So you got your new SONY DSLR ... now what?

[DonSchap]

Many folks have asked the obvious question … “What lens should I get since this ‘kit lens’ is not doing it for me?”

Well, here’s a suggested route that is a pretty “routine” cost-control TAMRON lens approach (Check the TAMRON.COM website for more detail).

Single lens replacement solution for the 18-70mm (<- toss this lens)

SONY or TAMRON 18-250 f/3.5-6.3
18_250mm.jpg


Multiple lens approach

1) (Normal zoom lens) SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD or
a16_1750diII.jpg

1a) (Normal zoom lens) SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD MACRO
2875mm.jpg With a Full Frame DSLR (SONY a850/a900/a9xx), this would be your 1st choice



1b) (Normal zoom lens) SONY CZ 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 DT


2) ("basic" Telephoto zoom lens) AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD MACRO or
70300mm.jpg

2a) ("advanced" Telephoto zoom lens) SP AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD MACRO
70-200mm.jpg

3) (Super telephoto zoom lens) SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD


4) (Ultra/Wide Angle zoom lens) SP AF 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di-II LD


After you have these four lenses in your bag, you are lookin' good and should not miss much! Zoom lenses offer tremendous flexibility, where you can stand in one place and frame without having to move much.

Also, get an external flash, either the HVL-F58AM or HVL-F42AM (Make sure you try out both units before you decide).

Now, of course there are going to be specialty photographers, asking about dedicated 1:1 MACRO lenes

SONY 100mm f/2.8 1:1 MACRO


"But Don ... I need a really 'bright' lens for those darker, indoor shots. What do you suggest?"

Answer: Well, a Minolta AF 50mm f/1.7 is a good choice, mainly due to the fact it was the "most produced" Minolta lens ever made. It can be had for around $100-125, in good shape. Another choice would be to get a hold of a SONY AF 50mm f/1.4 lens. They also are quite numerous, but cost roughly $350. (EDIT: SONY has begun to release the new DT 50mm f/1.8 lens, for around $150. That should be a reasonable answer to most new photographers ... to low light issues)

Personally, though, I think you will have better results using the TAMRON 17-50mm f/2.8 @ f/2.8 and an external flash, if necessary. Using apertures wider than f/2.8 usually results in "soft looking" subjects, because the Depth of Field (DOF) becomes very shallow at wider apertures.

You need to know that SONY has an entire upper echelon of lens at significantly higher costs (basically triple that of the TAMRONs), also. The above lens suggestions are solid BUDGET selections, that will perform and are capable of returning very good results. More than likely, they probably will be able to handle 98% of what you shoot. If you are not happy with the results you get from them, then you will have to resign yourself to the fact that you are not on a BUDGET any more. It will cost you, either with SONY ... or whatever manufacturer you feel will provide top drawer shots, but it will cost you, no matter.

[alpha700 girl]

Thank you Don!

Thatz a great thread summing up the most needed lens!

[AlphaBjerke]

Nice post and very informative.

Might I add that there are many nice old Minolta lenses that can be had for cheap. You mentioned the 50mm 1.7, but didn't mention the 70-210 f4 (constant) "beercan" or the 75-300 "big beercan." Both are highly rated for their sharpness, build and color and can be had for about 200 bucks. Also, there is a great great website for Sony Alpha users that has an extensive review on lenses that will work on the camera. I look at it all the time. It is dyxum.com (named for the Minolta Dynax and the Minolta Maxxum Cameras). I got my "big beercan" and my 1.7, and now I am thinking about the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8. Does it look like that 25mm between 50 and 75 will cause me much grief?

[DonSchap]

Personally, I solved the "gapping issue" with purchasing BOTH

TAMRON SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF)


TAMRON SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO


which both provide a "bright" ZOOM solution.

