and E 4.5-6.3 55-210mm lens. I'm trying to find out if I can use my old lenses from my Dads Canon. From my understanding they are a lot better then the Sony lenses I currently have. Is there some conversion kit I can pick up or is it not worth it and I should just buy better Sony lenses. Or since the old camera is a dslr those lenses wont work on a mirror less?
It is an EOS 20D Canon.
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-85mm-Medium-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00007GQLU
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-75-300mm-4-5-6-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00004THD0
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-3-5-5-6-Lens/dp/B000V5K3FG
Really appreciate the help. Thank You
Lens one, two, and three. Two came with the package when I bought the camera as a deal at Best Buy, the other one (the 18-55) I bought used off of Amazon. 85% of the time I just use the 18-135mm anyway.
I would by a buy a body (canon) and an entry level telephoto 75-300mm usm. I would start out cheap like I did and then buy better lens once you get a hang of it. Here is some pictures I have taken so far with that lens: photos
>Just a bit over the top there. If you have the money, drive a Ferrari, but that doesn't mean that no one ought to ever drive a Corrola. They are not ideal cars, but they can get you around town.
Well, that's only because it's just a joke :) To take it further, you're using a poor analogy, I'm not telling him to buy a 70-200 f2.8 (Ferrari), I'm telling him the 75-300 (Chevy Cobalt) is not worth using when he has the 55-250 (Corolla) [not anything against chevy or for toyota, the cobalt was just a shitty car, like the 75-300 is a shitty lens], the cropped 250 should have just as much detail as the uncropped 300 between those two. I had a 75-300 when I started out, too, it was shittily built, and it literally wobbled in the middle. At least the 55-250 IS has IS.
Further, regarding,
>The 75-300 is a fine lens for the price point.
I disagree, the lens is barely cheaper than the 55-250, at best about $40, and lacks IS, is worse construction, and worse optics, it's not worth buying when the 55-250 IS II is right there in reach :P
Edit again: Citing References just to take this way too far: $140 US vs the 55-250 IS II for $180
Hello r/photography!
I recently saved up enough money to buy my first serious camera. This Cannon EOS Rebel T3 caught my attention and I keep reading in the reviews that it is an excellent entry level camera. Is that a true statement? I would be willing to shell out some extra money for this T3i if it would be a better buy.
This Cannon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 or this Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 seem like good lenses to go along with them, but are they too much to soon?
Again, this would be my first major camera purchase. Would this be a solid purchase or is there another cheaper camera that would be just as good?
Hey welcome to the sub-reddit, can you give some more information on what you want to do with the photos that you will take? Will you go on to sell them or are they to be printed out for family members etc.
If this is just for a hobby or to get some nice pictures you can go with a cheaper camera/setup.
I have the Canon 1100D and have used it in a wide range of situations and it's been perfect for what I wanted.
Paired with this lens you can get some cracking shots from a great distance away.
If you are shooting cars I assume they will be going fast, the 1100D does a great job of freezing them while keeping all the detail. This is an image I shot of a multi-copter which has blades that spin way faster then a real helicopter but it makes them appear frozen.
Also paired with that lens you can do some awesome long distance shots which may be perfect for landscape shot from afar.
The stock lens isn't the best in the world but if you just starting out and don't plan on selling your photos it's fine. You get some barrel distortion which is noticeable when taking texture shots.
This one : http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00004THD0/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o06_s01?ie=UTF8&amp;psc=1
I bought this camera two years ago and have loved it. Feel free to ask me any questions about it.
Lowest price the 60D has ever been, probably because of the recent release of its successor, the 70D. Check out this page for more information on the lens bundle deals
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-85mm-Medium-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00007GQLU
EF 85mm f/1.8 is selling for $369 on B&H, Amazon, Adorama (Bundled, best deal).
It's the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, so I end up with about 135mm on my Canon XTi.
Edit: Here are some examples of my Mini with that lens.
Hi, I'm looking to get a new lens for my Canon T3i. I have the kit, nifty fifty, and I bought a used Tamron telephoto last year for like $80.
I'm looking at these three:
Sigma 30mm 1.4
Canon 28mm 1.8
Canon 85mm 1.8
Any suggestions on which one I should go for? I know a lot of the time people say it depends on what you want to photograph...but I don't know what I'll be photographing yet! The f1.4 on the Sigma is quite tempting...
Thanks!
I'm in the market for my first prime lens. I'm an Ecologist, so I am constantly encountering wildlife and awesome plants. I really want a lens that will allow me to get crisp pictures of animals that are typically spooked easily but also get macros of plants, insects, and amphibians. It is also worth mentioning that I handle a lot of animals at night.
I'm currently using a T3i and have a budget of $400. The two lenses I have been considering are:Canon 85mm F/1.8 and Canon 50mm 1.8. Any advice would be helpful!
Question for you, since I've had a hard time finding out: how much does chromatic aberration vary from lens to lens, and is it (generally) simply due to the quality of the glass?
I'm shooting with fairly inexpensive lenses (EF 28mm 1.8 USM is my nicest), and I feel like I'm battling CA constantly. The lens correction in camera raw does a good job of getting rid of the color shift, but I still often end up with luminosity artifacts around high contrast edges.
I'd really like to upgrade from my Rebel to something nicer (I'm really starting to hate the sensor in that camera), but I'm wondering if it's a foolish goal without glass to support it.
Hey guys! First time checking out this subreddit.
