(Part 3) Reddit mentions: The best camcorder & camera lenses

I wrote a huge thread about buying Nikon as I am studying photography and am one of the biggest Nikon fanboys on the planet. I'll paste it all here. The D3100 and the D5100 are EXCELLENT cameras, and will blow your mind as an entry level DSLR. Do not fall into the D7000 trap, it's not worth it due to it's AF problems. I own a D300, D80, and GF1. Here's everything I had to say... It's lengthy. All about which lenses you should go for with your D3100/D5100
--------------------------------------------------------------

The 35mm f1.8: The lens is fixed at 35mm, so no zooming. However, the fact that it is f1.8 means it has AWESOME low light capabilities. I always recommend wide angles to new DSLR owners because it really introduces you to what the camera is capable of. You'll get a grip of aperture values and creative bokeh use; it is wonderful. Plus it seems like everyone loves that 'large sensor' look with beautiful background blur (bokeh) and very sharp foreground details, and wide angle lenses at very low apertures will definitely give you that. Just mind you that 35mm is kind of a short length, but you can live with it. (My GF1 only has a 20mm lens attached to it, and it is still one of my favorite lenses to date from Panasonic.) The price is to DIE FOR.

55-300mm f4.5-f5.6: While I don't exactly like variable aperture zooms, they are are fantastically priced. Don't expect ridiculous zoom levels though, but it'll still zoom pretty well; 300mm is a fairly good zoom. The reason why I don't really like variable apertures is that sometimes you completely forget about them, and if you are shooting in manual that will absolutely kill your shot if you weren't shooting in RAW.

So I'll be zoomed at 100mm, probably at f4.9, and then zoom to 280mm. Suddenly, I'm at f5.5 without changing it myself because the lens doesn't support f4.9 at that zoom. Kind of a downside, but you just have to keep it in mind and shoot in RAW.

There is another option if you don't want variable apertures however.

Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II: This is the beast lens. If you want to save up money for a lens, I promise this is the one you want to do that for.

My 70-200mm VR is a lens I refuse to leave at home when going on a trip, it is simply my favorite lens EVER. This is the next version of it, but it is cheaper because of demand.

But now you see the downside to low aperture telephoto: price. $2,400 isn't exactly the most affordable lens on the planet, but that's why it is worth it to buy this a while after you have had your DSLR and have saved up some money for that killer lens. This, paired with the 35mm f1.8 I put above there, would be a killer kit. It would be fantastic for low light conditions, even with the telephoto.


I'm a loyal Nikon shooter for a reason: They are quality. While I'm a bit disappointed with how long it took them to jump into DSLR video, the quality of their cameras have always pleasantly surprised me ( Not counting the D7000 of course ;) ). The D3100 was one of those cameras that I just loved, the price is fantastic and the quality of the camera itself is mind blowing for the price.

My first camera was a D80, and I fell in love with it. That was a while ago though, and once I picked up my D300... Magic. I had never used such a powerful camera before, and it blew my mind what the D300 was capable of. While it is getting a bit old (Older Sensor, still an old 12MP with lesser low light capabilities than the newer cameras), the auto-focus points are fantastic and the overall speed and RAW processing power of the camera have never failed to make me smile.

I have a nice little savings account for a D3x or the D4 line once it is released. ;D

The D3100 is a camera that you'll probably keep for a long time. It is a quality camera, like all Nikons. It is powerful, and is considered to be one of the 'new age' DSLRs: lower price, greater power. Hopefully this camera will turn you into a life long Nikon fan. ;) Have fun with it, that's the one major rule. Don't pay attention to any of the shooting rules if you feel like you have a better idea; follow your eyes, not some other person's laws (Rule of thirds, etc.).
Good Luck! And Have Fun! :D

Wait a few days, Panasonic is about to make an announcement, probably the G5, a new lens and a new compact camera!

I think m43 is the way to go, and I recommend spending more money on lenses than on your body. Doing some quick price checking: I'd rather have a Panasonic G3 with kit lens, ($549 on amazon) and spend the extra money on a 14mm f2.5 ($270), a 20mm f1.7 ($359) or 45mm f1.8 ($399), than Olympus OM-D for $1299 with kit lens or $1399 with the upgraded, weather sealed lens (which I definitely recommend you buying if you get the OM-D)

The OM-D has a few nice things, but in the early stage, I'd rather spend half as much on the body, and use it on getting some nice lenses. Weather sealing and better image stabilisation are cool, but do you really need that? IS doesn't even need to be used if you shoot at a high shutter speed (over 1/100th of a second). Image quality (IQ) is only slightly better than the G3

The G3 is about to be replaced with something though, so keep your eyes open! I'm guessing it won't be any new super amazing features, the IQ will be slightly better again, perhaps better than the OM-D, but the big thing is that it will drive down the price of the G3 :D

...and wow, I'm pushing this camera pretty hard lol... But Um, yeah, if you want a micro four thirds camera, with a viewfinder, that's the one I recommend :) The GH1/GH2 are optimised for making videos, so they have some extra features there, but if you won't be making videos, G3 is the way to go! Or GX1 if you want a smaller body (no viewfinder though). If you don't want to deal with RAW files, you might want to go for an Olympus body instead (they have arguably better in-body JPG processing).

I get what you're saying about buying the nicest thing first, so you won't want to upgrade, but I'm telling you that the image quality will be 95% as good from a G3 as an OM-D, you just won't be able to take a bath with your camera, and the image stabilisation (which is still great, depending on what lens you have) is not as good, or non-existant.

Oh and yes, I definitely think that micro four thirds is the system to get. Nex might eventually get a decent lens line up..... but it isn't going to be cheap, and it isn't going to be soon. And it isn't going to be pretty. (Because they have APS-C sensors, their lenses are dSLR sized, no matter what size the body is, their lenses will always be big)

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.

Hmm, alrighty.

• First you'll need a nice micro four-thirds lens. Since the BMPCC has a crop factor of around 3x, you'll need a pretty wide lens to get a reasonable focal length. I'd recommend either:

1. Panasonic Lumix G 20mm f/1.7
   
   
2. Panasonic Lumix G 14mm f/2.5
   
   
   Either of these lenses would be nice portrait length lenses on the camera and will give you a nice shallow depth of field. The first will give you shallower depth and will be a bit more tightly zoomed. Both of these will fall into the 50mm range which is ideal for a first lens and are rather sharp.
   
   • I'm not sure what memory card you've already bought but it should be something like this. There's enough space for a decent shoot and it's fast enough to record RAW if you want to delve into the true hype of the camera. The image is incredible either way.
   
   • Because the camera is so light, you may need something sturdy to attach it to. Tripods that are worth anything at all are a bit pricey but they will last a long long time and if you bargain on one you might not get a steady shot at all. This is the best budget tripod I've found to be honest. It isn't dirt cheap but you'll be glad you have it. If you want to do handheld stuff, please at least use something to weigh it down or your footage will tear and look awful. Slide all the legs in and use this badboy as a monopod!
   
   That should about do it! The tripod and the SD card are both future-proof and you can use these into the foreseeable ether of time. The lenses are great too and will serve you well until you can get a nice set. I chose a prime over a zoom because, honestly, learning with a prime is infinitely better. Sometimes being a bit limited helps you understand what you're doing a bit more. Also, images are always sharper on primes.
   

Everyone has a favorite focal length (or several). If you're not sure which focal length you feel most comfortable with, then there really isn't a "best". Just grab one and start shooting.

Some notes:

On the GH4, 20mm and wider focal lengths will have noticeable perspective distortion due to the wide angle.

This is fine for landscapes, but not great for people. In fact, the closer you are to your subject, the more pronounced the wide-angle effect will be (i.e. enlarging the appearance of their nose in relation to their face, etc.).

On a 20mm lens, the effect isn't incredibly strong, but it is there and it is noticeable. A 25mm lens is the starting point on MFT where people's features are not noticeably affected by the focal length.

As such, this is where I'd recommend starting your lens search based on the type of things you shoot. Here are some options:

• Olympus 25mm f/1.8 - wide aperture, compact size, great all-around lens from landscapes to interviews. Gives you good breathing room in a smaller spaces.
  
• Olympus 45mm f/1.8 - some people respond better to a tighter focal length in the 40-50mm range because it creates a more intimate feel. At the same time, this focal length isn't ideal for medium shots in small rooms. Like the Oly 25mm, this lens is sharp wide open and compact. It has a nice organic aesthetic for such a modern lens that matches up surprisingly well with vintage lenses like the Canon FD 50mm f/1.4.
  
  Both of these lenses are in the $300-400 range. They're also both great lenses, but if you're looking for a much more budget-friendly starter lens, then I would recommend the following:
  
  
• Canon FD 50mm f/1.4
  
• Ciecio7 Canon FD to Micro 4/3 Adapter - Solid FD adapter.
  
  This will get you up and running for under $150 (sometimes way less). FD lenses are great, but you probably don't want to invest in a full set of them because they aren't as future-proof as other lens mounts. Nonetheless, for a starter lens, you get great performance for the price.

Of course! It depends on your budget and what you want to photograph, but I highly recommend the 35mm f/1.8 prime lens. You can find it used for even less than the price listed ($200) as well. The lens is really sharp and decent for landscape and portraits. You can set your 18-55mm to the 35mm focal length to see what it looks like.

If you want a higher focal length than your 18-55mm, look at the 55-200mm lens. It is a kit lens sometimes bundled with the 18-55mm. There's also a 70-300mm if you want the extra 100mm range. These are usually best for something you need to zoom in on, like sports and wildlife.

If you want something super wide, I recommend either a Tokina 11-20mm or the Tokina 11-16mm. The 11-20mm is the sharpest and fastest autofocus of the two, but it is slightly more expensive. They are both good lenses. These are great for astrophotography, landscapes, and indoor architecture shots.

