(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best digital camera lenses

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)

My 2 cents as a long time hobby photographer with somewhat similar interests (I shoot nature, at macro and telephoto distances).

Just about any modern DSLR body will be able to do what you are asking for, but you will need very different lenses for both purposes.

Sensor size is the main factor to consider in modern DSLRs.

Full Frame bodies have a sensor inside that is equal in size to one frame of a photographic film. APS-C or crop bodies have a sensor that is smaller than photographic film, therefore you have a "crop factor" (1.5 or 1.6) which represents the part of the image produced by the lens that is captured by the sensor. In effect, this is equivalent to cropping out the edges from a full frame image. Micro four thirds is a sensor standard that is roughly half the size of a full frame sensor and cameras featuring this standard are very compact (this is related to flange distance [distance from sensor to the lens], not sensor size, but that is not important here). Pentax, Canon, Nikon and Sony make both full frame and APS-C bodies, Fuji makes APS-C bodies and Olympus & Panasonic make M4/3 bodies. I'll stick to Canon and Nikon in my recommendations here because other manufacturers are not well represented in India.

Macro

There are 4 ways to shoot macro images;

(i) The easiest way is to use a dedicated macro lens. These are lenses optimised to focus at very close distances. A "true" macro lens produces 1:1 or life-size images. What this means is that at the closest focusing distance, an object the size of the sensor will produce an image that fills the complete image frame. The Nikon 60, 105 and 200mm, the Canon 100 and 180mm, the Tamron 90mm, Tokina 100mm, Sigma 105 & 150mm are all excellent lenses. These are all moderately to very expensive, so I recommend looking in the used camera market. Most macro photography is done with manual focus, so you may be better off purchasing an older manual focus lens for 8-15k, than a newer auto focus model for 20k and up.

Pros: Excellent image quality, lenses are all built to high standards.

Cons: Cost.

(ii) Reverse mounting a zoom lens. The use of an adapter allows you to attach a lens (such as a standard 18-55 kit lens) the wrong way around and take magnified images.

Pros: Inexpensive.

Cons: Learning curve, lot of trial and error. Image quality not as good as a dedicated macro lens.

(iii) High quality close-up diopters (such as a Raynox DCR-250, Canon 250/500D, Nikon 4/6T) can be attached to the front of just about any lens to provide magnified images. You can also get cheap "close up lenses", but these will provide poor image quality. The diopters mentioned above are doublet or triplet (made of 2 or 3 lenses) assemblies that will not affect image quality to a great extent.

Pros: Pocket friendly.

Cons: None really, unless you want to nitpick.

(iv) Extension tubes are hollow tubes you place between the lens and body which magnify the image produced by the lens thanks to simple physics.

Pros: Inexpensive.

Cons: Take a bit of getting used to.

Sports

Taking pictures of fast moving objects at distances requires the use of long "telephoto" lenses. I would recommend a 300mm lens as the very minimum if you want to take pictures at cricket distances (assuming you're sitting in the stands of a stadium and trying to photograph the batsman). As telephoto prime lenses are rather large, heavy and expensive, you're better off going with a zoom lens right now.

Keeping your budget in mind, the best deal right now might be the Nikon D5300+18-55+70-300 for 48,000. The 70-300 AF-P is a pretty good lens that focuses down to about 2 feet and gives you a magnification of 1:4. Add a Raynox DCR-250 for about 7k and you have a pretty nifty macro set-up that will do a decent job with sports as well.

If you want something a bit more rugged, I'd suggest a used Nikon D7100 for about 25,000 coupled with the 70-300 AF-P for 17,000. A Raynox diopter and an 18-55 will add 10,000 to the cost.

The Canon equivalent of the AF-P 70-300 costs 36,000 (although the 55-250 can be had at that price), unfortunately. Which does not leave much for a body. There is an inexpensive Canon 70-300, along with Tamron/Tokina/Sigma variants in both Canon & Nikon mounts, however none of them offer Vibration Reduction (which the AF-P does). VR corrects for "lens shakiness" and is quite useful for beginners. Entry level Canon bodies also offer a somewhat less featured auto focus implementation compared to nikon.

If you want to go with Canon, I'd recommend the 750D+18-55 combo for 47,000 combined with the 55-250 IS for 12,000. Or, you could go with a used 7D (a 10 year old body, but still quite capable) for about 32,000 and couple it with the 55-250.

There are additional options if you'd like to restrict yourself to one form of photography. You'll also get lots of useful information if you ask this question on the photography & camera sub-reddits, as well as Indian photography focused sites such as the JJ Mehta forums.

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.

u/pastramiswissrye is totally right in that lights, sound, lenses, and media are all more important than the best camera.

My personal favorite camera in that price range is the Panasonic G7 and a good 12-35 lens. The G7 is like the little brother to the GH4 as it does 4k and just is missing some of the more pro features and is $600 for the camera. The lens is another $600 but you could just use the kit lens and upgrade your lens later.

Continuing with what Pastrami said, you should have good audio, lights, and media storage, in addition to the camera and lens. For audio, the rode videomic pro is a good all-around shotgun mic that you can put on a boom pole for good short film on location sound, however you will need someone to help hold your boom pole.

For lights, a good reflector will help you use the sun as a light when shooting outside on location for a short film. If you are in a studio, this four socket CFL light kit will go a long way to help. I personally use one of them and they are great for the price. Just pop in four cfl bulbs and you are good to go. If you would prefer LED lights which are smaller and don't heat up as much, but are pricer, you can get this LED studio light kit.

On the media storage side of things, you are going to want to pick up a few of these 64GB U3 SD cards for use with your G7 or any other new camera you get. Especially if you plan on shooting in 4K.

If you are going to shoot in 4K, your file sizes are going to go way up and you are definitely going to need to get more hard drive space on your computer. You may even have to upgrade your computer to handle 4K video editing. It all depends on what you have and what you want to do.

On the editing side, I personally use Final Cut Pro X on my Mac. It is $300 but a great piece of editing software, used by pros. If you are on a mac but don't want to spend money, just use iMovie, it will probably do what you need it to do unless you edit in 4K. On the windows side, some people use sony vegas, some people use AVID, some people use premiere pro, there is a bunch of them out there and you kind of just have to choose one. (I have never used any of them)

Like he said, there is no canon r6i. I assume you mean T6i, but you still need to do some more research. I hope this helps!

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.

> I forgot to mention in my comment that I shoot a sports in terrible light a lot of the time.

In that case, a 7D Mark II might be another good option. Its high ISO performance is pretty damn close to the 5D2, bests the 80D, and it boasts a massively improved AF system compared to the old one that the 5D2 has (I believe it's the same AF system as the original 5D which is over a decade old at this point); you won't see a higher ISO improvement until you go another generation up to the 5D Mark III. Even if the 5D2 gave a tiny bit better high ISO performance, you'll likely want the superior AF system and burst rate that the 7D2 has: it's literally built for action and should be able to capture moments that the 5D2 can't.

It would be a great upgrade to what you have and will give much better high ISO performance than your T5, so it could be a nice stopgap while you save up more to upgrade your lenses at a later date. The body alone would be up there close to your budget at ~$1200-1300 used, but you'd have pretty much the best Canon sports body that isn't a 1D-series.

> it would be hard to find a good lens that covers everything from wide angle to a good sharp zoom for sport, like the 24-105

The 24-105 is a good zoom for flexibility, but it has its flaws. Many people experience zoom creep as the lens gets up there in age (if you tilt the lens down, it zooms in) and it's not super sharp wide open. If you're going with such a fast shutter speed for sports as well, you don't really need IS and could probably find a copy of a 70-200mm f2.8 non-IS for ~$1k which will help you keep your ISO down better than a 70-200mm f4L IS or 24-105mm f4L IS would, and you'll save money by not getting the IS which you wouldn't be using much anyways.

> but the 55-250 I simply cannot afford

Are we looking at the same lens? It's $300 new, and $240 refurbished by Canon.

You really need to define "something cheap" for this crowd.

For example the 70-200 F4L is described as "cheap" (and it totally is cheap.... relatively), but $600 for a lens ($470ish used) if the $300 body is a stretch may not seem "cheap" to you.

As other's have said the 50mm is your best bang for buck. If every $$ is critical you may save an a bit on a used older MK II version which isn't as good or as quiet but on the 5D may be just as fine. If you want to go really cheap YONGNUO has a 50mm F1.8 for $50 new. Going with a name like Yongnuo can be scary (compared to canon) but the 50mm (unlike the other yongnuo knock offs) gets good reviews by users on amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00QEXM4YC/

If you want some more flexibility, a bit more reach, and a cheap price, something like the much derided, gets no respect, 70-300 can be had for $100ish used/refurbished or you can get tamron/sigma version for $100-$200. You'll get the flexibility of a zoom and you can get some decent pictures (in good light) with the 5D.