Current camera: Canon T5i
Current lenses:
Two questions:
1: I wanted to get a wide angle lense for doing some star photography / landscapes / cityscapes. I was torn between these two lenses:
I don't really care that the 10-18 is mostly plastic, given the lenses I already have. But, I didn't know if the 10 - 22mm would be worth it. It also seems to be lacking IS but would it be more versatile having the extra 4mm and toting it around for the day?
2: While I love the prime 50mm I have, I find that it's incredible zoomed in for obvious reasons. I see a lot of amazing pictures taken (suggestive/tainted opinion, photos of which I aim to take) with prime lenses around the 20mm's range. These two lenses I was interested in and didn't know if they are more "wide angle" than they are actually for candid/portraits and a good reliable daily shooter:
Again, I'm running into the IS or no IS problem. Didn't know if people have had experiences with either.
Thank you!
This lens or this lens are great all-round and good in lowlight. Half of my album is with an equivalent lens like this.
If you're into ultra-wides (the other half of the album is an ultra-wide), then this lens is great, and this lens is even better but more expensive.
Those two focal lengths have carried me for the past 4 years without me ever feeling the need to get anything else. That being said, this lens I think is a must have for all Canon users. At just over $100, it will deliver great results in lowlight. Honestly it might be the best bang for buck lens in all of photography. And because it's so cheap, plus you're getting the camera free, I might even recommend getting all three, if that's in the budget.
If you want to be a little more conservative, here's what I would do: Get one of the first two I linked, shoot and play around with that for a while, and see what you find you need next. Do you want something a little more zoomed in for shallow depth of field and delicious bokeh? Get the 50mm. Do you crave getting some sweet wide shots? Get one of the ultra-wides. Let your needs decide what your second lens is, because it's a very personal choice and no one can know what you want to shoot until you try it out for yourself.
Software: Adobe Lightroom is all I use really, and it's all you need. It's designed as an all-in-one management, editing, and publishing platform.
Good luck!
Thank you. I feel like I have a good grasp of this situation now. Was looking at THIS 28mm Especially attracted to the low Fstop, but am conflicted as to whether I want to trade off the low fstop of a fixed lens vs the flexability of the 17-40mm
Was just looking at this lens and ran into this review:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/sigma/30mm-f14.htm
He talking about the same lens? For canon, he recommends this instead:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-28mm-Wide-Angle-Cameras/dp/B00009R6WU
the subreddit /r/amazondeals currently has a Canon 28mm 1.8 USM\ in the top spot. Is it actually a deal worth looking to, or should I still search the forums/ebay for a used lens.
A single lens for a novice, I would recommend a zoom lens rather than a fixed.
If you have the money to pick of a collection of prime lenses that might be a different option if you want to go that way. You might want to pick up a set with the 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 100mm... yeah, it adds up.
The kit lens for the rebel series is the one mentioned earlier (EF-S 18-55) and older editions can be found for cheap. Looking over ebay I see them for $11.50, $8.50, $13.00, $10.61, ... The range of 18-55 is not terrific and many people ditch their kit lenses as soon as possible, but many others never move on from their initial kit lens. They are not that bad, and the market is flooded with them, so they can be had for cheap.
If you're willing to go off-brand and on a tight budget for a better zoom, better both in terms of better glass and more versatile midrange zoom, this Tameron lens is one of the best ranked among the 'cheap' category. 28-75 f/2.8 for $315 used like new. It is missing a lot of expensive features, no image stabilization, slow noisy motors, but the glass is good for a midrange zoom lens.
If you do have a little bit of money for a lens, my absolute favorite "inexpensive" canon lens for regular walkabout use is their 24-105 f/4 L-series lens for about $650 used. Excellent glass (it is an L-series) good mid range zoom, fast quiet motors, image stabalization, full-time manual focus. True it isn't the very similar f/2.8 flagship that sells for 4x the cost, which I would recommend if you had the money. It is a mighty fine mid-range lens.
For the money, I think the most versatile hand-held lens is the canon 24-105. The image stabilization is good, the range is great and it's just a good solid lens for run and gun shooting.
And you obviously know little about photography, "glass" refers to the lens mounted on the camera.
This is the model lens I use on my DSLR: https://www.amazon.com/Canon-24-105mm-USM-Lens-Cameras/dp/B000AZ57M6
Cannon 70-200 2.8f
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-2-8L-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00006I53X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1292814414&amp;sr=8-1
24-105 f4
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-24-105mm-USM-Lens-Cameras/dp/B000AZ57M6/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1292814491&amp;sr=1-1
Well you've mentioned ranges from 18mm to 250mm. You can get a Sigma or Canon 18-200mm, but the image quality probably isn't what you're looking for.
What kind of price range are you looking for? Canon makes some L glass in the 17-40mm and 17-105 ranges, but they're pricey compared to all your other glass.
So what we need to know is:
A few more questions:
The rule of thumb I hear most often regarding camera equipment is: "spend less on the camera and buy a better lens"
During the five years following the purchase of my snazzy new Canon 40D I have watched it's price drop almost 90%, while the kit lens it came with is still worth about the same price as it was 5 years ago.
Besides that, a better lens will improve the quality of the photograph more than a better camera. The kit lens that comes with Canon Rebels is absolute rubbish compared to... well just about any other lens.
With 780 USD you could get a slightly used 40D and this f/2.8. That is my "walk around" set up and the only complaints I have are
Also in the price range is a used Canon 5D (the one that came out in 2008), but you would have much less to spend on a lens and your current lens selection might not work with it.