Here is an example picture of what different focal lengths look like. I hope this was helpful! If you have any more questions or want me to clarify something, let me know.

The 18-55mm lens is good but not great. It's not a bad idea to have that lens around, as it gives you a moderate wide angle at 18mm, but can close in to 55mm for portraits, etc. That lens is also astonishingly light, and makes the D3400 a great walkaround camera. It's one reason I've kept that camera and lens even after getting a D7500.

In my opinion, the 70-300mm lens is really not very good. It lacks VR, which is very very useful for a lens that long, as any handshake is magnified the longer a lens is. And the maximum aperture is small. It could probably work okay on a bright sunny day. I used mine a couple of times and it's sat on the shelf ever since, and is now replaced by the superior 55-300mm (which does have VR).

It depends how important telephoto reach is for you right out of the box. If you're taking photos of airplanes, I assume it will be sunny, so the 70-300mm should work, as it will give you much-needed reach. It will at least fill the gap while you save up for a better telephoto.

On the other hand, on Amazon you can pick up a certified refurbished D3400 with just the 18-55mm kit lens for $400, and then get a used 55-300mm for $180 or less. That adds up to nearly a hundred more than the product you linked, so that's up to your budget, but I can tell you that knowing what I know now, that's the route I would have gone.

Edit: Product links (you can probably find similar at other websites like bhphoto or keh):
https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-D3400-Digital-Camera-18-55mm/dp/B0727RH23G/ref=sr_1_8?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1542788642&sr=1-8&keywords=nikon+d3400

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B003ZSHNCC/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

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&qid=1492303917&sr=8-1&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'd say it comes down to your budget. If money isn't an issue, get the $699 one. It's a good deal, the 55-210 can provide some fun creative opportunities, and you can always sell the lens for a small profit if you find it's of no use to you.

If you need to stick to a budget, get the $599 one (I think Amazon even has a deal now where you can get the $599 one with a $50 Amazon gift card added in for free). Realistically, you won't be using the telephoto lens that much and it's not a must have.

I think the kit lens is good, it is what it is and gets the jobs done. For amateur photographers/newbies, I think it's also a good way to get acquainted with what kind of photos you most like to take and it forces you to get more familiar with the a6000 in order to take the best possible shots. You can take great photos with the kit lens, don't give in to the haters.

Some other things to keep in mind when thinking about budget:

You'll definitely want to buy extra batteries and an external charger. With the kit lens, it's also worthwhile to get a 40.5-52mm step-up adapter ring, a 52mm lens cap, and a 52mm circular polarizer-- adds some nice capabilities at a low cost.

If you don't want to spend too much money, I'd recommend getting the $599 one with $50 Amazon gift card and then buying the Sigma 30mm F2.8 for $169 (https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-30mm-F2-8-Black-Sony/dp/B00BQXL5CM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1483033428&sr=8-2&keywords=sigma+30mm). It'll serve as a fantastic primary lens that you'll probably use a lot more often than the 55-210 lens -- but then again I don't know what kind of photos you like to take :) (you can also get the Sony 35mm f/1.8 which is a little higher quality and also has image stabilization unlike the Sigma lens, but at $400 it might really strain the budget :-O )

And of course, down the road you can buy an adapter for cheap and pick up some incredible legacy lenses (f/1.4, f/1.8) for under $100 if you buy them used. Those will require manual focus, but it's still pretty neat.

But more than anything, enjoy the new camera! It's an incredible piece of equipment that's insanely fun to shoot with, so good for day to day photography :)

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.

If you only want to bring one lens and you want something that is versatile, bright enough for most situation and very compact the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 is a common choice. It will allow you to take pictures in almost all situations, it has a good focal length that is neither too wide nor too narrow and it's extremely compact, though it has some flaws.

I used to own that lens and although I loved it's image quality, its focus speed and accuracy left something to be desired in low light situations. In decent light it focuses in an acceptable amount of time with good accuracy, but in low light it can take up to a second to focus.

If you want something with a more narrow viewing angle (50mm equiv) you have the option of Olympus 25mm f2.8 though you are sacrificing quite a bit of light compared to the Panasonic. Between the two most people go for the Panasonic 17mm f1.7.

But the question you're asking has no true answer, because it depends on what kind of pictures you want to take or what kind of focal lengths you prefer.

If you want zoom lenses Panasonic has quite a few ones with small sizes like their 12-32mm lens or their 14-42mm which has more range in terms of focal length and optical image stabilization (though I'm not sure if it would be better than the camera's image stabilization and you can only use either the lens' image stabilization or the camera body's with most all lenses on Olympus bodies with the exception of one, if I'm not mistaken).

Olympus also has a small 14-42 that is cheaper but doesn't have image stabilization, though again I'm not sure if you need any since your camera's stabilization is already pretty great.

I think those are pretty much the best small travel lenses.

Hope this helps but let me know if you need other options or want something more specific.

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!

The kit lens is good because it can zoom across a wide range of perspectives but bad because it's "slow" in light gathering terms. This means that you'll be less able to get non-blurry shots as the lights get dimmer (sun set, indoors, dinner time lighting, etc).

So my suggestion would be to, assuming you want to take photos at dusk/night, get a fixed focal length prime lens. These lenses are bad because they can't zoom at all and so you have to use your feet to zoom but good because they can shoot in significantly dimmer light.

But which prime lens to get? You can get them at a reasonable price in the zoom levels of: 15mm, 17mm, 20mm, 25mm, and 42.5mm. I'd say the way to go would be to buy the G85 with the kit lens, use it, and see which focal length you take the most photos at or your favorite photos at. Some people suggest taping the zoom lens to be fixed at a focal length of whatever prime lens you might buy and shooting with that for a week or so to see if you can handle being stuck at that range.

• 15mm https://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-LUMIX-LEICA-SUMMILUX-H-X015/dp/B00J8H7H48/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=15mm+f%2F1.7&qid=1564608134&s=gateway&sr=8-2
  
• 17mm https://www.amazon.com/Olympus-M-Zuiko-Digital-Thirds-Cameras/dp/B00CI3R4VU/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=17mm+f%2F1.8&qid=1564608233&s=gateway&sr=8-1
  
• 20mm https://www.amazon.com/PANASONIC-LUMIX-MIRRORLESS-Thirds-H-H020AK/dp/B00DJS830Y/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=20mm+f%2F1.7&qid=1564608313&s=gateway&sr=8-3
  
• 25mm Lumix https://www.amazon.com/PANASONIC-LUMIX-MIRRORLESS-THIRDS-H-H025K/dp/B014RD6RC0/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=25mm+f%2F1.7&qid=1564608151&s=gateway&sr=8-2
  
• 25mm Olympus https://www.amazon.com/Olympus-M-Zuiko-Digital-Thirds-Cameras/dp/B00HWMP0XG/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=25mm+f%2F1.8&qid=1564608237&s=gateway&sr=8-4
  
• 42.5mm Lumix https://www.amazon.com/PANASONIC-42-5MM-MIRRORLESS-OPTICAL-H-HS43K/dp/B00H36U69Y/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=42.5mm+f%2F1.7&qid=1564608146&s=gateway&sr=8-2
  
• 45mm Olympus https://www.amazon.com/Olympus-Zuiko-Digital-Silver-Cameras/dp/B0058G40O8/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=45mm+f%2F1.8&qid=1564608241&s=gateway&sr=8-3
  
  A lot of people are also of the opinion that using a prime lens as a beginning photographer will help you get better quicker by limiting the range of things you can do (no more zooming) and forcing you to think more outside the box.
  
  Personally, I like the 15mm range for all around shooting (it's similar to the perspective a phone camera would give you). And I like the 42.5mm for specifically taking portraits, which I do a lot of when hanging out with friends. The Olympus lenses are worth considering if you can save some money by going with them. Theoretically they won't autofocus as quickly, but the difference should be negligible (we're talking milliseconds here).
  
  I'd also suggest looking at used lenses (ebay or Amazon's used marketplace give me the best results). Anything in good to excellent condition that says there's no mold or scratches on the glass will perform fine. You can usually expect to save about 20% of the new price by going used, sometimes more. The majority of my lenses are used and I've never had a single issue.

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!

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!

/u/LifeEffects - I would say go for it. That said, the GH4 is a great camera (I have one) - but the stock camera has limited dynamic range and poor high ISO performance.

In Europe, I recommend the [1.315,47€ GH4R] (https://www.amazon.de/Panasonic-DMC-GH4RE-K-Spritzwasserschutz-L-Aufzeichnung-Ultra-Higspeed/dp/B0156X5MYO//ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&linkCode=ll1&tag=hybrcamerev02-21) with unlimited recording time (no 30 minute limit) and the V-LOG upgrade already built-in.

V-LOG will give you improved dynamic range over the basic camera, as seen here:

• [spin, drift.] (https://vimeo.com/134425559)
  
  
• [Barbwire (Allen Stone) - Jaylon Ashaun Cover by CreativeHouse Motion] (https://vimeo.com/143438519)
  
  
• [KALLY REY [suga] by Sabb Adams] (https://vimeo.com/143771215)
  
  
• [Los Profetas - Elévame [Official Video] by LCP Films Network] (https://vimeo.com/141144200)
  
  
• [Sunrise / Sunset] (https://vimeo.com/124684805)
  
  
• [Panasonic GH4 V-log L Tokyo Yokohama] (https://vimeo.com/141998476)
  
  In addition, V-Log gives the GH4 much better low light performance than with the
  original firmware. It can now get clean results up to ISO 5000, as seen here:
  
  
• [Band Promo // GH4 // V-Log by Play Reel Productions] (https://vimeo.com/146034870) (crowd shots at ISO 5000)
  
  
• [GH4 V-Log Low light test by Iban Corominas] (https://vimeo.com/146841470)
  
  
• [GH4 // V-Log // Low light test 5000 iso by Play Reel Productions] (https://vimeo.com/142443785)
  
  There are many more examples in the [GH4K group] (https://vimeo.com/groups/gh4k) I moderate over on Vimeo.
  