Other lens to consider are the 85mm F1.8 ($350ish new) and the 100mm F2.8 USM ($600 new but $300ish used). These may be a bit better for traditional portraits as the 50mm is a bit wide for that use. Like the 50mm they both deliver a lot of bang for the $$.

Unfortunately on the wide end it's a bit more challenging: The 40mm is not much wider than the 50 and goes for $200ish. Even at that price and the slower speed it's a fine alternative to the 50mm . The old version of the 35mm/F2 still goes for $200 used as does the 24mm F2.8. YONGNUO has a 35mm F2 knockoff that sells for $90 but reviews are fairly meh. For a wide/normal zoom the 28-70 F35-45 for $100ish is probably the best bang for your buck but here are a slew of other options in that range (35-80, 30-80 etc) that may be worth researching:
http://www.opticallimits.com/Reviews/187-canon-ef-28-70mm-f35-45-ii-test-report--review

Consider adding a flash to your kit. The low-light AF/performance on the 5D is abysmal but with a flash equipped with an AF assist lamp/beam it improves greatly. I use a 580EX (Version 1 sells used for $100ish) but there are some 3rd party knock offs that may work just as well for a few less $$. The 580EX AF asssit lamp is really.... gentle. It paints your target with faint red stripes that are so great compared to the blinding white light or blinding strobe used for AF assist on other cameras.

The 5D is fun but it can be really challenging. One thing I did not realize when I first started using the camera is that there are two different "on" positions and the camera behaves differently depending on which one is selected. I was driving myself crazy, thinking I had a defective model "It just worked a few minutes ago!"

Also check on the status of the mirror repair for the 5D you are buying. It's a known issue and if it has not been repaired using the original canon repair kit (no longer available) it may fail. Mine failed after a month and the vendor fixed it but for me and since then has been fine. (knock on wood) but as it's not the genuine canon repair with the re-enforced mount I figure it will fail again, hopefully not before I get my $300 worth out of the camera.

https://petapixel.com/2015/05/13/canon-warns-the-original-5d-may-suffer-from-mirror-separation/

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.

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 started off with the Olympus E-PL5 to test the mirrorless waters then jumped to the Olympus OM-D E-M10 after about a couple years. So take this advice for what it's worth /u/CarlyleCasper . I'll throw some links to Amazon for you as references.

First figure out your budget. Your camera body and lenses should be two separate decisions on how you're going to spend your money. You can blow through a lot of $$$ trying to figure out what works for you because there are tons of bodies & lenses to choose from.

For the camera..... I suggest you go to a physical store where you can fingerbang a couple different cameras that you're considering. Play with the controls, see how easy it is to work the settings, etc. Depending on where you're located, that could range from easy to difficult to downright impossible (if you're in a rural area). I ended up going with the E-M10 not based on the specs of the camera, but how it ended up feeling & ease of use. In my opinion, unless you're after certain capabilities in a body, the minutiae on the specs of all the cameras tend to all blur into one another.

For the lens/lenses..... Again, your budget may come into play here. You've got a choice between zoom or primes. Everyone will tell you different things: zooms are more versatile, primes are sharper, zooms let you carry one lens for all sorts of shots you could run into, primes force you to concentrate on composition, etc etc etc. All those arguments are valid, and yet they all carry different weight with different people.

If you don't want to spend a lot of $$$ on lenses right away, I'd say get kit lenses like the Olympus 14-42mm and the Olympus 40-150mm then shoot with them for a while so you can figure out what focal lengths you use the most. That way if you decide to try some prime lenses later, you already have a reference of what focal lengths you've shot with most often as a way to figure out which primes you may be interested in.

Me personally, I have a good zoom Panasonic Lumix 12-35mm f/2.8 that is just about permanently attached to my E-M10. It probably gets the most use out of all the lenses I owned the past several years and it's a great little "walk-about" lens for me. And believe me, I went through lenses (mostly primes, buying & selling used to save $$$) playing around to see which I liked the best. Along with the 12-35mm zoom, I have a Bower 7.5mm f/2.8 fisheye lens and a Panasonic Lumix45-150mm telephoto zoom in my camera bag all the time. I also still have the E-PL5 but I mostly use it with all the retro legacy lenses (manual focus stuff) that I like to play around with.

Hopefully this was helpful and not overwhelming. :-)

If you're just getting into it, I would consider a camera body that costs $500 USD or less. My own personal recommendation is the Sony A6000. The body and kit lens is small and compact compared to a traditional DSLR like the Canon T6i and performs just as well. It also has the option of being able to mount vintage lenses on it due to it's smaller form factor and the lens mount being closer to the sensor. This means you can get good but cheap manual lenses from back in the day for often times $100 USD or less plus a $18 USD converter mount.

If you have any questions about this camera system (i own the A6000) or in general, please feel free to ask either through comments or pm me. Shameless plug (https://instagram.com/snappedbyandy for example photos)

Also. It sounds like you want to take a lot of landscapes, and for that you want a lens with a low focal length. Now, the kit lens that comes with cameras is nice and all, but if you want some real stunning pictures, you'll get a better quality prime wide-angle lens. "Prime" meaning the lens can't zoom and "wide-angle" meaning you have a wider field of view. Since it doesn't need to move, there's less glass needed, and the quality of the picture is better. Something that's 12mm to 20mm should do the trick. I'll link a personal recommendation below should you choose to go with the A6000.

Again, i want to emphasize to buy used if possible. Especially on lenses. You'll get severe discounts compared to buying something brand new. Typically people take good care of their lenses, and if you can meet the person before buying, a little legwork can save you a bundle of money.

Camera with kit lens (i recommend buying used/refurb locally if possible)

https://www.amazon.com/Sony-Mirrorless-Digitial-3-0-Inch-16-50mm/dp/B00I8BICB2/ref=sr_1_5?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1539180473&sr=1-5&keywords=a6000&dpID=41AEqhgdLtL&preST=_SX300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch

Recommended wide angle lens for landscape with the A6000:

https://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-Ultra-Angle-Mount-RK12M/dp/B00JD4TAWI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1539180938&sr=8-1&keywords=rokinon+12+e+mount

an example of a good vintage lens:

https://www.amazon.com/Minolta-MD-50mm-Japan-Mount/dp/B008QFXYYU/ref=sr_1_16?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1539180558&sr=1-16&keywords=minolta+rokkor

an example of a converter to convert the mount of a vintage lens to the Sony E-mount

https://www.amazon.com/Fotasy-NEX-VG30-NEX-VG900-NEX-FS100-NEX-FS700/dp/B00E5T5BJW/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1539180630&sr=1-3&keywords=md+to+e+mount&dpID=41RFJ6J3P1L&preST=_SX300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch


Guy with a dedicated blog to attaching vintage lenses to the Sony E mount system (he uses a Sony A7, which is more expensive, but the A6000 uses the same mount system, so it still all applies):

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/affordable-manual-lenses-for-the-sony-alpha-77r7ii7rii-and-7s/

As a Youtuber who's invested in the wrong gear before the right gear, here's a quality list that I've found works for my needs and will likely be great for you.


Camera

Panasonic GH4: This is a great camera that shoots 4K. If you are shoot in 4K, downscale to 1080p, you have the option to reframe and zoom into a closer shot without losing quality. It has a flip out screen so you can see yourself, focus peaking to show you on screen if you're in focus, and can record longer clips (in select modes) than the Canon T3i to make syncing easier. This camera is also great for when you want to deliver in 4K one day.
$1699


AC Power adapter: No worrying about batteries for the indoor shooting. $20


Lens

Panasonic 12-35mm: Versatile lens that gives you great range. $1000


14-42 kit lens: Cheaper alternative. $120


Audio

Zoom H4N: Great recorder for your mics. Monitor each mic's level independently. $250


Rode NTG-2: Shotgun mic. $270


Sennheiser Wireless Lav: Expensive, but great quality. $640


Audio Technica ATR-3350s: Cheap corded lavs with long wires. $30


You'll need one long XLR cable, a light stand to use for the boom, and some kind of shotgun mic shock mount. $60 for all.


Lighting

3-light softbox kit: Great kit, been using it for a year with no issues. I don't use the over head light, as I don't have the space. I can use the light stand to boom or for another light. $170


Neewer CN-160: Small LED light to help light certain situations or to use as a hair light. $30


Tripod

Manfrotto Tripod w/Fluid Head: Great set up, worth the investment, but there are cheaper alternatives. $350


Memory Card

64GB Sandisk Extreme Pro: Great card which will allow for smooth 4K recording. $100


____



If you have any questions about any of this gear, let me know and good luck with everything!