Here's a comparison of the four cameras mentioned
and a comparo of the two you mentioned
If you like to shoot music gigs im guessing low light performance is important, the second link includes that at the bottom
You are right, lenses are definitely more important, especially because it seems like most of your shots will be landscapes, and you'll have plenty of time to set up the composition. You won't need expensive bodies.
Get a Canon Rebel; they're good cameras and will give you as much functionality as you'll be able to use - as this is your first DSLR.
As lenses go, I would recommend a Tamron 17-50 non-VC, which is on par with the Canon 17-40 L lens. Also, you might want to consider a telephoto; my suggestion for this would be the Canon 55-250 IS, which is also a great lens.
Do you think that this would do the job?
Just to compare, here is a selection from the Canon side of things with Amazon used prices:
Canon 7d - $990
Tamron 17-50 2.8 - $340
These two are a great basis to work off off and get you to $1330.
If you want to spend some more you could add the following:
Canon 50mm f/1.8 - 100
Canon Speedlite 430EX - 235
But to be honest, if your wife is just starting out and money is a bit tight, don't go out spending $900 or more on a body. As most people will tell you, picture quality is mostly due to lenses. Canon t3i, Canon t4i or 60D as well as Nikon 3200 and 5100 are all excellent bodies and have more than enough features to keep her happy. If you get either of those bodies and a decent 17-50mm lens as well as a 50mm prime she will have great tools to learn on with space to grow.
Just like daegon I would recommend to buy used. Most Photographers look out for their things quite well and most of these lenses and bodies are made at quite good quality levels. I hope this helps.
I just got the 17-50 non-VC a couple days ago. Autofocus is loud, it really surprised me. I have used other Tamron lenses before and have the 28-75, but the 17-50 is definitely noticeable. This may actually play to your favor, subtly causing your baby to look at the camera.
FYI, Even though its noisy I'm keeping mine. Oh and its $400 on Amazon right now (as opposed to $460).
Amazon &
Rebate
This 50 mm prime lens works with the D series and has autofocus. It is equivilent to a 75 mm lens in a full frame camera which is good for portrait work. It also has an apeture of 1.4, which will give a narrow focal range. It costs $359.00
Its an F mount for FX and DX http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-Focus-Cameras/dp/B001GCVA0U
Damn you're quick.
I'd go with the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4. For the price it's a bad ass lens.
I'm new to AP and photography in general.
My question is, specifically, with a decent tracking system (I'm thinking iOptron skytracker, unless anyone could recommend another beginner-friendly tracker), would this be a good lens to use for AP?
I figure super big aperture is a plus and if I get something to go along with it that'll track I could use it for AP. Any thoughts before I pull the trigger?
Okay thank you! glad I asked before i bought those. One more thing, what is a good lens for landscape / portrait / stock photo photography I was looking at this one it was recomended by a friend of mine who does video work. https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-Focus-Cameras/dp/B001GCVA0U/ref=pd_cp_421_3?pd_rd_w=lbYGp&amp;pf_rd_p=ef4dc990-a9ca-4945-ae0b-f8d549198ed6&amp;pf_rd_r=PXCQPRAGXV24PKC8BSE9&amp;pd_rd_r=49feaf1e-79c0-11e9-998e-fb353035c346&amp;pd_rd_wg=pdjV4&amp;pd_rd_i=B001GCVA0U&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=PXCQPRAGXV24PKC8BSE9
This one
Hold off on the 50mm f1.8D. I am pretty sure the AF will not work with your camera. If that doesn't matter and you're OK with manual focus, then go for it. An alternative is the 50mm f1.8G, but it is a good bit more expensive.
Otherwise, consider the 35mm f1.8G that is about $80 more expensive. I have that one and it is really nice.
I would go for this guy, as I see Megluesta already posted:
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-35mm-1-8G-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001S2PPT0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1375739970&amp;sr=8-2
or if 50mm is more your length:
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-NIKKOR-Digital-Cameras/dp/B004Y1AYAC/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1375740078&amp;sr=8-2
Or for a bit more speed and cash:
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Prime-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001GCVA0U/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1375740078&amp;sr=8-5
I'm looking to buy a fisheye lens for my canon t3i to take panoramic photos and came across two lenses that I like. They seem to be the same except one says it has HD optics which I don't know what that actually means. The two lenses are
http://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-FE8M-C-F3-5-Fisheye-Canon/dp/B002LTXQUE/ref=cm_cmu_pg__header
http://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-HD8M-C-Fisheye-Removeable-Fixed-Non-Zoom/dp/B008X1C4IY/ref=cm_cmu_pg__header
I'm wondering which one would be the better one to buy or if there is another lens I should consider. I don't have more than like 250 to send right now.
While I'm no expert in the matter, it's been my experience that these 3rd party, generic-type accessories are really hit or miss. For a decent number of them, they're mass produced in one factory, after which they could receive any number of labels (see also: this lens) and are sold. You could get one that is really great, or you could get one that is a cheap piece of garbage. With that price point, it's probably a risk most people are willing to take. By paying for the Canon name, you're also paying for everything that Canon stands for and believes in. The reviews seem to speak pretty highly of those speedlites, and I guess for the price it's tough to say no.
I bought a $50 lens filter fisheye as a toy and ended up using it quite a bit. Yeah, it's not exactly pro quality, but it made me realize how much I like the effect.
I recently upgraded to a $300 Rokinon fisheye and couldn't be happier.