  As far as lenses go, your wife's old Nikon mount Tamrons will work just fine with a [21,99€ Nikon G to micro 4/3 adapter] (https://www.amazon.de/Concept-Objektivadapter-Objektiv-Adapterring-Adapterringe/dp/B00LECYYR8//ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&linkCode=ll1&tag=hybrcamerev02-21).
  
  Coincidentally, my longest telephoto is a Tamron 70-200mm my wife used to use with her Nikon DSLR (as seen [here] (https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipPHhd28lv8rIsFpwlbtlizHZExm-RLdgLeV7872w87MLCHWCs2YegZLeS-f8rv6qA/photo/AF1QipMUyaAjx-I9s_N7cPmEn5oeZUdqEvwzSMisY8tf?key=eFBkbS16SHFPUmR0NWdzMkFMNF90MWNYTXlQbkZB)).
  
  You can start shooting with your "free" lenses - and when budget permits, buy a [584,60€ Metabones Nikon G to Micro Four Thirds Speed Booster XL] (https://www.amazon.de/Metabones-Speed-Booster-Nikon-MFT/dp/B011GF2Q7M//ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&linkCode=ll1&tag=hybrcamerev02-21) and a [696,99 Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 for Nikon] (https://www.amazon.de/Sigma-18-35mm-Filtergewinde-Objektivbajonett-schwarz/dp/B00DBL09FG//ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&linkCode=ll1&tag=hybrcamerev02-21).
  
  Hope this is helpful and good luck finding the right camera for your needs!

Hello everyone!
Just got the a6000 recently with some christmas money and I freaking love it already. I've been doing some research and I want to try out an upgraded lens. The kit is fine, but I'm definitely seeing the benefits of a lower aperture prime (more bokeh effect, better in low light, etc.)

I've narrowed down my search to the Sony SEL35F18, SEL50F18, and the Sigma 30mm F2.8

The SEL35F18 definitely seems best to me overall, and I'm thinking it probably makes sense to just suck it up and go straight for that. However the Sigma is also attractive because it seems like a great budget alternative. The SEL50F18 is probably last on my list because at ~$300 currently, its just not a significant enough difference in price from the 35... Any advice is appreciated!

Hi guys! I hope I'm not too late to this thread. I was going to create a new post but hopefully I'll be able to get some advice. Long story short is I'm new to photography and I think I want to get into it with a m4/3 camera. My basic requirements: EVF, interchangeable lenses and reasonably cost effective (I'm looking to spend 400-600 on a body).

I've narrowed it down to the Panasonic Lumix GX7 and the Olympus OM-D E-M10. I've gone back and forth several times. I like the look and feel of the E-M10 better (EVF in the middle of the camera and its aesthetics) but the GX7 is rumored to have better video.

Also I'm flip flopping between the Panasonic 20mm pancake lens and the Olympus 25mm lens for an entry level lens to get started with. High shutter speed on the camera and a nice and wide aperture on the lens seem important for me because I imagine I'll be doing a lot of action shots.

Does anyone have any advice one way or the other or maybe another camera to consider? I'd really like to be able to keep it under $1000 for the body/lens combo.

I switched from m4/3 to the sony a6500.

It has its flaws, for sure.

• Stupid placement of the memory card
  
• inability to change mic volume in anything but video mode
  
• touch screen isn't very intuitive
  
• No headphone jack
  
• Rolling shutter is bad in 4k
  
• No flip out screen
  
• Over heating? I've only shot 4k for 10 minutes max, camera was a little warm, but so far so good
  
  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.
  
  
  

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/

Hello!
not too sure if this will be seen, but i recently acquired a nikon d610 with an 80-90's manuel 50mm f1.8 pancake lens.
So pretty much im in the market for new lenses.
pretty much i want a landscape lens, portrait lens, and another all around lens. Since ive been shooting primarily in street shots, first is an autofocus, the faster the better. pretty much if you guys could give me some insight on my choices as to which ones are the best for my style

Landscapes
samyang/rokinon 14mm f2.8
https://www.amazon.com/Samyang-SY14MAE-N-Ultra-Angle-Nikon/dp/B006MI1UDU
Tokina 11-16mm f2.8https://www.amazon.com/dp/B007ORX8ME/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pd_S_img?_encoding=UTF8&colid=6V50J6F8FVLL&coliid=I3TKDTQ6YY21PM
Nikkor 20mm
f1.8https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-NIKKOR-Fixed-Focus-Cameras/dp/B00NI6WH1S/ref=sr_1_22?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1483652637&sr=1-22&keywords=wide+angle+fx+lens

Portrait
Rokinon/Samyang AE 85mm f1.4
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003V06YA6/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_S_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=6V50J6F8FVLL&coliid=I30GK1FCMJMQPX&psc=1
Nikkor 85mm f1.8 afafhttps://www.amazon.com/dp/B006TAP096/ref=psdc_173565_t1_B003V06YA6
Samyang/Rokinon CV 86mm f1.5

thanks in advance

> Also how does the 70-300 4.5-5.6 from Nikon compare to the 70-300 4-5.6 VC from Tamron? I guess if I went for the Tamron I could get the 35mm as well on a $600-700 budget.

Never used the Nikon one, but the Tamron is good enough that I can't imagine it would be worth paying extra for the Nikon--especially since if you get really serious about that kind of shooting, you'll be buying a 70-200 f/2.8 lens anyway. Be careful though! There are two versions of that lens. One is a POS and costs under $200. Make sure you're getting this version.

> I've heard different opinions on kit lenses, aside from being faster would the 35mm be a good replacement for the 18-55? (I'm thinking it would be useful for astro also).

If you're looking for a direct upgrade for the kit lens, try the Sigma or Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It will give you the same versatility as the kit lens but faster and with better autofocus. The 35mm is a good lens but using primes is a different experience since you have to zoom with your feet. It's probably a good skill to have and it will teach you a little more about photography but just be aware of that.

I would start with 2 prime lens:

1. Panasonic 25mm F/1.7. I'm sure you're heard of the legendary 50mm lens. This is the equivalent for micro 4/3 camera.
   
   
2. Panasonic 14mm F/2.5. A wider angle lens is a good addition depending on what scene you're shooting.
   
   
   Then you need to be able to record high quality audio. Typically cameras don't have the best microphones.
   
   

• The Rode VideoMic Pro is a good quality option to improve your sound.
  
  
• Another option is the Tascam DR-40. This is a standalone audio recorder with its own microphones. Tascam's a good brand for these, and you can use them with other microphones, or lavalier microphones if you choose to use those.
  
  
  Finally, one big factor that separates professional-looking video from amateur is smooth motion. I would get a Glidecam. These have a bit of a learning curve to them, but once you get used to it you'll get some amazing shots.
  
  
  Good luck with everything. You've got a good camera so there should be nothing keeping you from getting great shots!
  
  Edit: formatting
  
  
  

I didn't forget! Just sidetracked by everyone and their mother...


So lets go through these one at a time.


You're looking at

• 10mm f/2.8
  
• 14mm f/2.8
  
• 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6
  
• 17-55mm f/2.8
  
• 24mm f/2.8
  
• 35mm f/2.8
  
• 50mm f/2.8
  
• 90mm f/2.8
  
• 100-400 f/4.5-6.3
  
  This is a lot of overlap and you don't need it all, despite if it's all cheap. For reference, I've shot up to professional sports before, and I have 4 lenses, 24-70 f/2.8 ii, 70-200 f/2.8 ii, 100mm macro f/2.8, and a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 ii Canon. I would cull a lot of this down, probably choose either the 10mm or 14mm and drop the other one, completely lose the 10-18mm, probably the same with the 17-55mm, maybe choose either the 35mm or 50mm, and then get both the 90mm and the 100-400 (personally i like the Canon more but no big deal). It looks to me like overkill though, and potentially some wasted money, I definitely wouldn't see myself using that many different options all so close to each other at least!
  
  ​
  
  Why am I saying this? You have several lenses that are all very close, and it doesn't make much sense to switch lenses to get that extra bit closer, when you can either "zoom" with your feet (just walk the couple feet closer), or crop in post to what you want instead. You'll also save a couple hundred dollars in the process that could go towards a strap, towards a better lens instead, some other small utility piece, a couple extra batteries, a flash, some SD cards, etc.
  
  
  Since you are interested in macro so much, look up raynox and if you use facebook at all I would definitely join the macro photography group (if you do, feel free to PM me and I can add you to a bunch of different groups). Also, if you don't have a tripod, you'll probably want one, it can make macro work a LOT easier!
  
  
  This is just my .02 anyways, if you don't like my thoughts feel free to ignore them! And if you have more questions or want me to clarify, ask away!

I'm still shooting with a 40D and it's a really great body, less flimsy than the rebels but easier to carry around than the bigger full frame bodies. I'd recommend checking out 3rd party lenses as well like tamron, sigma and tokina. If you aren't shooting pro I doubt you'll be able to tell the difference from canon/nikon lenses (usually sharpness and chromatic aberration aren't as up to par), and you're paying for significantly less. Typically you're gonna want 3 types of lenses, a wide angle, around 12-20, a walk-around lens, 30-55, and a telephoto, 70-200+, and the usefulness of each is going to depend on what kind of photography you'll be doing, like wide-angle is really useful for architecture and landscape, walk-arounds for street photography, telephoto for sports or birdwatching. FWIW I use mostly a Sigma 30mm prime. Do a lot of research, read all the reviews, and try stuff out first in a camera store if one is close to you.

Hello!

We ask that all self-serving/ gear related/ help-desk questions be directed to our Official Questions Thread currently up and running.