Oh no, not at all... $800 is fairly high for a 'nifty fifty'. The price is because the Sigma Art 50 is pretty much the sharpest lens on earth (which makes it a bargain when you compare to, say, a Zeiss Otus

Actually, on the subject of those Sigma's... I got the 50mm first, but I found 50mm on a crop sensor camera is kind of an awkward focal length. You can't go wide enough to capture, say... a building across the street, or the head+shoulders of a friend sitting across from you at a small table. But you can't zoom in either.

Later I got the 18-35, and now the 50mm basically gathers dust. The zoom range of the 18-35 is limited, but it's just 100% more useful than 50mm. It's kind of my default lens now. It's a great lens.

But anyway, if you don't wanna spend a ton and you want a 50ish mm, and below f/2, there's a bunch of options.

The basic Canon 50mm 1.4 is $300 and is pretty sharp.

The Canon pancake lens is really well loved, surprisingly sharp and so small that it weighs nothing. A sigma art is quadruple the weight lol.

This Sigma Art 30mm seems to be on sale right now. $130 off. That's an outstanding deal, and you might find 30mm more useful than 50. https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-30mm-F1-4-Lens-Canon/dp/B00BQXL8BU/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=50mm+1.4+lens&qid=1568732777&refinements=p_n_feature_three_browse-bin%3A3130996011%2Cp_89%3ASigma&rnid=2528832011&s=photo&sr=1-1

I just recently bought a canon 1200D with an 18-55 mm IS II kit lens. I have found that I mostly shoot portraits and some macro and now I am looking to upgrade my lens but still want the flexibility of a wide range zoom lens. I found that in my price range for an EF-S mount that canon recommends their 18-135 USM lens. I like the looks of it as it still looks flexible. I have also found 18-135 mm lenses by Canon and now I am picking between these three
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-18-135mm-3-5-5-6-Standard-Digital/dp/B002NEGTT2 standard IS

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B008UGMLWQ/ref=psdc_173565_t2_B002NEGTT2 STM

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01BUYJYOW/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=P4YF3DBC2FWW&coliid=I131NWQFIHP74Z USM

I think the cheap standard IS looks to be just like my current lens in terms of quality while having a larger zoom range. It looks like the STM has a step up for shooting movies (but I think I would only be able to appreciate it with Canon's 'i' series of rebel cameras, I only have a base t5) and I think the USM is like the STM but has a faster auto focus. Is any of that true? I really was hoping that there would be a difference between the STM and base model in terms of image quality, is that the case? I want to start shooting some video soon and I was hoping the USM would be worth it if it has a better auto focus as I will also use auto focus for taking quick shots of moving subjects. What are the advantages between them? Also, what do the abbreviations mean?

So I have a Canon T3i and a 50mm f/1.8 II. In the near future, I will be purchasing a new lens. I'm still a newbie, so I don't really have a specific style and I just shoot what's in front of me. I've been doing predominantly street photography and auto photography, but i'm also looking to branch out. It's come to my attention that I should have a wide angle lens in my arsenal as I was begging for a wider perspective when I went to my first auto show a couple weeks ago. It made framing weird, and I had to move back which was quite inconvenient in a packed show like that. I also love landscapes and views so I want something wide to capture those as well.
Here are some of the choices I'm considering.
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8

Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens

Tamron AF 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 SP Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Lens

There are also a couple lenses that I have stumbled upon that are not as wide, but have a longer focal length which may double as more than just a wide-angle.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Lens (really have my eye on this one!)

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Standard Zoom Lens

This is all a bit confusing for a noob like me, so any help is appreciated it. If you feel like there is a better option, please do recommend it to me! And also, i'm on a working-class student budget.

One last question, how do you feel about used lenses. Just curious towards your experiences as i feel like they can be bargains. Lenses are built to last a long time if they're taken care of right? Sorry for the long post but thanks in advanced!

1. It all really depends on your budget, but for Macro: EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro, or the EF 100mm F/2.8 Macro. For portrait, I'd say to start of with the EF 50mm 1.8
   
   
2. Your T5 is compatible with all Canon EF and EF-S lenses.
   
   
3. Buying used is a great way to save some money on quality lenses. Like most things, it depends on the reputation of the person selling. Private sellers, make sure you do your research on them if buying on Ebay or Amazon or something. KEH.com, B&H Used and Adorama Used are great places to buy used and inspected equipment with a decent warranty. Also the Canon USA Refurbished store is an excellent place to buy. They have stuff that Canon has officially looked over and comes with the same 1 year warranty as their new stuff. I've bought a lot from them and have been very happy with it.
   
   Hope this helps!

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.

u/CollinMcNulty - congratulations on the gig! It depends on your budget, but you can get a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 right now for less than $400 [Referral Link].

30mm is a good all-around focal length for APS-C cameras and its f/1.4 maximum aperture will give you good low light images and nice bokeh.

The 30/1.4 will give you results like these from the T3i in a workshop environment:

• Wood Shop of a good time by Ben Sandfoss
  
• Polsceramic: Portrait of a Ceramist by Artico Studio
  
  Here it is outdoors:
  
  
• Moeraki by Artico Studio
  
• Countryside Walking by tom
  
  This lens is a very good value for your money.
  
  Hope this is helpful and good luck with your project!

Hi everybody.

At the moment I'm shooting pictures with a Canon EOS 450D (EOS Rebel XSi) togheter with Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM. I've been pretty happy with this so far. But I feel the need to upgrade because of the following reason:

• The 50mm (which for crop sensor is effectively 80mm, right?) gives me a too narrow FOV when shooting inside. The FOV is also too narrow for landscapes and often also for street photography. It surely works, but it's subpar for my needs.
  
  So. I'd like one lens that is good for the following:
  
  
• Landscapes
  
• Shooting indoors
  
• Street photography
  
• Portraits (although, the 50mm is rather good for this one)
  
• Be able to get a good looking bokeh and separate the foreground and background
  
  I know that's a lot of different areas but I believe I could manage find one single lens that would work alright for all of those purposes.
  
  What I've been looking at:
  
  
• Sigma 20/1,4 DG HSM Art for Canon
  
• Sigma 24/1,4 DG HSM Art for Canon
  
• Sigma 30/1,4 DC HSM Art for Canon
  
• Sigma 18-35/1,8 DC HSM Art for Canon
  
• Canon EF-S 24/2,8 STM
  
  
  Which one would be the most logical for me to buy? Zoom is really not that important for me (at least I don't think so). The first two ones also fit full format cameras and it's not impossible that I'd like to upgrade the camera body too sometime during the following years.
  
  
  I'd really appreciate any kind of advice, thanks! :)

I honestly don't think new lenses are going to solve your problem. I'd be willing to bet money that the "lack of quality" you find in your images stems from a lack of technical knowledge or experience on your part, and you want to compensate for that thing you are lacking by spending money. This is a pitfall that many photographers fall into, including myself. When I am in a slump and wonder if I should buy new gear, I go to flickr first and do a search for my camera body and the lens I'm using and see what results other people are getting. Here's what those results give for your camera/zoom lens: https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=canon%20t2i%2055-250

Look at them, compare them with your own pictures and then ponder about whether you need new lenses or not. If you still think you do, I think that you would be better off having a set of lenses that is flexible for most situations rather than just buying one very expensive lens. Here is what I recommend:


Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM ($449)

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM ($449)

If you think you will need to take portraits, then the obvious lens to balance out your kit is a telephoto lens and by far the best budget/performance one is the one you mentioned, the nifty fifty:

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM Lens ($110)

All of those added up are within your budget.

The 10-20 becomes your normal walk-around lens. If you are a wedding or some social event, it has a decent amount of range to quickly zoom in and out and since the focal length remains the same you don't need to adjust your camera settings while you do so because of its fixed aperture, which is something your current zooms don't have.

The 30mm which is a bit tighter (it renders somewhere around a 45mm perspective on an APS-C sensor camera) will be great for pictures where you want to isolate backgrounds but flexible enough to be used on other subjects. Although the Sigma zoom is more flexible, this is the lens that should live in your camera as having a fixed focal length is a great exercise for photographers to learn more about composition and dealing with limitations.

And finally, the nifty fifty will be your go-to portrait lens. If I was making a professional kit of lenses with your budget these are the lenses I'd go for. I'd also strongly recommend at some point getting some light equipment if you don't have so already. Start off with a flash and some way to trigger it remotely, via IR, or cable, and work up from there.

Edit: On another note, here's another reason why I don't recommend the 35mm f1.4 Canon L lens on the camera you have: http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-35mm-F14L-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-550D__645 - That's how that lens performs on your camera body, has a score of 21



http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sigma/Sigma-30mm-F14-DC-HSM-A-Canon-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-550D__645 - The sigma has a DXO score of 20.