Play around with cheap stuff, sometimes you find something that's really worth spending more on.
Peleng 8mm f/3.5 circular fisheye.
Here's a gallery of Peleng images
here's what Peleng looks like uncropped on a Canon 20D
EDIT: Peleng is US$359. Rokinon is only $289, well worth a look.
I was given mine as a gift.
For that price, I would rather buy then rent. I shoot a lot of video, so it works out great when on a jib or steadicam.
For cheap / quality I love the Rokinon 8mm Fisheye
For the price it is an awesome lens. It's not the sharpest, it's pretty cheap especially when compared to my nicer lenses but it has worked great for me when filming skate stuff. You can't beat the price, and you can probably find it cheaper in ebay.
I hate to plug my own channel and shitty videos, but here is a link for a video that I use it in It's also in a bunch of my other short skate videos on my channel. Hope this helps!
Holy Shit! That really puts the difference between 8 and 10 into perspective and the 8-16 is now on my list.
This is the prime. It's sold under like 5 names (and sometimes as 7mm) but it's all the same lens as far as I know.
I have 2 lenses in my kit that I love. Getting both is a bit more than you wanted to spend but I highly recommend having both. My go to lens for landscape is The rokinon 8mm link. I absolutely love this lens. It does have a bit of fisheye distortion. Here are some shots with it. 1 2 3 4
The 2nd lens I would recommend is a 50mm 1.8 Its a very sharp and fast lens with shallow dof. 1 2 3 4 5
Rokinon 8mm is $239. Might be able to find it used locally maybe? Many f2.8 lens that's slight wider end up in the $300+ range easily. You're only one stop down though so it may not be a huge issue.
http://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-FE8M-C-F3-5-Fisheye-Canon/dp/B002LTXQUE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1427327009&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=rokinon+8mm
Thank you, I believe it was like at 50mm~
Lens
Rokinon 8mm fisheye, $200
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHLNpX0lvJg
Thank you for the reply and explanation. She doesn't consider the current lens @ 18mm wide at all, would it be safe to go for an 8mm and she can crop to narrower FOVs? I found this one that is within budget and has great reviews
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002LTXQUE/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&amp;me=
bees, when pigging out, give zero fucks. This helps a lot too.
Would This deal be worth it for the polarizer? Not sure how beneficial those are.
What's the catch with the lens bundles on Amazon?
Like this vs.
Just buying the lens for the same price?
Are the "kit" lenses gray market?
Unanswered question from the previous megathread
Author /u/Spin737 - (Permalink)
What's the catch with the lens bundles on Amazon?
Like this vs.
Just buying the lens for the same price?
Are the "kit" lenses gray market?
This is a good lens to go with for that...
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-100mm-Macro-Lens-Cameras/dp/B00004XOM3/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1417540319&amp;sr=8-2&amp;keywords=100mm+macro
It's big brother in the L series is here for a little more:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-100mm-Macro-Digital-Cameras/dp/B002NEGTSI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1417540319&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=100mm+macro
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-100mm-Macro-Digital-Cameras/dp/B002NEGTSI
I'm a novice food photographer, so I have a pretty basic DSLR (Canon EOS 500D) but I just bought a fancy schmancy macro lens that I've been trying to learn how to use.
I bought these lights which have been ok – nothing spectacular. I still think the natural lighting is the best, but I often cook dinner around 9 or 10 to accommodate my fiancé's schedule so I'm usually stuck using the lamps.
Thank you. I currently shoot with a Canon 70d. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00DMS0GTC/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1395845698&amp;sr=8-1&amp;pi=SX200_QL40
For macro I use either the canon 100mm macro
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B002NEGTSI/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1395845750&amp;sr=8-1&amp;pi=SY200_QL40
or the Tamron 180mm macro.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0000AERK6/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?qid=1395845816&amp;sr=8-2&amp;pi=SX200_QL40
Most of the wider shots and room pictures are shot using a canon 17-55mm http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B000EW8074?pc_redir=1395684481&amp;robot_redir=1
Fisheye shots are with the canon fisheye 8-15mm
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0040X4OZU/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?qid=1395845895&amp;sr=8-3&amp;pi=SX200_QL40
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-18-135mm-3-5-5-6-Standard-Digital/dp/B002NEGTT2
I use this lens. Am I supposed to sharpen?
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-18-135mm-3-5-5-6-Standard-Digital/dp/B002NEGTT2 The lens I used, although I do NOT recommend it.
Canon 18 - 135mm EFS
Canon 10-18mm EF
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-18-135mm-3-5-5-6-Standard-Digital/dp/B002NEGTT2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1491782630&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=canon+18-135
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-10-18mm-4-5-5-6-Lens/dp/B00K899B9Y/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1491784538&amp;sr=8-2&amp;keywords=canon+10+-+18
So I have a Canon T3i and a 50mm f/1.8 II. In the near future, I will be purchasing a new lens. I'm still a newbie, so I don't really have a specific style and I just shoot what's in front of me. I've been doing predominantly street photography and auto photography, but i'm also looking to branch out. It's come to my attention that I should have a wide angle lens in my arsenal as I was begging for a wider perspective when I went to my first auto show a couple weeks ago. It made framing weird, and I had to move back which was quite inconvenient in a packed show like that. I also love landscapes and views so I want something wide to capture those as well.
Here are some of the choices I'm considering.