Your post has been removed.

Thank-you


__

Here is the source for your post so you can copy-paste easily:




I'll be traveling all throughout Israel early August and bringing with me a Sony a6000 with the kit 16-50mm and 55-210mm lenses. I will also bring this lens as it quickly became one of my favorites for street life photography. I'm leaving behind Nikon AF Nikkor 35-105mm 1:3.5-4.5 D as well as Nikkor 50mm 1:1.8 prime. The low light is great with the 50mm, but the FOV isn't great with APS-C I've noticed, and as I'll be in a desert where it will be fairly sunny I figure I can go without the added weight/stress of breaking a lens. For night shots, I plan to just play with long exposures and layering in post-production.

Accessory wise, I'm bringing plenty of on the go lens cleaners and dusters and brushes to keep sand/salt etc. to a minimum.

I will also have 5 batteries and two Kingston 64GB SDXC 90MB/s (r) and 45MB/s (w).

That was a brain dump, so thank you if you read through that. I'll be bringing this bag as well for day packing and camera equipment protection

I've never done desert shoots and honestly have more practice with film than mirrorless so any recommendations would be great!

Thanks in advance!

Im new to the game as well, but so far these are the things I have picked up for my G6:

first, i bought a G6 kit that came with some handy stuff

I have also purchased

A slightly better tripod

A flood light

Battery pack for said light

Variable ND Fader for filming out doors

Rode shotgun Mic

Zoom H1

Lav mic to go with the H1

Headphones to listen for levels

Triple Mount Hot Shoe

Backpack to hold everything

This is just a fun lens, and its cheap the 50mm means its a 100mm equivelent, so its for really tight portraits, but the low aperture is good for low/light and for a very shallow field depth. When I am able to use it, this lens produces the most popular results when i post them online.

new strap cause the one that comes with the G6 sucks!

What i want to get:

A bigger zoom lens I am mostly interested in videography(weddings etc), and this would be good for back of the house shots)

The M 3/4's "nifty fifty"

Thank you! Well the best tip I can give is to learn how to use a flash well and make sure it's diffused! I use the Laowa KX800 dual flash and I love it. I'm on custom diffuser #3 at the moment (basically a circular softbox) and it works well, but I'm going to investigate how to get the lighting even softer.

As far as the lens, there are so many options out there, I only have experience with Canon 100mm USM and Laowa 15mm macro but I love them both. I also recommend the Raynox DCR250 diopter lens attachment. It can really increase magnification and it snaps on and off instantly.

Here's my general setup:

Front

Back

Personally the obvious entry-level lens after the kit 18-55mm lens is to pair it with something like a 55-200mm lens. That way you will have most of your necessary range covered, all the way from 18mm ultra-wide to 200mm telephoto. These basic lenses aren't anything too special, but they are surprisingly solid for their cheap price.

-Here is a basic 55-200mm; if you want something with more reach such as for wildlife photography, here is a basic 55-300mm. If you believe that you might someday upgrade to a fullframe camera^([>$1500 at the cheapest]), and want a lens that can upgrade with you, here is an FX 70-300mm. All three of these lenses have vibration reduction, which reduces shake from say your hands.-

After a wide-angle zoom lens and a telephoto zoom lens, the next obvious choice for a budding photographer on a budget I would say is either a 35mm prime or a 50mm prime. as I said previously, both of these lenses are close to the focal range of the human eye, making them good choices for general purpose photography. And when compared to say your 18-55mm kit lens, both of these primes will be far faster and sharper at their given focal length, with a small depth of field that is very fun to play with (here is an example of what a small depth of field can look like).

-Here is a 35mm f1.8 [DX]; here is a 50mm f1.8 [FX]. Both are roughly the same price, both are roughly similar focal lengths; choose the 35mm if you prefer to get closer to your subject, choose the 50mm if you prefer to have a little more reach. (also, the 50mm is an FX and cheap, so if upgrading in the future was something you wanted, it would be the better choice. There is an FX 35mm nikon lens also, but it costs over double the price.)-

So to summarize, a solid starter set of lenses would be an 18-55mm, a 55-200mm(or something similar), and a good general purpose prime lens such as either the 35mm or the 50mm. Any lenses after that will depend widely on your given needs and desires.

Its annoying how this subreddit downvotes everything immediately. I'm gathering you're looking for a quality wide angle lens that's good got filming video with? The problem is that a sharp zoom lens that also is good wide open is going to be expensive. I'm not sure what you're filming, but I would say you may be able to get away with a good 35mm lens. Sticking with a prime will allow you to get a good quality lens with a wide aperture for close to the budget that you want. I know Zeiss makes excellent video lenses, but they are expensive. One that I have used is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens. Its sharp, bright, and can be used in manual focus decently, althought I'm not sure it has image stabilization (which I'm assuming you want for video?). Certainly not an expert, but hope this helps.

I didn't even spend $100 on my adapter. I got a cheap $20 adapter for MD/MC minolta lenses. But I am thinking of upgrading to one with a filter. So all my non-kit lenses are manual.

I have the Minolta rokkor 50mm 1.7. I also have the super cheap Fotasy 35mm f1.7 CCTV lens, which I got simply to have a faster lens.


I like it a lot, but I am definitely no wiz at manual shooting. My manual lenses I mostly use if I know I can take my time to shoot. Like if I offer a friend a "photo shoot" for fun, or am taking pictures around the house. My photos are usually of still or patient subjects. like my cat. Or some leaves. Flowers. Family parties.

I take time to refocus a new shot, while some are very quick. I switch to a kit lens if I need speed, since they are the only thing I have with autofocus.

I am considering getting (a bunch of lenses) like the sigma 30mm f1.4 or sony 50f1.8. Maybe the sigma 60mm instead.

Overall, I do like what I have. I am most excited that I haven't spent a fortune on lenses and stuff. but since none of my adapted lenses have the AF right now I cannot comment on it.

Thanks a lot for your detailed response! The Tokina sounds pretty good to me, shooting stars is one thing I definitely hope to do at some point, but it's quite a bit monetary investment for a single lens for a beginner like me, but perhaps as a present...

Also that's good to know, I can manual focus fine but obviously autofocus is seriously useful in most scenarios, so wouldn't want to unwittingly be landed with a lens with no autofocus.

I think I might invest first in a long focal length one (thinking maybe this) and maybe a 35 or 50mm large aperture prime, could get both for the price of the Tokina... But yeah, thanks very much, you've been a tremendous help

Start with something like this:

http://youtu.be/F8T94sdiNjc

It will give you an idea about what all the knobs and dials can do.

Realize that a "kit" lens is way more of a limiting factor then the camera. A a6000 is a marvellous technical achievement. To reach the limits of its capabilities you will most likely need some quality lenses. An all in one super zoom lens might not be the best choice(I assume that was the type of lens in your kit). The relatively cheap alternative but impressive improvement in quality can be had with prime lenses. The Sigma 30mm 2.8 comes to mind.

So once you have an idea about how all the knobs and buttons can affect an image go look at other peoples work. Flick is a good a place as any when starting out. I am sure the even have a grouping for just images taken with a a6000. Your brain should start to make the connection between how an image looks and what the settings are to recreate it(after a while you will even make the connection to videography, you will notice DoF in movies and such). Then if you have a "good eye" you will be creating images better then the ones you were initially imitating.

but it wont happen without lots of time and practice.... My guess is that no one here was born a photography savant. Many have spent years working on their craft.

I thought about those Neewer tubes but decided to pay a little more and get the all-metal set. They should be here tomorrow and I can report back OCE I try them out. The cool thing about tubes instead of a macro filter is that you'll be able to use the tubes with any and all E-mount lenses.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01JIJNMQM/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_awdb_U8buyb8DNRWDT

Also, if you're new to E-mount and not wanting to spend too much, you might consider getting a Fujian(Fotasy) 35mm f/1.7 cctv lens. Super cheap, gives you a lens that has a shallow DOF, great bokeh, and I'm guessing it might be my favorite to use on the extension tubes once I get them

https://www.amazon.com/Fotasy-N35-Mount-Mirrorless-Cameras/dp/B00KWNA1VS

Also, I thought it was nice seeing the various methods compared:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PFgg9zYzCYk

One last edit: from my research, I think the close up filters will reduce your effective aperture and require more light, but I don't think that's the case with extension tubes. Something to keep in mind if you don't have a flash (since I think it would be more necessary with the screw on filters)

Disneyland Toyko!!! And while I'm there I'm totally going to the Nintendo Pokemon Center store that's 45 minutes away from it.
My best friend and I are cast members so tickets would be free, we just have to pay for airfare and discounted hotel in their new TANGLED THEMED ROOMS! (our favorite movie if you can't guess....)

I would buy myself a new lens to take! It would just be the best friend and myself :)

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

1. I'm sorry, this is hilarious.
   
   
2. Hm, this sounds good!
   
   fear cuts deeper than swords.... muahahahahaa!

Yes, I use the Kenko tubes. I'm not sure exactly how much magnification I'm getting to be honest. I think the Raynox is x2.5 and the tubes change depending on how many extenders you are using. If I were to keep one, I guess it would be the Raynox. I really like this tool, it auto focuses fairly easy and delivers great images. Read the reviews on Amazon, it's a pretty well received attachment.

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.

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!

Hi /u/ArcadiumStadium - There are several auto and manual choices, none of which require an adapter.

If you want an auto lens, the [$348 Panasonic 20mm f1.7] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00DJS830Y/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00DJS830Y&linkCode=as2&tag=battleforthew-20) and the [$499 Olympus 17mm f1.8] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CI3R4VU/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00CI3R4VU&linkCode=as2&tag=battleforthew-20) meet all of your criteria and are probably your best bets.