You'd be spending almost your entire budget for a marginal performance improvement.

If you buy a much better camera, the Canon will easily start outperforming the Sigma, but until then its performance would be bottlenecked by your camera body.

/u/jeffster888 pretty much already covered everything I was going to say. It is indeed the "Nifty Fifty" and it's a lens I decided was a great value after doing a lot of research into it.

I don't actually own the stock lens. Somehow my camera body didn't come with it. The lens I normally use is a Canon 18-135 mm lens (pretty sure it's this one), and it's great because it has a huge range of zoom. IMO it far surpasses the stock lens. :P I only got my 50mm one pretty recently but I absolutely love shallow depth of field so I'm still playing around and learning how to work with it.

IMO, lens is more important than the body (as long as your body is at least decent) because you can do a lot more with different lens than you can with a different body. Also, lens are interchangeable, which makes them really handy in different situations. You definitely should consider some other lens. The stock one I've heard is decent (never personally used it though as I don't own one), but if you want to get a little deeper, definitely look for other lens. I highly recommend both lenses I have. :)

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!

Oh man, that'll be such a great move! You're going to have so many great photo subjects! I did some research and it looks like this lens is supposed to be a great one for the E mount. It has very solid reviews. I think your 19mm will be good for town photography, but I'd have a lot of confidence in a 12 being able to get everything you want in a shot for big landscapes, like all the mountains and fields and lakes. It looks like the Rokinon in particular handles low light well, which was always my favourite thing about my 50mm 1.4f (RIP). Hope this helps a little! One of my friends purchased an E mount right before moving to Japan and she LOVES it.

18-135mm f/3.5 is not bad at all - this one, I assume? That's a decent starter lens, it's definitely not cheap.

It's a great jack-of-all-trades lens for walking around, but where it falls short will be in specializing on certain things.

Pro: good wide angle at 18mm which is great for landscapes, decent closeup at 135mm, f/3.5 will be fine for close portrait photos.

Con: f/3.5 is not a good aperture for night photos unless you have a flash engaged or it's stable enough to take a longer exposure, if you want to zoom further than 135mm focal length, you'll need a separate lens, and if you want soft 'bokeh' you'll want a bigger aperture.

So all in all, it's a great lens to learn with, and I think you'll do fine with it for now, but if you want your photos to stand out more for the gear used, or you want to do more night photography (which is heavily dependent on big apertures and/or good flashes) then start looking at larger apertures and more expensive lenses :P

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.

Got one, love it, really like DSLR form factor though so make sure to get your hands on one before buying. Also yeah you can pretty much adapt anything and ive just been using the 10-15$ adapters. Kinda hard to beat a 50mm 1.7 for 5 bucks, and like you I don't shoot sports or portraits and find I enjoy hand focusing, if you're pressed for time focus peaking is pretty helpful. I was shooting with someone and as I was driving I asked them the get a shot, them being unfamiliar with full manual asked , "how? And how do I know what to focus to?" So without looking I reached across gave the focus ring a spin and the shot came in perfect, moral of the story is manual will become second nature after a while. Youll just get a feel for what you need. I would Def keep the 7100 as a backup if able, I still find myself reaching for my Canon at certain times.

Edit: Just buy extra batteries off the bat, number one complaint of mine is those things run dry quick especially for long exposure. Also get a standalone charger, charging in camera is miserably slow.
And this Lens is fantastic,
Rokinon 12mm https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JD4TAWI/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_yGVkybXA6XTJZ or the 14mm Roky, I use it all the time

I do have the 100mm 2.8L macro lens BUT if I could redo the purchase I wouldn't get the L series. It's a beautiful lens but it was just shy of a grand. I could have gotten the 100mm non L lens for half the price. I am a fan of the STM lenses and of course the USM lenses but I do shop with price considered now. The L isn't my first reason to look at a lens. Plus there are lots of lens rental websites so you can try before you buy or for using a lens once for vacation or something.

If you want to talk macro, PM me. I live macro photography. I'm no professional but I love seeing the details you miss all the time on small things. Super macro is also fun and quite challenging. http://digital-photography-school.com/super-macro-photography/

The prices have gone up a bit but still a decent price for what you get. I use my 100L fit family portraits too.

Non L is 600. Not cheap but not terribly expensive. It's an achievable goal if you really want it.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00004XOM3?cache=a0071f54bb81555881641ed403b15faf&pi=SX200_QL40&qid=1407817888&sr=8-2#ref=mp_s_a_1_2

> Hey guys, I am posting this on behalf of my sister who is too stubborn to make a reddit account.

tell your sister that in order to give proper advice, we really require her presence, because:

> As a new photographer, how much should she charge for prom pictures?

this is kind of a hard question to answer. as a new photographer, and with some questions like these, i'm inclined to answer that she shouldn't be doing it at all. every pro has to start somewhere, granted, but there should generally be something of a gap between "picking up a camera" and "starting a professional career in photography". that gap allows for practice, experience, skills, knowledge and personal style develop, and gives you exposure to what real paying jobs can be like, as you kind of progress up the ladder of job legitimacy.

frankly, i doubt i could do a similar job that cheap at cost. gas to the job costs money. prints and CDs cost money.

> She has a canon T2I with various lenses.

so... what lenses?

frankly, this is an amateur camera from three generations ago. it's not really a professional tool. you may not need it for what she's trying to do, but there are definite reasons that professionals use professional tools and not just the cheapest thing that gets the job done.

> What is the best mode for taking pictures in the outdoors(for prom pictures)? She believes it is portrait but is a bit unsure.

if you're using the scene modes, you're doing it wrong. who knows how those things work? why the make the choices they make. if you're taking pictures for pay, you'd better know why you camera is set the way it's set, and not leave those choices up to some program in its firmware that's trying to guess what you're taking a picture of.

you want to, at the very least, be in a priority mode (probably aperture), or even manual. you want to decide what exposure setting is more important and set that, even if you let the camera set everything else accordingly.

> What is the best website/store for purchasing prints? We are thinking costco will be the cheapest

costco definitely makes pretty good prints for a fast turnaround. for websites, i like adoramapix.

> Which lens would be better for an outdoor prom picture shoot? http://www.amazon.com/Canon-18-55mm-3-5-5-6-Select-Digital/dp/B0002Y5WXY or http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-70-300mm-4-5-6-USM/dp/B0007Y794O

this is one of those kind of things you should know before taking jobs professionally. the answer is "you should probably have a 17-55 (or 24-70 on full frame) and a 70-200, and not these junky kit zooms." truthfully, there isn't a right answer to this: i have and will continue to shoot groups with telephoto lenses. it's a mater of what you're shooting and how you want to shoot it.

> Can anyone provide a link for learning how to calibrate the Canon T2I ISO settings for outdoor pictures?

again, this is the kind of thing you should know before taking pay for jobs. and it depends on the light.

Sooo,
I have had a T3i for a few years now along side a this:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-300mm-4-5-6-Lens-Cameras/dp/B0007Y794O/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1398346452&sr=8-2&keywords=usm+300+canon

and also this:
http://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-FE14M-C-Ultra-Canon-Black/dp/B003VSGQPG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398346666&sr=8-1&keywords=wide+14+mm+canon

I don't know exactly why, but I can definitely take really superb pictures with with the 300mm lens... and also quite good ones with the Rokinon one...
The kit lens takes normal or average pictures...

My only assumptions are that the kit lens is made with lower quality stuff or is someone less powerful... The 300mm lens is "made in japan" so I guess it is higher quality...

Anyway, all this has been said only to ask suggestions on higher quality lenses to take closer up pictures. For example, with the 300mm lens I can get really cool blurring effects and sometimes bokeh... but the close up lense is just meh.....

I don't want to break the bank getting another lens either, so maybe you can help me finding a standard zoom lens or a prime lense that is for close ups that will be better than my current kit lens... If you think I can find a good deal on this used, you can let me know..

Thank you

Look at prime lenses my friend.

• You could pick up a couple fast (large aperture) prime lenses for $800. If you buy them used you can get three of them. Take a look at this page to see what Canon lenses are available. For example, I have used the EF 35mm f/2 (~$350) and EF 28mm f/1.8 USM (~$500) and they are both nice lenses.
  
  
• Even though the 50mm f/1.8 II is a great lens for the cost, the EF 50mm f1.4 USM (~$400) is a worthwhile upgrade. Faster, less CA, sharper, higher quality build, smoother focusing, etc. I love it for both photos and video.
  
  
• I do not own this lens, but the EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM (~$800) is a wonderful portrait and landscape photography lens. And because it's fast it can be used for action and event photography, however it is limiting because of its long reach.
  