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens
Tamron AF 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 SP Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Lens
There are also a couple lenses that I have stumbled upon that are not as wide, but have a longer focal length which may double as more than just a wide-angle.
Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Lens (really have my eye on this one!)
Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Standard Zoom Lens
This is all a bit confusing for a noob like me, so any help is appreciated it. If you feel like there is a better option, please do recommend it to me! And also, i'm on a working-class student budget.
One last question, how do you feel about used lenses. Just curious towards your experiences as i feel like they can be bargains. Lenses are built to last a long time if they're taken care of right? Sorry for the long post but thanks in advanced!
Thanks again, very useful information. Last question - I think I've narrowed it down to the Sigma and the Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6, are there any glaring pros or cons that differentiate them? Much appreciated in advance.
I just recently bought a canon 1200D with an 18-55 mm IS II kit lens. I have found that I mostly shoot portraits and some macro and now I am looking to upgrade my lens but still want the flexibility of a wide range zoom lens. I found that in my price range for an EF-S mount that canon recommends their 18-135 USM lens. I like the looks of it as it still looks flexible. I have also found 18-135 mm lenses by Canon and now I am picking between these three
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-18-135mm-3-5-5-6-Standard-Digital/dp/B002NEGTT2 standard IS
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B008UGMLWQ/ref=psdc_173565_t2_B002NEGTT2 STM
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01BUYJYOW/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&amp;colid=P4YF3DBC2FWW&amp;coliid=I131NWQFIHP74Z USM
I think the cheap standard IS looks to be just like my current lens in terms of quality while having a larger zoom range. It looks like the STM has a step up for shooting movies (but I think I would only be able to appreciate it with Canon's 'i' series of rebel cameras, I only have a base t5) and I think the USM is like the STM but has a faster auto focus. Is any of that true? I really was hoping that there would be a difference between the STM and base model in terms of image quality, is that the case? I want to start shooting some video soon and I was hoping the USM would be worth it if it has a better auto focus as I will also use auto focus for taking quick shots of moving subjects. What are the advantages between them? Also, what do the abbreviations mean?
Hi,
My friend let me borrow his Canon 7D, 50mm lens to take to comic-con last year, and when I got there, I realized the lens was just bad for this environment.
When I wanted to take photos of cosplays, I couldn't get proper full-body photos because it's just too crowded to get that proper shot, so I got photos like this: http://imgur.com/NFTxwuQ and this http://imgur.com/ryzUlZE with the 50mm.
What sort of lens do you recommend I purchase? My price range is $200, but I noticed I can get cheaper lenses on eBay than on Amazon.
I was looking at this one: http://amzn.to/17PwF3g but found the same less expensive on eBay: http://ebay.to/1wUGCCO
Thanks!
Best lens for the money? Or some other AF telephoto completely?
Tamron 70-300mm
Nikon 55-300mm
Leaning towards the Nikon as I've heard better things, but I have the Tamron 28-75 and absolutely love it so there's that as well.
I want to get a new telephoto lens, I currently have a ancient Nikon 70-300 without image stabilization and it's crap, and I am looking at the Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD or the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR
Should I bother with either of these? I don't want to spend that much money on another disappointing lens, but a really good telephoto is way out of my budget at the moment. I couldn't spend more than around $800 CAD (so like $3.50 USD - jokes, more like 500-600USD) and alternatively I just wait and save and take photos with other lenses and of other things. I'm a hobbyist.
Would this be a good choice?
Thanks a lot! I did a little research on my own and also saw this Tamaron 70-300 lens. Is it any good/almost as good?
>http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B003YH9DZE/ref=mp_s_a_1_sc_1?qid=1421463737&amp;sr=8-1-spell&amp;pi=AC_SX110_SY165_QL70
There's some used - like new on Amazon right now under $300.
Well, like I said, I'm an amateur so I don't have a ton of equipment yet. But I've been steadily upgrading my equipment for over a year now. The #1 investment I've made so far is this. Excellent, excellent lens for the price.
Although its not a zoom lens, and its a wide angle so you'll still be getting a small moon. I was able to achieve a pretty good shot of the moon with a 70-300mm lens, though. I have an APS-C censor so that translates to 450mm, but at that zoom the moon encompasses most of the frame and you can get really nice clarity.
Personally, I like getting some of the landscape in the frame so I usually stick to the 14mm. I also can't really get anything celestial besides the moon without an actual telescope and I do not own one.
/u/NovaKeks
How wide do you need?
https://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-Ultra-Angle-Fixed-Built/dp/B004NNUN02
I see I see. I also just came across the Rokinon 14mm. Looks great as well. Thoughts ? https://www.amazon.ca/Rokinon-F2-8-Ultra-Angle-Automatic/dp/B004NNUN02/ref=asc_df_B004NNUN02/?tag=googleshopc0c-20&amp;linkCode=df0&amp;hvadid=292938027982&amp;hvpos=1o1&amp;hvnetw=g&amp;hvrand=10781801972110776791&amp;hvpone=&amp;hvptwo=&amp;hvqmt=&amp;hvdev=c&amp;hvdvcmdl=&amp;hvlocint=&amp;hvlocphy=1002026&amp;hvtargid=pla-464722685724&amp;psc=1
Rokinon 14mm f/2.8
Yes it does. This is the exact item: https://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-Ultra-Angle-Fixed-Built/dp/B004NNUN02
I've updated the description to include this. Thanks for looking!
I'm still a noob with this sort of thing, so I'm not sure if this will help or not. Here it is though, fwiw.