If you want a manual cine lens with follow focus gears and stepless aperture, you might be interested in the [$499 SLR Magic 17mm T1.6] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HNJAMKE/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00HNJAMKE&linkCode=as2&tag=battleforthew-20) or the [$599 SLR Magic 12mm T1.6] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B006QFRLKU/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B006QFRLKU&linkCode=as2&tag=battleforthew-20).

The best manual lens in this category is not a "cine lens", but it is an amazing piece of glass nonetheless - the [$1150 Voigtlander Nokton 17mm f0.95] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007VHDUN4/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B007VHDUN4&linkCode=as2&tag=battleforthew-20).

Here is what this lens looks like on the G6: http://vimeo.com/72585046

Hope this is helpful!

Bill

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).

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.

I actually have a 70D as well, and i use a Sigma 30mm f/1.4, i got one on eBay in immaculate condition with the hood and case for $207.00 shipped. I like this lens a lot, its not super sharp until f/1.8-2.0, but even then it manages to pull a lot of light in, and its focus is able to be adjusted manually after AF without damaging the AF motors, which is pretty handy for super busy shots where you want to get that very narrow range of focus just right. Also, 30 x 1.6 (aps-c crop factor) = 48mm, the closest youll get to the equivalent of a 50mm full frame. I definitely recommend

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0007U0GZM/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_lIiWCbMFMSC9X

Free Stuff:

• Use Capture One Express for raw processing; its free.
  
• Use DaVinci Resolve for video editing; its free.
  
• Be able to shoot videos longer than 30 minutes.
  
  Low Cost (Under $30):
  
  
• Have at least one or two spare batteries.
  
• Remote triggers are nice; long range ones are even better.
  
• Mini Tripods are better than no tripod.
  
• Get a hot shoe cover (with a bubble).
  
• Almost always shoot with your lens hood on.
  
• Get the timelapse app.
  
• These flash bounce cards are magic.
  
  Expensive:
  
  
• Shoot RAW and get a big SD card.
  
• The sigma 30mm F/1.4 is almost glued on. I use it a lot.
  
• If looking for a flash checkout Flashpoint and the transmitter (rebranded godox). I have 3 of them.
  
• Flash Bender is a great all around flash modifier; knockoffs work pretty well. If you get a big flash you'll want a modifier.
  
  
  Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/4zb5zt/what_are_the_things_i_should_know_read_about_my/
  

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:

• Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM -- $599.99
  
• Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD -- $1,299.00
  
• Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM AF -- $824.00
  
  
  Is it worth investing more to buy this lens? I don't believe I have enough skills to appreciate difference...
  
  
• Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM -- $2,299.00 (its way out of my league... I have money but I'm afraid I would fall into dark depressing place filled with guilt If I spent so much)
  
  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.

You're welcome, hope I didn't come off like a jerk lol. Yeah, at 1:1 I imagine you're already cropping a decent amount. Which lens are you using? Consider using a Raynox dcr-250 clip on lens to get more magnification. The thing is really amazing for the price. Here are some pics I took with it on the 100mm 2.8L: https://imgur.com/a/ooDSS. With a 100mm you can get to 2:1. Check out my recent comments for more info if you're interested. Happy shooting!

The 50/1.8 is nice and cheap (and sharp as a tack), but I find 50 to be too long on a crop sensor for general use. If you can spring for the 28mm f/2.8 or the 28mm f/1.8, you'll probably find that you have a much more useful lens in general.

In fact, you might consider getting a body w/out a kit lens and spending the difference on a nice prime lens. In the good ol' days, an SLR camera came with just one lens: a fast 50mm prime.

Thanks to the crop factor on the Rebel bodies, a 28mm lens essentially acts like a 50mm lens.

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 am deciding between two lenses for my NEX6 and would like some input. This 19mm and this 30mm. I would love if someone could help me pick one. I want to know which will be more versatile. I only have the 18-50 kit lens and want a prime that I can use for everything. Is there a good site to compare what the difference between the focal lengths are with example pictures? If you had to choose between the two which would you go with?

Thanks for any help.

Hey guys! First time checking out this subreddit.

Current camera: Canon T5i

Current lenses:

• Kit (Canon 18-55mm)
  
• 50mm f/1.8
  
• Canon 55 - 250mm
  
  
  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:
  
  
• Canon EF-S 10 - 18mm IS STM
  
• Canon EF-S 10 - 22mm USM
  
  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:
  
  
• Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM
  
• Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM
  
  Again, I'm running into the IS or no IS problem. Didn't know if people have had experiences with either.
  
  Thank you!

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.

> 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.

I took a look at some pics of the P510, and it looks like it may be able to use a closeup filter like the Raynox DCR-250. The DCR-250 is fitted with a spring-loaded mechanism that allows it to be fitted on many cameras. (I'm not 100% sure it will work on the P510, but it looks like there is a large enough ridge on the end of the stock lens for it to work).

That's a pretty nice macro you linked to. Taking a closer look on flickr, it doesn't appear that the photographer used any extra gear, so you may be able to achieve your desired results without any extra gear. Since the 510 doesn't have interchangeable lenses, closeup filters are probably the way to go if you want to add magnification.

In photography, the lenses you use make much more difference than the actual camera. I was in the exact same situation about 6 months ago. My wife wanted to get into photography and didn't know where to start.

I highly suggest starting with a Nikon D3000, D3100 or D3200 depending on how much you want to spend. Each model up is a little more and has a little bit more features. The stock lens is pretty decent and overall you can stay significantly below your budget. If she is just starting out, don't spend too much money (yet).

If you want to explore lens options, we recently purchased a f/1.8G 35mm (http://bit.ly/bOeXNu) the wide aperture means she'll be able to take great photos with little light, best for indoor shots and gives a very shallow depth of field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field (good thing). If she wants to take some photos of outdoors, maybe animals or people, getting a longer lens will let her take shots from far away, a 55-200mm lens (http://amzn.to/NiuCUB) will let her do that with ease.

I am in no way an expert in photography, only been at it a couple months, so anyone can correct me if my tips are no good. haha.

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.

If it was cheaper as a package, awesome! I like the kit lens well enough (16-50 f3.5-5.6). The zoom is a little slow though, and won't do well in low light.

This Sigma 19mm f2.8 for $200 (or the Sony version here) is a good next step. A prime lens doesn't zoom at all, but it's a reasonably wide angle and it will let more light in than the kit lens and work better in low light.

Basically, I second the recommendations here to shoot more! Get some nice big SD cards and another battery or two and start clicking away. Good luck!

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

> flat lays

Just to clarify, are you talking building interior shots here? If so, generally that kind of shooting wants a wider-angle lens, and the Rokinon 12mm f2 is a pretty solid choice without blowing your budget. It's manual focus, but it has a pretty aperture and due to its wider angle nature it's pretty easy to get stuff in focus when you stop down. I have the Rokinon 14mm f2.8 for my Canon 5D/5D2, and I can just set it to ~f4-5.6 and get almost the entire scene in focus no problem.

For portraits you'll want something like the Sony 50mm f1.8 OSS which will give you that nice blurry background to separate your subject from the environment. If you're looking for more environmental portraits, something a little wider might be a good idea such as the Sony 35mm f1.8 OSS or Sigma 30mm f1.4.

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

Thanks! I just searched Amazon and found the Sigma 30mm, and yeah, it's about twice my current budget, but I'll start saving. The good news is it's an f/1.4, which is better than my current prime (50mm f/1.8), which itself was leaps and bounds better than my 17-85mm f/4-5.6.

Seriously, I know everyone here intuitively grasps f-stops, but for me to make the jump to that 50mm prime, and see just how much more light it lets in was... well, a revelation!

for the record i think craigslist is a fantastic resource. ive used it countless times to buy and sell camera equipment and never been burned. i'd reconsider if i were you, but be smart when buying or selling.

however, you can find the tokina used on amazon for ~$400

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B007ORX8ME/ref=sr_1_1_olp?ie=UTF8&qid=1466031552&sr=8-1&keywords=tokina+11-16&condition=used


as far as other lenses go...i'm not sure. there weren't any at the quality/aperture/focal length for a comparable price when i left #teamcanon.

the-digital-picture.com is a great resource for lens reviews, but take them with a grain of salt, he seems to bend over for canon backwards when comparing to 3rd parties.

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 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.

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.

Not saying this is the best choice, but my first buy was:

a Sony NEX-7 body for ~$250 (used from Adorama)

and a 30mm f/2.8 Sigma ART lens for $170 (new from Amazon)

For a total of $420

I'm just a beginner like you, but I've been totally happy with mine. Just know that if you make the initial investment in mirrorless, there aren't a lot of lenses to choose from yet.

When I went looking for advice, people told me not to buy a kit because the kit lenses are just... worse in general. So I bought the body I wanted and a lens with good reviews.

I went mirrorless because I wanted something small and non-threatening for street photography, and I went with Sony because I heard good things about their sensor.

Here's an album of some pictures with this setup

Ah so grateful! Really, I needed this sort of 'debate' ironed out because it's bugging me. If I begin to sound like I'm counter-pointing I apologize, it's probably due to my lack of knowledge

Now, I probably should have lead on with this but sometimes I forget I even have one because the quality is lousy. I have a 55-200 and it's this one.

Again, I only use it if really necessary as I've never really liked a single photo that's come out of it. So I technically have the focal range but the photos are just so bad I don't even like pretending I own it.

The 70-200 is very nice. But it's arguably more expensive than the original lens I am out seeking. The end goal is to own a full frame, 24-70, and a 70-200 as they are champions in the game haha.

I believe the 85mm would hold me over for now and would provide a fill for the tighter focal length I'm seeking. If it turns out that I have a huge demand for my services (one can dream) then having that for tight shots, the 50mm for slightly wider and 'tight spaces', and the 18-35 for environmental portraits, I think I would be in good shape as long as my client could wait while I swapped the lens in and out haha

Not trying to argue or anything, everything is 100% cool with you not wanting the lens.