  
• The EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM (~$600) is also a good lens. Great for both macro and portrait photography. There is also the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM. L class glass with IS for $300-$400 more.
  
  Regarding your Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8: If you're shooting wider than 15mm make sure you take off the hood, otherwise you'll end up with some funky vignetting. :)

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

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
  
  
  

hmmmm since she was looking for superzooms, I don't think she'll appreciate the 50mm as much because she already has that field of view, same goes for the 24mm. The only advantage they have for her would be the wider aperture, helping her with low light situations.

You could get her a fisheye lens like the Rokinon 8mm f3.5 but honestly you take fisheye lenses for maybe once or twice and you get bored with it. You could also get her a macro lens, but again, those are one trick ponies. Unless you see her trying low light photography and/or playing with depth of field, don't think primes would suit her at this moment. Primes generally are better performing, but I think she values versatility more than that little extra performance that you get out of primes.

Sounds like she could like the Canon 55-250mm f/4-5.6 lens. There's three versions of this lens (but don't bother with the first one). second one is bit cheaper at 195 new. third one is more expensive at 300 bucks new, but it has quieter autofocus, instant manual focus (meaning you don't have to bother with the AF to MF switch to get manual focus, you just turn the focus ring) and it can focus a bit closer than the second one (second one focuses up to 3.6' or 1.1m, third one focuses up to 2.8', or .85m).
It's not a big difference, but you do get a slight bit more functionality for that extra dough.

Well I hope you look into my suggestion. And tell her the first photo with the trees is fantastic!

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!

From reading the other comments I'm guessing you don't so I would either get a used camera or use your phone. The budget of yours is quite limiting to fit in audio, lighting and a decent camera however it may work if you get a slightly older camera.

I would get the t3i body only which you can get at an average of $300. This has an articulating screen, good for interviews, and is still a good beginner camera years on from when it was released. The lens I would get is the YONGYUO YN50mm f.18 which is an cheap autofocus lens at a fixed distance to achieve the best quality.

For microphones I would reccommend the Takstar SGC-598 which is really cheap and surprisingly good. You can put this on a mic stand and get it as close to both the interviewer and the interviewee for the best sound. You will then need a wire to connect it to the camera. However if you have extra money you can save up for a Zoom h1 which you plug the mic into and it records seperately for better audio.

All in all this kit will cost you $500 for just the audio and no lighting. This would cost you about $50 extra for softboxes however if you shoot in daylight it will be much easier and require less lighting.

Another kit you could try is using your phone for video and then buying just audio and lighting. For this I would get the Rode Videomic Pro, the Zoom h1, a mic stand, a softbox lighting kit (2 lights) and any other things like memory cards etc. This would cost you around $400.

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.

If you're just starting out, learning to "zoom with your feet" while using a prime is some of the best advice I can give. You'll be a better photographer for it. You'll also appreciate the wide f1.8 aperture for low light.

I can't speak to the quality of the 55-210mm, but I've never been a big fan of the cheap telezooms with variable max apertures (f6.3 in this case when zoomed in at 210mm is disgusting). I can appreciate that it would be important if you want to get kid action shots, though. Just know that you'll need really bright conditions to be able to use a fast shutter speed at a reasonable ISO while zoomed all the way in.

Would also recommend comparing the Sony 35mm/1.8 to the Sigma 30mm/1.4 before you buy. I just got the Sigma a few weeks ago and have been floored by the sharpness. It's about $60 cheaper, too.

If I were in your situation, I'd go for your second option (16-50mm kit + a prime). I have the 16-50mm and very rarely reach for it, but understand that it's nice when you start out to have a range of focal lengths to play with.

Alternatively, just get the a6000 body only + a prime, and once you get a feel for what you type of shooting you do most, rent a wide prime or a better quality telephoto to help decide what to buy next. I wish someone had told me not to waste money on the low-end kit lenses early on. If you get serious about photography, these will just clutter your bag, and camera shops will only quote you insulting offers when you try to sell them.

A DSLR at your budget is still an option as well - in fact, more so, if you want to look for telephoto (long range/large focal length) lenses. You can find really good deals on telephoto lenses in store, at amazon or at sites like craiglist - probably because these lenses don't have much use everyday, except maybe if you go to the zoo. For example, for your budget, you can pick up an entry-level DSLR, Canon 1200D - 2014 model - £250 new - includes 18-55mm kit lens (that's the focal length you will be using most of the time), and pair it with a Canon 55-250mm lens for £140. Also, bear in mind, a 55-250mm lens for a Canon really equates to 88mm-400mm in "35mm focal length". As all cameras see things differently, they have been standardised to its '35mm/full frame' equivalent. Now, off course, you can go for the Nikon equivalent, which would be the Nikon D3300 (widely acknowledged to be the best entry level DSLR), which goes for £320 with 18-55 kit lens. And pair it with one of many zoom lenses, such as this one from Tamron, 70-300mm, new for 80£. Also note that when looking at lenses for DSLRs, apart from looking at whether it's the correct mount, also check whether it has autofocus or not. You probably will want autofocus, especially if you haven't come from using manual focus before, and that you will be taking a lot of photos, not just one or two carefully composed pics!

Now, the reason why I didn't mention DSLRs previously is because they are pretty big! So keep that in mind. Also, the telephoto lens from Canon and Nikon are really cheap, even new. Quality wise, the're not 'wedding lenses' which are typically telephoto lenses with a really large aperture. But... they will be completely fine, and exceed, at taking pictures in normal lighting conditions. Given that both Canon and Nikon DSLRs have a large sensor, these budget telephoto lens will be able to take nice photos even in the evening. Also, you can switch out to the kit lenses which should be more than sufficient.

Both of those are APS-C Crop lenses and would end up making your image quality suffer because of an auto crop.

Its hard to tell what focal length exactly the photographer is shooting just from pictures but you probably want a 50mm or maybe even an 85mm.

The options for this kind of setup are fairly wide, even for sonys smaller selection of lenses:

28mm 2 FE $450

50mm 1.8 FE $250

85mm 1.8 FE $600

Now for pricey options:

35mm 2.8 FE $800

35mm 1.4 FE $1600

55mm 1.8 FE $1000 (this is actually a really nice portait lens, a good medium length, and is considered by many to be one of the sharpest for the money)

50mm 1.4 FE $1500

85mm 1.4 FE $1800

Then there is a whole lineup of Zeiss Batis, Otus, and etc lenses in various focal lengths you can look into if you have more money.

But honestly If you are just looking for a good working portait lens i think Id suggest a zoom like the new Tamron so you can get more options.

Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 $800

Or if you are loaded:

Sony 24-70mm F2.8 GM $2200

I personally only own the 50mm 1.8 FE out of these and it works alright but I notice it not to be very sharp under F2.2 and seems to gain a lot of Chromatic Aberration. But it doesnt mean its not a good prime to just have on the camera most of the time.

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 :)

If you want to stay native, the Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 is the best 'overall' M43 lens for the GH5. It's super sharp, dual IBIS is great for handheld, and the focal range is good. The issues I have with it is that it can be a little hard to find bokeh with it, and when I do, it's a bit on the 'harsher' side rather than 'creamy.'

If you go the speed-booster route, the Ultra works best with the most lenses.

I personally would go with the Sigma 18-35 for your wide shots and interviews. I would then get the Canon 70-200 f2.8 USM II for your telephoto option. Maybe throw in a 50mm prime in there if you have room in your bag, like this one.

I personally use the Sigma/Canon70-200 setup for my shoots, with the Pany 12-35 in my bag (...or on my B-Cam). Another cool feature the Pany 12-35 has is focus transition (...it sort of works with adapted lenses, but is buggy). It allows you to pull focus pretty easily, it's a surprisingly nice feature I've been using quite a bit.

For reference, I use the 18-55mm kit lens the D3100 came with, and also picked up the following lenses:

Tamron AF 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 - I've found this to be a pretty damn reasonable telephoto & macro lens for the price. A couple of photos taken with it, for reference: wet flower (macro), WizzAir jet landing (full zoom), pigeon eating bread (full zoom).

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G - lovely fast prime - I couldn't really justify the extra cash to go for the 1.4 version, but this one has worked very well for me so far. 35mm on a crop sensor like the D3100/D3200 ends up about the same as a 50mm on a full-frame camera. A couple of sample shots: custom motorcycle engine, York gate emblem, Wilmot-Breeden calormeter.

I also grabbed an ancient used Pentacon 50mm f/1.8 prime for £30, but as a lens without a focus motor, it can only be used in full manual. However, it can also produce some good images, e.g. bacon roll, lily flower, laptop keyboard. If you're willing to play around in full manual mode (and I'd recommend it, if you want to learn the most you can about photography), starting with something like that could make a lot of sense.