I have that exact camera (no fish-eye attachment) and had a very hard time getting the kit lenses to work well with night photography. IIRC, the widest lens it comes with is an f4, which means your exposures are always going to be super long (i.e., star trails).
Before your trip, go try and take some pictures first of the night sky and see what you can come up with. You may be satisfied with what comes out, or you may want to look into something like this:
https://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-Ultra-Angle-Fixed-Built/dp/B004NNUN02/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1525808389&sr=1-2&keywords=Rokinon+14mm+f&#37;2F2.8+nikon&dpID=41Bws1OezvL&preST=_SY300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch
(Recommended from here and mentioned by DatAperture): https://www.lonelyspeck.com/lonely-specks-ultimate-list-of-best-astrophotography-lenses/
how high quality are you willing to go? http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0055N2L22/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&amp;colid=27BYN772RZYMD&amp;coliid=I21VNTSC2T7MYT ;) lol thinking about putting that on my amazon card in a few months.
OK, I now see the lens in this image is a Panasonic Lumix Leica lens with a smaller thread, no doubt set up to perfectly fit this rectangular Leica lens hood which (which I now think this is), but there's something about this lens hood that I like, as I'll be shooting video, and I'd love to get one to fit my Panasonic Lumix G V Vario 12-35 lens attached to my soon to be acquired GH3.
I have an Olympus E-pl5 micro 4/3rds camera and am looking to get a new lens. I want to be able to shoot landscapes better, as well as photos in the dark, but in the end I'm just a hobbyist, so I want a lens that is well rounded for nearly any kind of shot. I was recommended 2 different lenses but have no idea which to get. Which one would you recommend?
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0055N2L22/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&amp;colid=1PM6TGVB8IECO&amp;coliid=I1SKPLFC83CZLP
or
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DJS830Y/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&amp;colid=1PM6TGVB8IECO&amp;coliid=ISYX6WLR39DYP&amp;psc=1
> Panasonic 25mm f1.7.
Do you own this lens? I do. I don't recommend it...
I honestly disagree about recommending this lens for use with a GH5. It is the cheapest, most plasticky-awful lens that I own. I honestly regret getting it, even though it has certainly paid for itself. When I put it on my GH3, it is just "OK" IMHO. When I put it on my Super 35, it looks like what it costs; cheap. Swap out for a higher quality lens and it looks much, much better. If you want a "nifty fifty" equivalent in MFT, buy the more expensive one that's f1.4: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0055N2L22/
Can somebody point out the differences between this lens and this one:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0055N2L22/ref=psdc_173565_t3_B014RD6RC0
And why that one is so much more expensive?
I just sold my DSLR gear to transition to M43 for size and convenience.
I picked up an Oly OMD-EM5 on the used market for a great deal. I think I will have up to $1200 remaining to spend on lenses (or keep). I'm considering the Panasonic 25mm 1.4 and Olympus 12-40mm 2.8.
I'll be doing general all around shooting. Nothing specific.
Does it seem like a solid starting point or should I look into different lenses?
Is there a 'holy trinity' of lenses that are considered the best? As you can tell, I'm one of those noobs that like really nice lenses that surpass my skills.
If you're going to reverse it, the brand won't matter. You would need to make sure the diameter of the lens filter, 52mm for most Nikons, matched the one in the reversing ring.
That being said, the 50 1.8d would be your best value as it could be used in non-macro mode as presumably you don't want all your pictures to be macro.
Look at the Nikkor 40mm af-s. It's a lens designed to be macro. You should be able to get one for your $200 budget.
It's crazy, you can really spend arbitrarily high amounts of money on lenses. I believe there are perfectly good cheap ones anyway, but it takes some research to tell what's good.
I want a macro too. The 40mm 2.8G macro seems to be Nikon's cheapest offering, but it's costlier than I'd like and I already have the 35mm 1.8G. The difference is mainly the focusing distance, the 40 can focus as close as 1.3 inches from the front element compared to ~12 inches on the 35. Being only 40mm (not really 'zoomed in') you really do have to get inches from the subject to get those macro shots, which can in turn block out light and scare bugs. Nikon makes 60, 85, 105, & 200mm macros (giving greater working distances), but for $$$. But, technically speaking the 40mm is capable of some great macro if you can work with it. There's certainly third party options too (Sigma, Tamron...), possibly better deals there, not sure. It's a whole world out there..
I saved $ by buying everything second-hand/used so far, with no issues. But I do that with almost everything I buy, anyway.
I want to take the superest tiniest zoomed-in-est macro shots, so, until I find what can do that without emptying my life savings.
The Nikon macros I see suggested the most for wandering about are the Nikon 85mm Micro, and the two Laowa lenses, the 60mm and the 100mm. I don't have personal experience with them, I'm afraid, and they're all above 400 bucks (But that's what the used market is for).
There's a Nikon 40mm, but the working distance to get full 1.0x magnification is pretty short. On the plus side, it can focus to infinity, so it may actually be a good "walking around" lens - You may never get a true macro photo, but you'll be able to shoot from infinity to a few inches away without swapping lenses. Hopefully someone here has some experience with that.
Related: Something to keep in mind is that, generally speaking, the more mms a macro lens has, the further away it can take photos that are actually macro (1:1, or 1.0x). This helps, because if your camera is 1 inch away from your subject, it may be blocking all the light sources, making an image impossible.
I've never used one so I can't talk from experience of how good it would be for getting close up, but as it isn't a true macro lens then you would need to either do it via reversing or with extension tubes.