But I am a professional photographer, so I have to say something to help out where I can...

Do you mean the newest 50 f/1.8 G? Or an older D model? Older D models have a screw-focus mechanism and will not autofocus with D40/40x/60/3000/3100/5000/5100 model cameras and will have to be manually focused anyway. And the lens is more than $200 before taxes.

If you want a "normal" (normal field of view, i.e. what your eyes see more or less) lens with the 1.5x crop of most consumer level digital cameras, you might want to look for a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 G. You can see that, even used, the lens is less than $200.

And do you mean the 55-300 f/4.5-5.6? That one is $400 and has less light coming onto your sensor wide-open at f/4.5 through f/5.6. Any lens that goes from 55mm to 200mm is not going to be very sharp and will probably not focus well from about 8pm on (due to modern phase focus systems and consumer lens manufacturing).

What camera do you own?

Personally, I would look at prime lenses (lenses that are one fixed focal length) over zoom lenses - you zoom with your feet rather than with the lens and it makes you a better photographer faster because you have to use all of that slight annoyance of not zooming to get a better picture. It helps you think. In my opinion, zooming is a crutch. Prime lenses are also generally sharper because they are not trying to be sharp at all focal lengths and they are generally faster (f/1.8 as opposed to f/4.5-5.6 which means it lets more light onto the sensor).

I have a GF2 with the 20mm pancake lens and it's perfect for street stuff. I can fit it fine in my jacket pocket, and it's pretty small. You could also use the 14mm lens. It's a bit smaller, but it has a weirder focal length and it's not as fast. It's a very fun camera.

(don't get the GF3, gf2 or gf1 are much better for what you want).

55-250 should be more than good enough for most of outdoor shooting. But it won't give you wide angle shots and it won't perform that well indoors (too slow and too tight). You can grab yourself a fast wide prime lens like Canon 28mm f/1.8, Sigma 30mm f/1.4 to complement your telephoto zoom. Lens like these will give you wider angle and allow low-light shooting indoors. As a bonus you will also get nice and smooth bokeh.

The a6000 is a great camera at a phenomenal price. Pick up a used body (e.g. here or, if you're really on a tight budget, here) and a couple prime lenses.

Some of the other commenters complain about the lack of lenses, but you don't reasonably need f/2.8 zoom lenses to cover all of your focal lengths. Just pick up a Samyang 12mm (e.g. this one for $239), a Sigma 30mm f/2.8 (e.g. this one for $170), or a longer one if you want (e.g. the Sigma 60mm, or even an old Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 or 100mm f/4 macro for use with an adapter).

Having said that, there are other great cameras you could buy within your budget (e.g. the Olympus OMD line). But the a6000 is a great camera, and the E mount system is plenty diverse in practice.

The a6000 is a great camera. They also have some pretty cheap high quality lenses. Lenses like this are great.

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

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.

Get yourself the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. I have the same camera as you, and trust me, the extra light that 1.4 can let in will blow your mind the first time you try it in less than perfect lighting conditions. It's truly awesome. A 50mm, I find, is far too restrictive to really be my "walkaround" lens.

I'm using a Panasonic Lumix GF2 with the 14-42 kit lens, and this is one of my frustrations. I've experimented with a lot of settings but while I've got some awesome outdoor shots, I've never been happy with the indoor ones. I'm also looking to buy this 20mm prime - are you saying that my indoor shots would improve a lot? If yes, Could you elaborate on why that is? This camera is my first jump up from a point and shoot so there is much for me to learn. Thanks!

In that case you might also want to consider Fuji's 10-24. This can handle the landscape and astro stuff quite well, but not macro. Before going this route decide if you need the 25-55 range or if you want a faster lens (the 10-24 is an f4, I find it a good complement to my 23 and 56 primes).

Fuji macro options are limited; you might go ahead with adapting old manual lenses for that (my less-than-ideal set up is an old olympus 50mm with a cheap macro adaptor). You could even go for the 60mm, which is decent for macro and could be a fully useable focal length for landscape -- it's not the typical wide angle but I've seen some interesting landscapes at longer focal lengths.

All that said - if you really just want one lens then you can't go wrong with the 18-55, and it is certainly more versatile than the lenses I've just mentioned.

Go buy this Sony A6000 lens kit, like right now, this crazy deal is going to expire today and covers all your needs but wildlife. You would need a telephoto lens for that anyway regardless of camera. The flip out screen on it is great.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00HNJWU3G/ref=twister_B00Q7GLIWU?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1
Also get this Sigma 30mm lens, it's great for low light and will really make your photos look pro. All of this is just $600!
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-30mm-f2-8-Lens-Sony/dp/B00BQXL5CM/ref=sr_1_3?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1449614798&sr=1-3&keywords=Sigma+30mm

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B000A1SZ2Y?cache=b56b47c18f7c83dda66eee9d1fe148a8&pi=AC_SX110_SY165_QL70&qid=1411112340&sr=8-13#ref=mp_s_a_1_13

Once you get a camera, you can use this lens with it. You still have to get within about 6 inches of the subject, but you can zoom in incredibly far. Very easy to use but I recommend using a stand/bipod or immobilizing the subject indoors, as the slightest twitch of your finger or slight breeze will cause blurryness. I've used it myself and gotten some very nice photos.

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.

• Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Medium Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras - Fixed
  https://www.amazon.com/Canon-85mm-Medium-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00007GQLU
  
  
  
• Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras
  https://www.amazon.com/Canon-75-300mm-4-5-6-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00004THD0
  
  
  
• EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 link isnt exactly it mine doesnt have image stabilization.
  https://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-3-5-5-6-Lens/dp/B000V5K3FG
  
  
  Really appreciate the help. Thank You

I am about to upgrade from a Sony HX400V to a Sony a6300 for my photography. In addition to toddlers a big part of what I do is take pictures of life to post to iNaturalist (Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, Example 5 you can click on photos and hit original for a larger version). Therefore I am trying to set up a good macro system, eventually this will upgrade to an underwater system with the ikelite system so I want the lens to be compatible with that.

Here is what I am planning to purchase:

Sony a6300

Sony SEL90M28G FE 90mm f/2.8-22 Macro

SIRUI P-326 6 Section Carbon Fiber Monopod

Manfrotto 234RC Monopod Head Quick Release

Raynox DCR-250 Super Macro Snap-On Lens

Sigma Flash Macro Ring EM-140 DG

Movo Photo AF Macro Extension Tube Set

B+W 62mm XS-Pro Clear

Is any of this stuff likely to be useless for its intended function? Is there anything in this price range which is likely to be helpful that I forgot about? Is there anything less expensive which is just as good as one of the products I chose?

A few suggestions:

1. If you are upgrading from the kit lens, my first pick would be 20mm f/1.7. The Sigma 60mm would be too long and you will likely get very little use out of it. 20mm pancake would be an ideal street lens for its low profile and the focal length. I would not go with 14mm. I had one and it felt too wide.
   
2. If you are buying the pancake lens, my recommendation is not to buy any other lens for at least a few months. You can cover most of your needs with the help of your kit lens in a pinch.
   
3. The Oly 40-150mm is overpriced at $200. It had been at $99 brand new for over a year until the recent price hike a few days ago. Either buy used or wait.
   
4. If going with 20mm, there is an older version of the lens that is optically equivalent. If opting for used, you can get it as ~$100 cheaper here
   http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-H-H020-Aspherical-Pancake-Interchangeable/dp/B002IKLJVE
   
   Good luck! My first few years into photography, all I had was a refurb D3000 and a Nikon 35mm f/1.8. I still cherish many of the photos that I took from that time.

Consider the 70-300mm or 55-300mm or 300mm f/4 instead. The first is a very good quality zoom lens that will allow you to change zoom for framing, the second is a cheaper version of the same, and the third is a very good prime. I have the 55-300mm and I found that I use it for birds and such, almost 99% of the time at 300mm. I think if I were to reconsider the purchase I would go for the 300mm f/4, epecially because it allows the use of teleconverters. If you go for the 18-300mm, you sacrifice a large amount of quality in all focal lengths. It isn't worth it. With the budget you have for the 18-300mm, you can get the 70-300mm and gain quite a lot of quality or the 300mm prime and find yourself with an amazing birding/wildlife lens. If you stick a 2x teleconverter on there, you have 960mm f/8 lens on an APS-C body - basically a telescope, but also amazing for birds (but a little lacking in low light).

well you could get close to the subject with the 35mm 1.8 if you want a tiny bit more space from your subject and less of a wide angle 50 mm1.8, but I think the best for you would be this 55-200. You could definitely use it for portraits and some amatuer action/sports/nature photgraphy, i use it all the time. if you've got the money then go for the 55-300 it might be a little softer and less crisp around the 250 mm+ range but I dont really have any personal use with it so i wouldn't know.

I have a D3300. My most used lenses are the 35mm 1.8 and the [Tokina 11-16 2.8] (https://www.amazon.com/Tokina-11-16mm-AT-X116-Digital-Cameras/dp/B007ORX8ME/ref=sr_1_1?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1480092486&sr=1-1&keywords=tokina+11-16). I highly recommend both of them. The 35 is great for every day use, and the 11-16 is amazing for landscapes. But it really depends on what you want the lenses for?

When I was a kid my Dad would let me use his Canon AE-1 to photograph insects in the garden. I still visit them and photograph insects in their garden. Little kids (and big kids) love bugs.

Raynox close up lenses can be adapted to a number of P&S cameras with screens on the back to make for easier focusing with great results. These are some of mine shot with a Raynox DCR-250 on a Canon G12.

Ya. This http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-14mm-2-5-Aspherical-Interchangeable/dp/B0043VE29C/ref=sr_sp-btf_title_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1410483257&sr=8-12&keywords=12mm+micro+lens
is probably your best bet then. You can definitely get it on the cheap, and it will definitely have contact points for our autofocusing.