Hope this helps somewhat.

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 aren't going to be able to buy all of this gear with $2000-3000.
  
  
• Watch this video. This is the mother of all travel videos.
  
  • This video was shot with a Lumix GH3, a 12-35 f/2.8, a cheap telephoto zoom (14-140 I think?) and a Nocticron 42.5mm. No Ronin, no drone, no IBIS, etc.
    
    
• A Ronin is a hassle to set up, really cumbersome, and not suitable for the run and gun type of style that Kolder and Alveraz make. The closest thing that I can think of which would be run and gun-ish (but you still don't need) is the Zhiyun Crane which goes for around $600.
  
  
• Personally: I see that you have $3000 available, so my first inclination is to say get the GH5 with a 12-35 f/2.8 I (the $600 version). The dual-IS doesn't make a huge difference, the GH5's IBIS is good enough. Then buy a nice Tiffen variable ND filter, step-up ring, maybe one of those Tascam audio recorders for nat sound, and save up for the 35-100 f/2.8.
  
  Broken down:
  
  
• GH5 - $1997.99
  
  
• Lumix 12-35 f/2.8 I - $699
  
  
• Tiffen ND filter - $129.99
  
  
• Step up ring - $9.95
  
  
• Tascam portable audio recorder - $99
  
  
• Total: $2935.93
  
  I will end on this note: You like these videos because they are well shot, well composed, and well edited. I could hand you the best camera system in the world and you're going to make a shitty video if you don't know how to use it. Whereas I could hand a great cinematographer a crappy camera and he'd make something awesome. It's more about what you shoot than what you shoot with. With that in mind, the GH5 is fucking awesome (I just got mine) and it's a great tool to learn on and grow with.

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!

Hey welcome to the sub-reddit, can you give some more information on what you want to do with the photos that you will take? Will you go on to sell them or are they to be printed out for family members etc.

If this is just for a hobby or to get some nice pictures you can go with a cheaper camera/setup.

I have the Canon 1100D and have used it in a wide range of situations and it's been perfect for what I wanted.

Paired with this lens you can get some cracking shots from a great distance away.

If you are shooting cars I assume they will be going fast, the 1100D does a great job of freezing them while keeping all the detail. This is an image I shot of a multi-copter which has blades that spin way faster then a real helicopter but it makes them appear frozen.

Also paired with that lens you can do some awesome long distance shots which may be perfect for landscape shot from afar.

The stock lens isn't the best in the world but if you just starting out and don't plan on selling your photos it's fine. You get some barrel distortion which is noticeable when taking texture shots.

You are probably the most helpful person I have ever encountered on the internet. Thank you so much for taking the time to respond with such eloquence and clarity! It is a graduation gift, and due to some hinting about a camera store sale this weekend I think I may be ending up with a t3i. I will check out the Canon loyalty program just in case.

I would love a 100-400mm, but it looks like that lens starts at about $1400, which will be out of my price range for likely a few years. What do you think of this 70-300 mm with f 4-5.6 and image stabilitation? That would be reasonable for me to save up to.

Thank you again for being so helpful!

Also, what is your opinion of tele-converters?

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 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).

After going stargazing with my girlfriend in Tennessee in a somewhat darker part of the state and taking some pics (can see a few here) with my Son a6500, I really want to start getting more into astrophotography. My main lens is the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, but I have a few others at my disposal as well (including a 50mm f/1.1 manual lens and the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8). I plan to pick up the Rokinon 12mm f/2.0 at some point soon.

​

Without buying tons of new equipment (like a new camera, I know that Sony is now known as the "star eater", and I'm considering picking up another Canon camera but I don't want to buy tons of new lenses) what would you guys recommend for me? I'm wanting to start capturing the Milky Way and eventually start taking pictures of planets and galaxies. I currently live in NE FL, but don't mind doing a little travel every now and then for better shots. I plan to move to middle TN in the next few months.

​

I want to eventually invest in a good starter telescope as well, because I know that can vastly help with capturing planets, and galaxies too, from what I've heard?

The 18-105 http://amzn.to/2iyRkxU is a considerably better option as long as you can do without 200mm. The 70-300 f4.5-f5.6 http://amzn.to/2jQMqND is longer and good for outdoors. The 70-200 f4 is a little shorter but has excellent image quality and bigger aperture http://amzn.to/2iyS5a1 . The 24-70 f2.8 http://amzn.to/2iyUdPn and 70-200 f2.8 http://amzn.to/2j0VKib are the top of the game, but also insanely expensive.

If money is tighter, the 18-105 is an easy recommendation - it gives you a lot for a reasonable price. If you need that extra reach and don't mind paying for it... either of the 70-200's are quite excellent.

Hi /u/joshwoodward - I agree with /u/1timer - the situation with Sony native lenses is not very good. The only lenses that meet your requirements are the two Sony system primes - the [$798 Sony Sonnar T FE 35mm F2.8 ZA] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00FSB79KU/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00FSB79KU&linkCode=as2&tag=battleforthew-20) and the [$998 Sony Sony Sonnar T FE 35mm F2.8 ZA] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00FSB799Q/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00FSB799Q&linkCode=as2&tag=battleforthew-20) - but buying both of them will take you well over your $1000 budget limit.

If you want a 4K camera, a [$1698 Panasonic GH4] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00I9GYG8O/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00I9GYG8O&linkCode=as2&tag=battleforthew-20) plus a [$1000 Panasonic 12-35mm (24-70mm equivalent) constant f2.8 lens] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00843ERMW/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00843ERMW&linkCode=as2&tag=battleforthew-20) might be a better value for your money.

Good luck!

Bill

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!

I don't know if you'd be interested, but I'm actually selling this exact lens! For less than this. I'll attach the amazon link. This probably sounds super sketchy since I just joined Reddit and this is my first comment. Yikes. But i figured it was worth a shot.

But yes, you can buy this lens cheaper refurbished or even new.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/ol/B00EFILVQU/ref=mw_dp_olp?ie=UTF8&condition=all

^thats the list of 3rd party sellers selling that lens on amazon.

This isn't a great lens, nor is it anything amazing but I own a canon version of it and it is a decent zoom.

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-300mm-4-0-5-6-Digital-A17NII/dp/B0012UUP02/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374621730&sr=8-1&keywords=tamron+70-300+macro+nikon

at 135 used, it's not going to give you any award winning shots, but I found it fun to play around with.

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.

Save a little and get the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 its £380, but totally fantastic, its 4 stops faster than the kit lens. Its got great subject seperation and is generally really fun. Its honestly my desert island, lens, if i could have only one, it be the 30 1.4! I can PM you some video samples if you want?

Edit: I actually have the previous (non art) version, you can get it a little cheaper on ebay and its 99% the same.

Landscape and portraiture are completely different with respect to lens needs. Here's some thoughts, but get ready to open your wallet.

Landscapes will be the Sigma 16mm F1.4 DC DN Contemporary https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0783J5BWP/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_XKeHDbA4H058S

Portraiture would be good with with the 50mm F1. 8 OSS Sony https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00EPWC30O/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_6MeHDbSH3FX9K

You'll be served well with the excellent Sony 24-105 G PZ OSS if you want a single travel companion. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ENZRQH8/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_bIeHDbD47B6XM

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

Well Canon is the best way to go for video. You can adapt some of your nikon lenses to canon too with super cheap adapters. You can get a t3i right now for 350$ plus a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 for $570 a rode video mic for around 100$ or a zoom h1 for the same price then you can get either a sigma 30mm f/1.4 for about 500$ or a Canon 50mm 1.4 for about 350$ A decent tripod of your choosing plus either a glidecam/shoulderrig/crane or other rigs. And that should come to around 3k. But if you want a better quality camera and full frame which is better for low light then you can get a refurb 5dmkII for 1500$ plus a 24-105mm f/4 for 780$ and a the canon 50mm 1.4 for 350$ and rode video mic for 110$ which leaves you about 300$ for other accessories like a tripod or a rig

Edit: I am a digital filmmaking student and am very knowledgeable about gear so if you have questions I could probably help a lot.

Edit2: or if you want something more automatic with autofocusing and a built in mic and view finder but also great video quality you could check out the Sony Nex vg30

I'm doing well! How bout yourself? I know this isn't exactly the range you are looking for but I've always liked the Canon 18-135 its pretty sharp, relatively fast and I find it to be a good zoom range. Because if you are looking to fit an entire building in a frame, especially assuming you have a crop sensor camera, 75mm is going to be tight

50mm is very nice for portrait-style photography on an APS-C camera--shallow depth of field with great bokeh. It can feel rather 'zoomed in', though, especially indoors. A 24mm lens is pretty versatile indoors, and the Canon STM lets you get in real close if you want. Bear in mind, you can buy a third party 50mm for only $53 if you're feeling noncommittal. I own it and it's quite nice for the price.