But Nikon do make a 40mm macro lens, it is more expensive but you could use it as both macro and a normal lens.
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Micro-NIKKOR-Digital-Cameras/dp/B005C50H2Y/
It might sound kinda dumb, but I really need these shelfs. I have gotten such cute little items over the last few months, but do t have a cute centralized spot for them that do them justice. Thanks so much!
If price really wasn't an issue though, what I really want is this lens for when I go to Yosemite in a few weeks. I love taking pictures and would love a macro lens instead of my multi purpose one that came with the camera.
It's not so much that smaller sensors resolve less detail, it's that they suffer more in low light. Smaller surfaces soak up less light. When it's a bright sunny day, no problem, at web size it'll look pretty good. But once it starts to get dark, like even a little dim, you'd better have very steady hands or hope your subject is immobile if you want to keep the quality good.
unfortunately, the bigger a sensor is, the bigger the lens has to be, so large sensor cameras get bulky. you could always buy a small olympus interchangeable lens camera and buy one telephoto zoom lens with it. something like this is quite small and then for when you really need the zoom you toss one of these babies on it.
The more expensive one has a higher zoom. I would say start with the 14-42 lens. Its a decent kit lens to get you up and running. You can get other lenses later that fill the needs for her. I bought the lumix 20mm f/1.7 which is a really nice prime lens for run and gun. My next lens will either be a wide angle or telephoto lens.
If you get it with the kit lens you can always get this lens and you come out cheaper than if you just get the 14-140 and you still have a good range. I have even found on the Olympus site they sell a refurbished version of this lens for like $60.
Are there any affordable lenses that are "all purpose" for an Olympus E410? The stock one seems to have a large zoom already so anything up close (3ft) is a no go. I found this, but I'm not sure how compatibility works. I've only been messing with the camera for maybe a week now.
Olympus M. 40-150mm F4.0-5.6 R Zoom Lens (Black) for Olympus Micro 4/3 Cameras https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0066J6EOU/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_2AO-Bb5NQ0DV1
What about this one? It looks awesome
https://www.amazon.com/Olympus-40-150mm-F4-0-5-6-Black-Cameras/dp/B0066J6EOU
https://youtu.be/LOyhcMNS8lU
I used these two sites to compare them
http://cameradecision.com/compare/Olympus-PEN-E-PL7-vs-Olympus-PEN-E-PL6
http://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/olympus/e-pl6/vs/olympus/e-pl7/
Looks like the 6 has something called Eye-Fi, which is believe is a wi-fi enabled SD card. So you would want to verify with the seller that it is that card.
http://www.eyefi.com/
I think this may be the lens which is $150 new at amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0066J6EOU/ref=psdc_173565_t1_B000Q639S8
You would again want to confirm that with the seller but you may only be saving around $50 total for used/refurbished gear. Personally, I would go for the new gear for such a small difference. You would have all new warranties and be dealing with Amazon instead of a person if there was a problem.
It's not great, but it does its job well. They're so cheap I wouldn't buy a body without one.
I've got one adapted Canon FD macro lens that I don't use terribly often (it's manual focus and crazy heavy). Aside from that, I own the kit lens and the Olympus 40-150 (which I got used from KEH in perfect condition for around $90). Neither of those two is amazing, optically, but they're very cheap, very light (so I bring them both with me if I've got a bag), and between them cover 28-300mm in 35mm equivalent field of view. It's also been a great way to see what focal lengths I like.
The next lens I get will probably be a prime roughly 35mm in 35mm equivalent. There are a number of options, and I tried out my friend's Panasonic 20mm pancake, and liked it, aside from being a bit slow to focus. Then I rented the Olympus 17mm f1.7 for a Disneyland trip and dang, I love that lens. It's expensive enough, though, that it'll probably be a while until I own it.
If you're shooting things that are far away, you may want something like this Olympus 40-150mm lens. With your budget, that's pretty much the best choice. It's not the largest apertured lens, but it's a very useful zoom range.
If you have a bit more budget to work with and you are interested in portraiture in the long run, look at this Olympus 45mm 1.8 lens. The large aperture will be great in low light.
This is not the best lens out there, but for the price I have always gotten great results. It's a good low budget option for a telephoto zoom lens.
Canon 75-300 f4-5.6
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-85mm-Medium-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00007GQLU/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?keywords=canon+85mm&amp;qid=1566085411&amp;s=gateway&amp;sr=8-3
I'm also a beginner (only into this about a year) and I started with that exact lens and the 24-105 L lens that can come with the 5D3 (and the 6D). I love both and think that's a great lens to start with. Keep in mind that, on a crop sensor, everything will look closer. On a 6D or 5D3, the 50mm is pretty close to what your eyes see.
As for the other lens I mentioned (24-105), you can get it for only $500 more with the 6D: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital-Camera-3-0-Inch-EF24-105mm/dp/B009B0MZG2 . That is all sorts of worth $500, IMO. Here it is by itself (for a lot more money) so that you can see the reviews: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-24-105mm-USM-Lens-Cameras/dp/B000AZ57M6
I have the nikkor 50mm 1.4f that I love on my D7000. Link to amazon
Depending on your budget, you could go for a Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 - it's $300 on Amazon right now. I got one and it has worked great with my T3i
Hi all.
I'm currently in the market to try and upgrade my current gear for my Nikon D7100, and I would appreciate some feedback / suggestions / general thoughts on my choices.