Its tough to think of saving up for the oly though. Saving up for me is the Metabones EF to MFT speedbooster and the Sigma 18mm-35mm. That the lens (combo) that can basically replace everything else for me (aka once I get my second body, the speed booster/lens is basically never coming off).

I will probably bite the bullet on the rokinon (or try and find the cheapest used oly I can) and save up for the sigma.

I would recommend a smaller mirror less camera, such as the nex 3n, and pick up a 30 mm lens like this one. This will allow you to take excellent photos without worrying too much about technical details. This system will also allow you to upgrade if you want to.

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!

55-200mm. Seemed like a great idea at the time and I used it a lot during my month in Greece, but I've barely touched it in the year since then. I guess I don't do much shooting that requires that sort of lens. The 18-55mm kit lens took care of most of my needs, but that's seeing less use now in favor of my 35mm 1.8.

It's also a hassle to carry around since it's a heavier lens.

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.

Yes they are. This is the the best "affordable" option http://www.amazon.com/Tokina-11-16mm-AT-X116-Digital-Cameras/dp/B007ORX8ME/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420828935&sr=8-1&keywords=tokina+11-16+dx+ii+nikon

I have that lens and take panoramas like this https://www.flickr.com/photos/128475051@N04/15800909882/ with it. It's actually an amazing lens for that price. Was $700 when I bought it :/

I really hope this gets answered. Would a Super Macro Lens like this
http://www.amazon.com/Raynox-DCR-250-2-5x-Super-Macro/dp/B000A1SZ2Y/ref=cm_cmu_pg__header

Work on a Canon Rebel XSI?

My tele-macro lens just doesn't get as close as I wish it could.

The technique is much more important than the camera at this level. I would get the Nikon D3100 with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens and a 55-200mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. Then you would have plenty of money left over for accessories (or other lenses once you know what you want) and maybe a good book on photography technique.

edit: An extra battery can be a lifesaver. Also, make sure the memory card is fast enough if you plan on ever taking video.

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!

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 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!

you can take the exact same shot over and over for median stacking to reduce noise, no need to alter settings. You are right that 25s is right on the edge of causing star movement.

https://petapixel.com/2015/01/06/avoid-star-trails-following-500-rule/

I would still try median stacking @ 20 seconds with a couple shots, but you're correct- you may need a lens that can open wider to get your exposure short enough for this technique.

Fast wide angle lenses aren't cheap unfortunately. Here is the bottom of the barrel for your application. Rokinon qual control is shit so one copy will be great another will be crap.
https://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-Ultra-Digital-Cameras-10M-C/dp/B00JD4TCR6


Everyone likes this one, if you can scrounge up another 100$.
https://www.amazon.com/Tokina-11-16mm-AT-X116-Digital-Cameras/dp/B007ORX8ME/

You can also rent these from a place like lensrental.com to see if you want to save the money to own one.


Edit: median stacking intro: https://petapixel.com/2013/05/29/a-look-at-reducing-noise-in-photographs-using-median-blending/

Without a doubt get the Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR.

For under $150 you can get a used or refurbished one. Some of the sellers list refurbished models in the used category on amazon. I was able to pick up a factory sealed refurbished model (listed under used) for $130 shipped last month.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B000O161X0/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used

You have the close end of the range and you have a prime lens. You are right to think about the long end of the range with your next lens. For the money you are looking to spend I recommend you go with a Nikon lens especially with the used prices what they are.

edit: I should add, despite not being a macro lens the minimum focus distance of the zoom i recommend is 1.1m. The sigma macro lenses you named above list 1.1m and 0.95m as their minimum focus distance respectively. This is hardly a difference and I think you get a better value from the Nikon lens here.

For a true macro lens with very close focus distance you will likely have to pay a lot more than you are looking at (closer to $1000 than $100). A budget alternative is picking up a set of close up filters which will allow your current lens to focus closer. They add some distortion and have a very narrow depth of field, but they may be able to satisfy your curiosity on a shoestring budget: http://www.amazon.com/Zeikos-definition-Close-Up-Diopters-Magnification/dp/B001UE6NAQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1345214405&sr=1-1&keywords=close+up+filters

Is the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 my best best for landscape/camping photography if I also want it to be functional/capable enough for astrophotography? I'm trying to keep my backpacking setup relatively light, so would be bringing my Nikond7100, Nikkor 35 mm f 1.8, and ___. What do you guys think should fill that 2nd lens role.

I got this $30 manual lens for my a6000: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00KWNA1VS/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_FgHmDb2GMPRQ1

It's one of my favorite lenses for portraits. The bokeh is really good and it puts out amazing portrait shots consistently.
For $30 it can't be beat.

Hi /u/monsieurrodriguez - there are a few great wide, fast micro 4/3 lenses in this price range:

System lenses:

• Oly 17mm f1.8 - about [$370 used on eBay] (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?icep_ff3=2&pub=5575034783&toolid=10001&campid=5337235943&customid=&icep_item=281518118988&ipn=psmain&icep_vectorid=229466&kwid=902099&mtid=824&kw=lg) and [about the same used on Amazon] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00A7Q9U9Y/sr=8-2/qid=1417840533/?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&condition=used&creative=390957&linkCode=ur2&qid=1417840533&sr=8-2&tag=battleforthew-20)
  
  
• Panasonic 20mm f1.7 - [starting at $300 used on eBay as of this post] (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?ff3=4&pub=5575034783&toolid=10001&campid=5337235943&customid=&mpre=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fsch%2FLenses-%2F3323%2Fi.html%3F_from%3DR40%26LH_BIN%3D1%26_nkw%3Dpanasonic%252020mm%2520f1.7%26LH_PrefLoc%3D1%26_dcat%3D3323%26rt%3Dnc%26_pppn%3Dr1%26_mPrRngCbx%3D1%26_udlo%26_udhi%3D350) and [starting at $333 used at Amazon Warehouse Deals] (http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-H-H020AK-Olympus-Thirds-Cameras/dp/B00DJS830Y/ref=sr_1_1?m=A2L77EE7U53NWQ&ie=UTF8&qid=1417841121?tag=battleforthew-20)
  
  
• Oly 25mm f1.8 - [one available for $340.32 used on eBay] (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?icep_ff3=2&pub=5575034783&toolid=10001&campid=5337235943&customid=&icep_item=161510548049&ipn=psmain&icep_vectorid=229466&kwid=902099&mtid=824&kw=lg) and [two available for $349.99 used at Amazon] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00HWMP0XG/sr=8-14/qid=1417862230/?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&condition=used&creative=390957&linkCode=ur2&qid=1417862230&sr=8-14&tag=battleforthew-20)
  
  Manual
  
  
• [SLR Magic 17mm T1.6 - $349 new at Amazon] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HNJAMKE/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00HNJAMKE&linkCode=as2&tag=battleforthew-20)
  
  Hope this is helpful!
  

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&me=

Get the Sigma 30mm 1.4
It's easily my favorite lens in my bag, It looks better than my L series zoom.
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-30mm-Canon-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0007U0GZM
Wait for a sale, I've seen it go down to like $260 before.

Someone on this thread once shared the helpful advice, which I'll repeat, to plan with your end goal for lenses in mind. If you plan to eventually buy three prime lenses you might look at the 45mm, the 25mm and the 12mm lenses from Olympus. If you think you'd ultimately only buy two, then consider the 45mm and the 17mm.

I own the 17mm and 45mm and while the 45 is an awesome portrait lens and probably a little sharper overall, I keep the 17mm on my EM5 the majority of the time and it's my default lens. It's a great lens that is wide enough to capture decent landscapes but can still manage a portrait. IF you think you'd eventually get three lenses I'd suggest starting with the 25mm.

EDIT: added the links to Amazon, but you should be able to often find the lenses cheaper on eBay or other used sites

There are quite a lot of budget lens available for M43 Cameras. As far as sharpness goes, you will get more with slightly more pricey glass but as far as starter/kit lens go:

• Panasonic 14-42mm
  
• Panasonic 14mm
  
• Panasonic-14-45mm
  
  If you are really on a budget get an Olympus 14-42mm <$100 and start renting the other lenses you are interested in.
  
  Hope i helped!
  
  -Marty

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%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/

Hey thanks I really appreciate this help.

I have 3 lenses (1, 2, 3), the first two are 49mm thread size and the third is 46mm as you said - So I should get a 49mm then get a 46-49mm step-up adapter?

So like this filter and this adapter?

7200 is a great choice! 18-55 for landscape, 55-300 for wildlife, 35 1.8 DX for crispy shots and bOkeh and some extension tubes for macro. You'll see later whether you want spend thousands for better pro lenses. For start this should cover almost everything.

I picked up a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX a few years ago used and that almost never came off my camera. I recommend going for something like that if you're on a budget.

Or replace your kit lens with any 17-50mm (or 17-55) f/2.8 lens. I use that (Sigma again) almost constantly now when I want some zoom.

The 24mm is good too and cheaper than both of those I mentioned. Just wanted to expand your options.

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 made the mistake of making a post asking about unique inks, and saw enough that it prompted me to make this order. Sorry/not sorry, haha :)

Thank you so much! This is a Nikon DSLR with the 35mm 1.8g prime lens, and then a Raynox Super Macro Snap-On Lens, which made it so I could shoot the macro without a flash :)

This was wide open 1.7 at 1/4000 (100 iso). Cheap tiny manual lens that is well worth the price. I'll be using it a lot for video. Does anyone know of similar manual E mount lenses in this price range? I know older lenses with an adapter can be had for cheap, but this was very easy to hook up and play with.

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

Great answer! After going through some of my photos it seems that 19mm or 24mm on an APS-C would indeed be more appropriate than the 30mm for me. And this 19mm Sigma seems like a nice choice for someone who's not ready to break the bank.