Now hear me out on this, because there is a method to this idea. Normally, if I am using a longer lens ... I am outdoors, especially with a 70-300 or 80-400 telephoto. These telephoto lenses are, for the most part, effectively worthless for indoor work, mainly due to their:

• inherent M.F.D. (minimum focus distance) of 5 to 8 feet and
• tighter maximum aperture (f/4-f/5.6)

Being outdoors, usually calls for a meet up of the lower end ... and I use the 28-75mm as the "outdoor", lower end for this. You know you are at the end of line in zooming and have to change lenses, but you also know they will meet precisely at the same framing point and by slapping on your longer lens, you smoothly transition through the zoom, which is great for landscape work and leaving the tripod in precisely that same spot.

Indoors, the 17-50mm is the better choice ... as the restrictive 28mm on a APS-C camera body is just not wide enough for group shots (This is a "general response" and you should know that 28mm is effectively what you would have seen through a 42mm lens on a Full Frame DSLR or 35mm-film SLR.). If you happen to use a 70-200mm f/2.8 in association with it ... indoors, that "gap" is relatively unimportant, because you can usually step up or backup to properly frame the shot. Your shots are probably "handheld" and you are not worrying about a tripod position. More often than not, it will be evident when you need to use a longer lens, but normally, you can get a bit closer to your subject with the shorter lens.

On the other hand, fighting for focal extra width by stepping back can often be a nightmare, indoors, as you simply run out of real room to BACK UP. This is primarily where the 17-50 comes into play ... and if you are planning on doing a lot of indoor shooting, you could even consider adding a SIGMA 10-20mm or TAMRON 10-24mm UWA zoom to prepare for this kind of thing. It can save the day for shooting groups of people.



The UWA is the "just in case" lens.

So, you might say I have my outdoor and indoor selections. I went with the 17-50, initially, because I knew I would be taking more indoor shots than outdoor, during the wintertime. As Spring and Summer are here, the reverse is probably true. You may want to consider the 28-75 first. As things spread out, that convenient 'little extra' reach can make a lot of difference.

STILL ... commit to the idea of having BOTH lenses. They really are not that expensive (almost the same overall cost as owning the SONY CZ 16-80 f/3.5-4.5, only the f/2.8 TAMRONs are a lot brighter.). The two lenses use the same size filters (67mm) and weigh about the same.

[AlphaBjerke]

Oh, great, now I just need to tell my wife I am buying some more lenses!

[DonSchap]

It boils down to a question of compromise ... what are you willing to tolerate in your photography.

You could opt for the big cost lenses ... dropping an average of $1700 for each flavor.

These SONYs:

CZ 16-35mm f/2.8 SSM
CZ 24-70mm f/2.8 SSM
70-400mm f/4-5.6 G SSM

Let's see .. based on today's prices ...
$1899.99
$1599.99
$1599.99
________
$5,099.97

Now that, my friend, is a real lens purchase and would, more than likely, require "significant other" approval! Based on these prices, anything less should be a "no brainer" and considered a BARGAIN!

Weight-wise

total SONY lens weight: 30 + 33 + 53 = 116 SONY-ounces (7.25 lbs)
total TAMRON/Tokina lens weight: 18 + 18 + 34 = 70 TAMRON/Tokina-ounces (4.4 lbs)

Obviously, your SONY lens bag with have to be considerable to handle this weight. That really can be a back-bender @ 7¼ lbs..

[Biomech]

Hi,

I'm looking at getting a Sony Alpha 200K (18-70) as my first DSLR.
I'm upgrading from a Fuji S6500 70-300mm bridge/hybrid.

The problem I find with the fuji is that the zoom doesn't really perform that well when I get in close. I like my people shots to be candid so want to keep my distance and I've recently been looking at wildlife shots - birds, squirrels etc.

I see in magazines people shooting at 200-250mm with wildlife and having incredibly close and detailed shots; my fuji doesn't even come close to this.

I know that minolta Maxxum and Dynax lenses fit and work with alpha cameras (including the AF which I have read is a big problem with Nikon D series DSLRs). Reading your post here Tamron are clearly a good choice, but what am I looking for exactly when choosing a lens? Do they all have or state the AF compatibilty etc?