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

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.

It all depends on how close you can get to the action. There aren't many great telephoto lens for the E-Mount system so you'll have to look at third party lenses. Since the a6000 is APS-C, you can take good photos with this 50mm f/1.8 if they're close enough but you definitely won't be able to get tight shots unless they're literally right in front of you. You could definitely use this 15-105 f/4 if the field is lit well, but you'd have to bump your ISO up a bit. But sports at f/4 with a APS-C sensor is definitely pushing it.

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.

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

I have an EOS M.

I'd suggest installing Magic Lantern firmware to unlock 3x lossless crop zoom which gives you the same benefits of the t3i crop zoom.

Along with the 22mm it came with, I have a Canon 50mm f1.8 and a Sigma 30mm 1.4 that work with my Fotodiox EOS M adapter.

The EOS M goes through batteries kind of quick, so I bought a 2 pack third party Wasabi batteries and charger.

I also have an EOS M AC adapter which lets you plug the EOS M into a wall or to a large battery like this...



Here's a couple videos I shot with the EOS M.

• Home Studio Setting
  
• Event Coverage
  
  It's a great starter camera.
  
  I wish it had remote shooting, so I can use apps like DSLR Controller.

Yeah, when my skills are confident enough (say, in the year 2020) I'll probably go for an FF body. My 18mm is f/3.5 (close enough) and the 24mm I suggested is f/2.8, which should give me a rather minor boost to shutter speed if I want it. I'll sit on the idea for now. As it stands, apart from the "studio" work I do, most of my work tends to sit as either the night club shoots and cosplay at conventions. The later I try to shoot with the expectation of "everyone else except my subject should be blurry". So, a lower f should be the ticket to those without too much effort, right? If what's in my head is right, I could solve two problems at once. This is the Sigma you refer to? Monopods have come up to me before, but I basically just not extend the tripod I use and carry anyway.

But speaking of me, the fact that you found me IN A MIRROR made me spend 20 minutes going through the gallery like "Where?" and then I did and was like "Silly me." To answer the other "Where" question, Denver, Colorado. Renting kits here probably isn't that hard, just need to find a good place for it.

I've booked 2 vacations for this year, Peru (machu pichu) and California (Yosmite, Nappa Valley). As such, I've decided that I'd like to purchase a camera to photograph my adventures. After a ton of reading, I've narrowed down my choice to Sony a6000 (due to its compact size, i'll be doing a ton of hiking) with the 16-55m kit lens. In order to take advantage of all the landscapes, I'm also looking to purchase a wide lens, the rokinon 12mm. If its possible, I'd appreciate the any feedback on these choices, if there are better alternatives etc. My budget is around is capped out at $1,000. Also, is there any difference between these two lenses besides the prices?

https://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-Ultra-Angle-E-Mount-RK12M-E/dp/B00JD4TAWI/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1493678699&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=rokinon+12mm+e+mount

https://www.amazon.com/Samyang-SY12M-E-BK-Ultra-Angle-Cameras/dp/B00KT0UH72/ref=pd_pgd_B00JD4TAWI_B00KT0UH72?pf_rd_p=2971640562&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B00JD4TAWI&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=E46TJNBVKRFH54V4T49T

From my understanding these are identical, just branded different for whatever reason.

Thanks!

Hmm... not a very easy question. If you've got a good manual focus game, you might wanna look at old canon FD lenses or Nikon AI(s) lenses along with an adapter. I do the same with M42 lenses, but those really are a hit or miss, so that's only if you wanna risk getting some good and some shitty lenses. There are some notoriously bad M42 lenses, while the Canikon family is almost guaranteed smooth and sharp enough for video.

If you want a modern lens, you can look at something like the G vario 14-42mm or if you want to spend more, the 14-140mm is a real do-it-all. Be sure to get the non-power zoom version for the first lens (it has an X in the name), and if you get the 14-140mm, the second version (f/3.5-5.6) is a whole lot better than the first (f/4-5.8). I've always underestimated kit zooms until I got a chance to use mft kit lenses. There are some really good ones.

I've fucked about with the 20mm 1.7 longer than necessary, great for pictures, borderline masochism for video. I'm selling it and getting the glorious 12-35mm 2.8 second hand.

That would give you an advantage! 😃

I would recommend either the 70-300mm or 55-200mm. There's a price difference of course, but both great choices. Naturally a benefit of having an extra 100mm. Though make sure to get the lens with IS because it will make a difference. They do sell a 70-300mm lens without IS but I'd avoid.

https://www.amazon.ca/Canon-70-300mm-4-5-6-Lens-Cameras/dp/B0007Y794O

https://www.amazon.ca/Canon-55-250mm-Telephoto-Stabilized-2044B002/dp/B0011NVMO8

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).

Gift One: This lens. I want it I have just the kit lens and I really want an OK telephoto. This one is really nice for the price from what I've seen.

Off this list


Gift Two: This. Same WL I just don't want a neck strap and this is cheap :)

C'mon...gimme

Also, Damn gurl! You look nice today!

The Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM Lens is very well liked for wide angle landscape shots. Though it's an ultra wide - so maybe the Canon EF-S 55-250mm F4-5.6 IS STM Lens is better for you. Both of these lenses are very sharp for the price, and the STM autofocus will make it nice and quiet.

Take a look at sample images for both. And check out Keh.com for used copies of the lenses. They have an excellent reputation.

>Macro is one of the most technical sides of photography, a good starter lens is the 100mm macro from canon http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00004XOM3?pc_redir=1410422622&robot_redir=1

This lens, my god. This lens is one of the best purchases you'll ever make in the lens department. It's phenomenal for portraits, excellent for macro, and it's fast! It's nearly identical to the L version except without IS. Buy this lens, you'll keep it forever!

But also, Canon makes both a 50mm and a 60mm macro. You can look into those as they will be cheaper and more versatile for everyday photography.

Hello r/photography!
I recently saved up enough money to buy my first serious camera. This Cannon EOS Rebel T3 caught my attention and I keep reading in the reviews that it is an excellent entry level camera. Is that a true statement? I would be willing to shell out some extra money for this T3i if it would be a better buy.
This Cannon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 or this Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 seem like good lenses to go along with them, but are they too much to soon?
Again, this would be my first major camera purchase. Would this be a solid purchase or is there another cheaper camera that would be just as good?

I owned the Nikon 70-300mm f/4~5.6 ED until I bounced it off of a sidewalk after getting brushed by an in-line skater. Eventually I replaced it with a 70-300mm VR. The newer lens is better in almost every aspect.

All xx-300mm f/5.6 lenses I've seen share the same challenge. For best results, you want to stop down to at least f/8, and when using these lenses handheld wthout VR you want to keep the shutter speed at 1/500th or faster to minimize the effects of camera shake. Depending on the light and the dSLR, that can mean cranking up the ISO to where noise begins to intrude. The result is a small "shooting envelope" where one can get the best result. For stationary subjects, VR can extend that envelope considerably, but as filyr points out, it does nothing for subject motion.

If you're still interested in a non-stabilized 70-300mm, I'd recommend this Tamron over either of the ones you list:

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-300mm-4-0-5-6-Digital-A17NII/dp/B0012UUP02

> I was planning on getting the kit lens and then buying a cheap non electronic adapter for Canon lenses, is this a good idea or would it just be cheaper to go m4/3?

The electronic features in the lens, like aperture control and focus, won't work without that electronic connection, so it's pretty much worthless. You can buy a not as dumb adapter with manual iris adjustment, but as someone who bought one, waste of money and not efficient. If you don't even have a camera that will let you adjust the canon lenses apertures as wide open as possible in the first place, then you're completely wasting your time and money. The trick is to set them as wide open as possible and then use the dumb adapters adjustment abilities.

You pretty much have to buy the metabones adapter if you want the functionality of the ef lenses on a m/43 mount. They currently retail for around $650 for the adapter. I know they are awesome and people will swear by them, but the price is more than most lenses available for m/43 systems.

I agree with u/CameraRollSoundSpeed in regards to ef lenses being more useful in the long run, but budget restrictions are very really. I still stand by my recommendation of the Panasonic 2.8 12-35mm as the best overall lens you can get for for m/43 cameras for the price.

https://www.amazon.com/PANASONIC-12-35mm-Professional-Mirrorless-H-HS12035/dp/B00843ERMW

Dig on ebay and you can probably pay around $500 for the lens.

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.

Seems like the Kamlan would fit. Is 50mm the best lens for you? Most of the photos on here are with a wide-ish angle lens.