I have this lens for street photography. Love it. You can find tons of great reviews online, and here's some examples of it's capabilities.

I've heard great things about this lens, although it's a bit out of your price range. Maybe if you sold the kit lens? examples

this is my dream lens, but I won't be able to afford it for a while.


A little google-fu will take you a long way in terms of reviews and price points.

I'm pretty sure he was meaning the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 which is a fantastic lens. It will likely stay on your camera way more than the 50mm ever would. However, nothing is remotely in the range of the Canon 50 1.8 in terms of price.

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.

Hi all! Preemptive thanks! And now...filter questions:

I've recently purchased a Sony alpha a6000 and I've got two lenses for it:
www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0096W1P5W a 35mm f/1.8 prime, and
www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00BPZD0M4 a 19mm f2.8 sigma wide.

The next things I want to buy are a couple of neutral density filters, and I really want a Lee big stopper.

My questions are the following:
Will any of the cokin series holders (maybe the p series?) work with these lenses AND hold the Lee seven5 big stopper (and other seven5 format filters)?
Is a polarizing filter (the $240 from Lee) worth it (that is, does shooting for longer exposures in the sun increase the strength/likelihood of glare)?

a7/a7ii route: Grab a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (all around lens for $880), The Sony 85mm f/1.8 (About $550 I believe). I'd personally go for the a7ii (i recently just gone one) bc the built in image stabilization is great :)

• https://www.amazon.com/Tamron-28-75mm-Mirrorless-Limited-Warranty/dp/B07CSLM1X8/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=tamron+28+75&qid=1556297285&s=gateway&sr=8-2
  
  
• https://www.amazon.com/Sony-SEL85F18-1-8-22-Medium-Telephoto-Camera/dp/B06WLGFWGX/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=sony+85+1.8&qid=1556297303&s=gateway&sr=8-1
  
  A6300 route: Any of the Sigma f/1.4's (16mm, 30mm, 56mm) are all around $300-400 and the Sony 18-105 f/4 (for an all around lens about $550 last i checked). I'd opt for the A6000 unless weather proofing is something you absolutely need
  
  
• https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-16mm-DC-DN-Contemporary/dp/B077BWD2BB/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=sigma+16&qid=1556297194&s=gateway&sr=8-3
  
  
• https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-30mm-F1-4-Contemporary-Lens/dp/B01C3SCKI6/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=sigma+30&qid=1556297234&s=gateway&sr=8-4
  
  
• https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-Mount-Fixed-Camera-351965/dp/B07JZVP6R8/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=sigma+56&qid=1556297267&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=1556297355&s=gateway&sr=8-3

Thats basically it but this is the exact link from my orders.

I don't have enough experience with different lenses to give too much of an in depth review of it. However, from reading other people's reviews the biggest complaint is that the aperture ring doesn't click in place. My biggest issue is that the focus ring some times slips off track and the lens is definitely the sharpest in the center of the picture vs anywhere else. With that said though for ~$30 none of that bothers me.

And to answer your final question the only thing i did in photoshop was slightly (very slightly) adjust the curves and exposure. Everything else you see is the lens.

Since this seems to be of much interest to you though here is the unedited (read original jpeg) picture for you to check out.

As a new photographer/filmmaker I still don't have a good enough eye for manual adjustment, sounds stupid, but I trust myself using auto focus and setting my focus point much better then manual focusing. All I'm trying to say is that I see a lot of condescending assholes on here that professionally shoot looking down on beginning filmmakers. Instead of being stuck up dicks looking down on people with less money offer good ideas. Like renting the major expenses from your college if you are in college, camera, mics, lighting. Or giving advice on what the best choice would be used, or going the DSLR route. There are options for under $1,000 and if it annoys people seeing those posts, simple solution... skip the post and don't read it.

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-55-200mm-VR-Vibration-Reduction/dp/B000O161X0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323453778&sr=8-1

Newb here with a Nikon D3400. Looking to buy a wide angle lens for architecture/landscapes. The Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002D2VSD6/ref=ask_ql_qh_dp_hza) and the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007ORX8ME/ref=ask_ql_qh_dp_hza) are a whopping 11 cents (U.S.) difference in price. Both SEEM to support AF for the D3400, so I'm wondering if there's a clear difference between the two that would drive me towards one or the other. Thanks!!

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

Thanks very much. The passion grew as we did it, it started out as fun but soon gained a momentum of its own.

All of these shots were captured on either the Lumix 20mm 1.8 or 14mm 2.5, over the GH2's m4/3 sensor.

panasonic 12-35mm f 2.8 ii pros: handy zoom range for wide and angles and a bit of punch in, dual IS, rugged weather sealing, wider for selfie type shots, decently sharp wide open, better autofocus than the 20mm.

panasonic 20mm 1.7 pros: better in low light, arguably sharper at f2.8 than the 12-35, 1/4 of the price. cons: worse autofocus, no wide angle option...zoom is with your feet.

the IBIS of the gh5 is great, but it won't be as smooth as dual IS, so will you literally be running and expecting it to be smooth as? if so, the 12-35mm is your guy. If you're regularly shooting in bars and stuff with only mood lighting you might wanna go with the 20mm, but if all your stuff is going on youtube i wouldn't worry about pushing the ISO a little. my thoughts. Post has amazon referral links :)

Gotcha. I think what I'll end up doing is getting a cheap (relative to the X100s), small camera for everyday like the Panasonic GX1 with the 20mm Pancake and then buy a quality lens for my 60d.

That way, I can have the 60d for work and when I have time to set up shots, GX1 for family, friends, and around town snapshots, and then use my Canonet for when I want to be artistic and have the time to meter, focus, find interesting perspectives, etc.

So I'm half way through, this is more of a list of things that you should consider, maybe not all of them.

***

I disagree with everyone on one thing, you will spend more money ramping up the quality of your camera(e.g. Sony to a Black Magic), if your going in then get something that you wont feel the need to replace in a year or two, of course this varies with your financial situation.



I'd start here, you'll likely need a dead cat



Panasonic LUMIX G 20mm f/1.7 Aspherical Pancake Lens


Black Magic will be more than competent for most anyones need's, and it's cheap(relatively), significantly less on amazon.

I have a fair bit of experience with this tripod manufacturer, so I'll say this one will do great

This slider should be fine for the light weight of the Black Magic, tripod mountable

These look alright, go better quality if at all possible

Cheers!

Hey guys, I'm planing to travel to Thailand and I want to buy some new lenses for that trip. At the moment I only have my Nikon D5300 with the kit lens 18-55. The lenses I'm planing to buy are: Tokina 11-16 2.8 // Nikon 50 1.8 G // Nikon 35 1.8 // Sigma 17-50 2.8. I love doing landscape photography, astrophotography and portraits, but I can't afford all these three lenses and I don't want to travel with all that weight on my bag. What would u do in my situation? Thanks for the comments.

Remember that Olympus has a 2x crop factor, so that 30mm lens will be a 60mm equivalent, which is not a good first lens. If you want a prime lens for an Olympus, get the Panasonic 20/1.7. I used to own one and it is a very impressive lens in a great all-around focal length.

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.

That's so cool. I want to organize mine, too! I didn't know you could do that. I hope I can figure it out.

Oh, yeah. Favorite item. Sigma 30mm ƒ/1.4.

Could anyone explain to me the differences between these two lens? Could someone also tell me which would be better and why? The more detail the better! If which camera they will be used on matters... It'll be a Nikon D5200.

Lens 1: Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR

Lens 2: Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX

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.

The Lumix 20mm f/1.7 is pretty great and tiny.

I'm not sure about the price at Best Buy, I got it off amazon here http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B000O161X0/ref=mp_s_a_2?pi=SL75&qid=1347483141&sr=8-2.

I notice someone else mentioned another 50mm without an AF feature. I would say not to get that one if you can afford to. You'll want the one with AF support for any fast moving subjects outside of what you normally shoot. Plus it's just simpler most days. Of course if you don't have the money for it, that's fine. The one with AF is here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B004Y1AYAC/ref=mp_s_a_1?pi=SL75&qid=1347483321&sr=8-1

I own the Sigma 30mm 1.4 http://amzn.to/2hSCySn , it is a sharpness beast at a great price. That is what I use for street photography. The Roki 24mm 1.4 http://amzn.to/2hSGe6x is a manual lens, if that matters to you. The Sony 35mm 1.8 http://amzn.to/2iCMNxU isn't quite as awesome as the Sigma 30mm IMHO, but the OSS makes a difference, especially in low light. If you had an a6500, I would not recommend the Sony over the sigma... due to the IBIS. In your case, however, I only have a slight preference for the Sigma. It's a close call.

Unfortunately... going wider than that generally comes with higher prices or smaller apertures, so you'll find you don't use them as often as you may think. The Sigma 19mm 2.8 http://amzn.to/2hSHUNn is a great, inexpensive lens. Rokinon makes a lot of good wide lenses, but again, manual focus. For Astrophotography, the Roki 12mm 2.0 http://amzn.to/2iRLIjz is hard to beat.

DSLR with one of these for the appropriate brand.

Its not cheap, but really the best option.

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'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.

I use a D3100 and I see no reason to pay the extra for the D3200. I've never found myself wishing I had more pixels. There are other things that are frustrating about the true entry-level cameras, but MPs aren't one of them.

As for the lenses, from what I see, the 55-200 is also f/4-5.6. Are you looking at a different one? I have a 70-300 and I've used it at outdoor concerts, but like you said, it won't be great for indoor use. If you want a long lens that also has a wide aperture, they get pretty expensive. I'm not sure which version of the 70-300 you're looking at, but if you get the stabilized version, you can slow your shutter speed by 3 or even 4 stops for those indoor pictures. That might help some. I got the Tamron versionused for about $250, although I don't see it that cheap now.

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

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!