I'm still relatively new to photography, I'm moving up as my Fuji just doesn't perform anymore. I want to experiment with sport, macro, candid, visual effects like long exposure, light painting and smoke photography (which, might I add, the fuji required all the room lights to be on and still struggled to pick up highlighted smoke :P)

I can get an Alpha 200 18-70 kit for £260 now, so I am budgeting to around £500-£600 to include filters, flash gun, remote for flash, flash hood, bag and a good variable zoom lens (upto 300mm+ any recommendations?) etc.

I know this post has gone on a bit, but thanks for reading.

[DonSchap]

Originally Posted by Biomech

I know that minolta Maxxum and Dynax lenses fit and work with alpha cameras (including the AF which I have read is a big problem with Nikon D series DSLRs). Reading your post here Tamron are clearly a good choice, but what am I looking for exactly when choosing a lens? Do they all have or state the AF compatibilty etc?

I can get an Alpha 200 18-70 kit for £260 now, so I am budgeting to around £500-£600 to include filters, flash gun, remote for flash, flash hood, bag and a good variable zoom lens (upto 300mm+ any recommendations?) etc..

Unfortunately, the "Kit Lens" does a pretty poor job, once you start shooting through it. Now, this not a casual comment, it is from many people's experiences with the lens and once you start using your "replacement lens", you should instantly note the difference in performance.

A good, solid replacement is in the first post of this thread, under the "Single-lens" solution, you have the 18-250 (£539) or under "Multiple lens" solution 1(£379), 1a(£339), or 1b(£679).

The flash you will probably want to use is the SONY HVL-F42AM (£269)

To be honest, a £500-£600 is not a lot of cash to budget for a DSLR. Hey, I saw you cringe ... you need to get over that.

When you say DSLR ... you are now talking about real money. There is nothing cheap about this level of photography. A P&S camera has a top stop in cost because, basically, you really cannot add much to it. Oh sure, you can screw-on a wide filter-style lens or a telephoto filter-style lens on the super-zoom adapter, but that's about it. It simply is what it is, from start to finish. So, that argument aside, now we're on to a DSLR outfit.

Basically, you have selected the lowest cost camera possible in the SONY line. While I do not have intimate knowledge of that particular model, I'm going to assume it can deliver a good image at ISO-400 and leave it at that.

You mentioned a telephoto lens ... the 70-300mm (£125) is primarily an outdoor use lens, so you may want to keep that in mind, as you are shopping. The cost is very reasonable, in contrast to the shorter focal lengths, but it is also "darker", having a base aperture of f/4-5.6. You definitely need some light when using it.

Bags and other parts are all over the place ... but to realistically equip ... I would rethink your bottom line a bit, otherwise you may get some glass .. but, your results will be paying for it, if you did not.

Just some thoughts based on some serious experience.

[Biomech]

Thanks alot for the reply
At the moment I'm just stepping up in small levels, I bought my fuji S6500 from ebay for about £70 :P I like photography but don't really see it going anywhere professionally, I'd just like to experiment a bit more than what the fuji allows.

I've found the HVLF42AM on amazon for £153 :O, I know that to buy trade through Sony is over £250! (I work for Sony, TV/A/V mostly) I'm pretty keen on this flash, there's just one thing I hope you don't mind me asking; reading the manual it says it works as a wireless flash and uses the camera's pre-flash as a trigger. I'm probably going to sound a little stupid here, but I'm assuming as it's a "pre" flash, then the only light source at the time the picture is taken is the external flash? I ask as the initial reason for the extra flash is for smoke photography experiments and the like.

Also I assume it is possible to manually trigger the F42 flash, so for example doing a long exposure on a car at night and using the flash to light the car from different angles?

Thanks again

[DonSchap]

You might consult the strobist blog site for information like this, because I rarely do this kind of flash work. You may find the site intensely informative.