Thanks in advance!
Current Gear & Amazon Links
Nikon 40mm f/2.8G AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR Lens
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-40mm-2-8G-Micro-NIKKOR/dp/B005C50H2Y/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1411239451&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=nikon+40mm
Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Lens
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-35mm-1-8G-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001S2PPT0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1411239371&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=nikon+35mm
Nikon 85mm f/3.5G AF-S DX ED VR Micro Nikkor Lens
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Micro-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B002SQKVE4/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1411239387&amp;sr=8-4&amp;keywords=nikon+85mm
Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR [Vibration Reduction] Nikkor Zoom Lens
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-55-200mm-4-5-6G-Vibration-Reduction/dp/B000O161X0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1411239400&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=nikon+55-200mm
Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR Nikkor Zoom Lens
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-18-55mm-3-5-5-6G-AF-S-Nikkor/dp/B000ZMCILW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1411239408&amp;sr=8-2&amp;keywords=nikon+18-55mm
Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX Nikkor Wide-Angle Zoom Lens
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-10-24mm-3-5-4-5G-Wide-Angle-Digital/dp/B0026FCKC8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1411239420&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=nikon+10-24mm
Possible Lens:
Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8G ED AF DX Fisheye Nikkor Lens
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000144I30/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_S_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&amp;colid=1TM9469NHCNQ0&amp;coliid=IVNS308RGQQCV
Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED VR Lens
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JKUPRF4/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&amp;colid=1TM9469NHCNQ0&amp;coliid=I31O79P9M4Q1LY
Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000VDCT3C/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&amp;colid=1TM9469NHCNQ0&amp;coliid=I2N8O785AXS9I0
Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Nikkor Zoom Lens
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000144I2Q/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&amp;colid=1TM9469NHCNQ0&amp;coliid=I1EPOEZPN5J3EG
Nikon 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor Lens
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000EOSHGQ/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&amp;colid=1TM9469NHCNQ0&amp;coliid=IANEM6J7PPWIZ
Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor Lens
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00005LEN4/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&amp;colid=1TM9469NHCNQ0&amp;coliid=I1B0R1WZS8SHQD
Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF AF Zoom Nikkor Lens
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00005LE74/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&amp;colid=1TM9469NHCNQ0&amp;coliid=I2WCPU28S06PES
Nikon 85mm f/1.8G AF-S NIKKOR Lens
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B006TAP096/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&amp;colid=1TM9469NHCNQ0&amp;coliid=IQH4TBDDGW9QQ
Nikon 50mm f/1.8G AF-S NIKKOR FX Lens
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-NIKKOR-Digital-Cameras/dp/B004Y1AYAC/ref=hsx_crw_8490290011_tl_1?pf_rd_p=1725118622&amp;pf_rd_s=center-5&amp;pf_rd_t=101&amp;pf_rd_i=8490290011&amp;pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&amp;pf_rd_r=0R6RD5CPZ4S5DR84N9G1
Nikon 60mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Micro-Nikkor Lens
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-60mm-2-8G-Micro-Nikkor-Cameras/dp/B0013A1XDY/ref=zg_bs_173565_80
What I'm thinking:
From the potential lens that I could get, I definitely want to invest in the 18-300mm lens.
With that lens added to my current gear, I could then get rid of the 18-55mm and the 55-200mm lens from my gear. Changing my total lens count from six to five.
I want to keep the 10-24mm lens. I don't see the purpose of having the 10.5mm lens, so I must just cut that out.
The lens from the potential list (24-70mm f2.8, 17-55mm f2.8, 24-85mm f2.8) I could remove from my list because if I understand this correctly, this seems more of a choice for people who want that extra step in the f stop.
I'm in a debate about which one of these to chose from to either replace or upgrade the 35mm I have in my bag, and the two I'm looking at are 50mm f1.8D and 50mm f1.8G. I'm just not sure if it is worth the upgrade in terms of a better overall picture or just to stick with the 35mm.
I am a little bit confused about the 85mm that I have and whether to upgrade it with the 60mm or the 105mm. If I understand that macro world of lens correctly, the 60mm would be the ideal choice, correct?
Lastly, I am in debate about keeping the 40mm with my given choices. I'm also not aware of what the 85mm f1.8 could offer, if it will replace a lens or just add another option to my gear bag.
In summation, here is the current gear:
: Nikon 40mm f/2.8G AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR Lens
: Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Lens
: Nikon 85mm f/3.5G AF-S DX ED VR Micro Nikkor Lens
: Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR [Vibration Reduction] Nikkor Zoom Lens
: Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR Nikkor Zoom Lens
: Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX Nikkor Wide-Angle Zoom Lens
What I will most likely keep if I go through my possible changes:
My new gear set:
: Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Lens
: Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX Nikkor Wide-Angle Zoom Lens
: Nikon 60mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Micro-Nikkor Lens
: Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED VR Lens
: Maybe one of the 50mm or the 85mm f1.8
Any thoughts would be appreciated on this.
Thanks again in advance!
And the B&H link too :) I figure it never hurts anyone clicking through. I also noticed that someone is now selling the Mark II version http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0076BNK30/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=B0076BNK30&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=mapsdpr-20 but you have to be willing to pay a premium.
This one is the cheaper one. I do see it is 50mm but its still around 1000 cheaper
https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-Focus-Cameras/dp/B001GCVA0U/ref=mp_s_a_1_6?keywords=85mm+1.4+lens&amp;qid=1563836339&amp;s=gateway&amp;sr=8-6