I can recommend the Samyang/Rokinon 12mm F2.0

https://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-Ultra-Angle-Mount-RK12M/dp/B00JD4TAWI

Relatively cheap and it lets in so much more light compared to the F3.5 kit lens. I like a wide angle shot though. My Fuji is APS-C.

Saving up for a macro lens for my camera.

Also looking at a cheap starter kit for silk screen. I've got a crafts project in mind that could use a little enhancing.

The problem is I buy books for my Kindle and Amazon take it out of gift card totals first. ^_^ Since I'm paranoid about my SB account being closed, I add my gift cards as soon as I get 'em. On the plus side, I've been earning more in gift cards then I usually spend on books. Still waiting for my $25 card to clear, but I ordered it on 3/27, so if they're going to do it, it should be soon. =D

(Maxed out on $5 cards for March, got enough for a $25 card, have enough now for two more $5 cards but waiting for the big one to clear then I'll redeem.)

Thank you. :) I love aviation photography; this year I wasn't able to go to any, due to the sequester grounding The Blue Angels, The Thunderbirds and all other military demo teams. Hopefully next year will be better.

I was sitting in the media section... my membership at an aviation photography website gets me media passes to this airshow, and that gets me right up to the edge of the crowdline with no one in front of me. Here's a picture showing how close I was able to get.

The T-6 Texan and the F-18 were shot with the Canon 400mm F/5.6 L-series prime lens, and the F-4 was shot with the Canon 70-300 F/4-F/5.6 telephoto.

Does anyone know of a fast 90mm lens designed for APS-C sensors?

I'm hoping to buy a macro lens for my APS-C camera, but I'm finding that there's not a lot of selection. The only EF-S lens I can find that seems to be made for macro is the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM. I'd much rather get a lens in the 90mm range. I currently use the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM, and I can get decent macro results with a macro ring. But at f/4 max aperture, the bokeh isn't that great. I'd also like to use the macro lens for portraits as well, which would really benefit from a fast aperture. I could get a 60mm EF lens, and it would behave like a 96mm with the 1.6x crop factor, but it would also slow the aperture by 60% for depth-of-field.

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?

Sony A6000 + the 18-105 F4 for general photography, this should be a good start and will get her a quality lens that will get her plenty of reach. This should be right around $1100ish

down the road she can add these options:

add the 35 f1.8 for great portrait photos with better background separation. Alternatively you can start her with this lens first, being smaller and lighter means she will be more likely carry it around with her.

add the 16 2.8 for hiking thanks to the compact size and theme parks, or just anywhere she needs it in a more compact size.

more size comparisons

I would start with the PANASONIC LUMIX G X Vario Lens, 12-35mm, F2.8 for ~$700. MFT makes this more like the 35-70mm Canon EF for focal/zoom range. Plus when shooting 1080 video you can use the digital zoom (accesses the full 4k sensor) which makes it act like a 70-200mm lens. So you can get a lot out of one lens.

Next I would look at the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO for ~$1.1k. this would be for a wide fisheye lens if you do steady cam stuff.

Remember all cameras and lenses are just tools. You're the one that makes your content great. Those are my recommendations, good luck.

EDIT: added links.

Okay, here is a better list, sorry for the mess:

Flash -- around $65.

Transmitter --around $35

Light stand + umbrella + flash bracket // around $30. I got this one used for $20 on Amazon. There are different ones and with different quality.

Canon 24mm f/2.8 -- around $150

Canon 50mm f/1.8 -- around $110.

Also, Yongnuo makes their version of the 50mm ($50), the 35mm ($88) and some others. I can only vouch for the 50mm, I either got a great copy or it is just great.

Thanks! Canon 55-250mm IS, a great value for a decent lens. I'm currently saving up for a more powerful telephoto.

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.

That depends, I'm generally sort of hesitant about used bodies because I don't always know what to look for to check and see if it's in all working order. I know people here often say to get them, it's a matter of comfort I think.

You could get a new t2i or t3i from amazon for around 700 bucks, with a lens that would be ok for most stuff. They aren't the most durable cameras, but they take great pictures and are cheap.

For lenses, you could get a 70-300 is usm which will give you a nice range for animals and large birds. That looks to be about 500 bucks.

The lens that comes with the camera and that one should cover most of what you will want.

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.

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. Obviously I know nothing about cameras but your budget choice is around £800. What makes it better than this for example, which is a quarter of the price? https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0012UUP02/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_SCyMzbCGADDG3

The photos posted on Amazon look pretty similar to me but again, I know nothing about cameras.

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.

I would head to my number one vacation spot that I have wanted to go to. Alaska. I would look to rent a cabin in the woods somewhere very dark so I can enjoy the stars and the silence. Something with a campfire pit, water close by to go fishing, hopefully a dock and a row boat, and maybe a hammock. Do some bird watching, nature walking, take piles of photos, roast marshmallows. Just get away from people, away from technology, and just relax. Of course, I would have to bring my wife. As much as I would like to bring my kids I think I would see if they could stay at my parents house. just some alone time for my wife and I to lay under the stars together.

I would bring this Lens for my camera. I would want to get the best pictures I can and sometimes that always is't possible with a regular lens.

Assuming by "wildlife" you mean animals/birds at a distance...

Bob Atkins' website has a section listing the best EOS lenses under $400, which includes the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS. He personally recommends the Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 Di VC, and there's used examples of the latter on Amazon for $280.

You can also find used examples of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS for $300, the (discontinued) Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 for about $200, and the (discontinued) Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 for $100.

Of all those, I'd recommend the Tamron 70-300 myself, although if money is really tight and you can do without image stabilization, the Canon 100-300 seems to be a bit of a bargain (both Bryan Carnathan and Ken Rockwell give it a decent review).

Note: I'm only using Amazon for price-consistency. Check Craigslist, your local classifieds, and other outlets at your leisure.

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.

I got a "deal" at Target where I got the Canon 75-300 mm telephoto for $100 when I bought my body. I've seen other people say it doesn't have great optics, but come on it's $100. It takes decent quality pictures if you know how to operate your camera. There is no built-in IS though, so either shoot during the day or use a tripod.

Honestly, 99/100 of the pictures I take are with the kit lens and I'd recommend on holding off for now unless you're doing sport or nature photography.

As for figuring out how "far away" you can see, try reading through the Photoclass that was on reddit a few months ago. It's got some great information about what focal length means in terms of images.

Kit lenses are actually pretty good. Which ones do you have? 18-55mm and 55-200mm?

If you feel like you'd be swapping lenses too much you could get the 18-135mm which would cover most of that range in a single lens.

If it were me I would use your kit lenses to their fullest, and purchase something with a wider aperture like a 50mm f1.8.

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.

Keep in mind that 35mm on a 60D is not wide angle. It's normal angle field of view. It is a wide aperture lens (good for low light and shallow DOF). If you want wide aperture, that is a fine lens but this one will be a bit cheaper and be pretty much just as good. The 35mm you list is made to work on full frame and APS-C cameras, the cheaper one I list is made only to work on APS-C/Crop cameras like your 60D and as a result it's $400 cheaper.

If you want wide angle, the question is how wide. Do you want something wider than what your 18-135 can do at it's wides (18mm)? Then you're going to need a lens wider than 18mm. The lenses I'd recommend for that case are the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, the Sigma 8-16mm, or the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 DX II. The Sigma will the the widest, the Tokina has the widest aperture (better for low light), and the canon is in-between on both counts and a Canon, which some people like having. All are in the $600-800 range.

Here are some links for the product in the above comment for different countries:

Amazon Smile Link: this one


|Country|Link|Charity Links|
|:-----------|:------------|:------------|
|USA|smile.amazon.com|EFF|
|UK|www.amazon.co.uk|Macmillan|
|Spain|www.amazon.es||
|France|www.amazon.fr||
|Germany|www.amazon.de||
|Canada|www.amazon.ca||
|Italy|www.amazon.it||




To help donate money to charity, please have a look at this thread.

This bot is currently in testing so let me know what you think by voting (or commenting). The thread for feature requests can be found here.

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!

It's $110 on Amazon. Can't beat that with a stick.

If that's too much, check out the Yongnuo f1.8. I picked one up on eBay for $40. Amazing value. It takes great photos.

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!

Well it's wide to normal to near telephoto. Not super long telephoto, but somewhat.

It's a good general purpose lens, it is widely available and will not cost a lot. It is actually probably exactly like the 35-80 on a full-frame film camera.

And here's a money-saving trick.

You can take an image and crop it to do the same as telephoto.
However, you cannot do anything to an image to make it "more wide angle".

If you really need a lens that does longer telephoto, I would add a 75-300, it will complement the 18-55.

Canon also makes lenses that do wide to more telephoto, like the 18-135 or the 18-200, but they are more money.

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.