Purchasing different lens' for Sony A550

[wisbucky]

Hello Everyone

Dont know if some of you recall but back in November of 2009 or so I was wanting help on purchasing a new camera that would take great night shots. At the time I was going back and forth betweena point and shoot camera and a dslr. Well in the end I purchased a Sony A550. I have been having the time of my life ever since.

In addition to the camera I purchased a Sony 250 mm lens F3.6- 6.3.

That lens works great but I am looking for two additonal lens and I am hoping for some great opinions and help from everyone.

I would like a wide angle lens. But at the same time I thought maybe a conversion lens would be fine. I am basically looking to use it to get shots that the camera itself can not all see. Such as a photo of from Boardwalk looking over the water showing Jellyroles all the way over to the ESPN club. Hope that helps.

The second lens I would like is one that will capture wildlife from a distance away such as 1/4 of a mile or less. I would like to have a great zoom. Someone told me to buy an after market lens but I am not sure what to look for or what lens are great for this.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

What is your budget? There are some lenses that will cost in the $1-2K range that would cover what you want or others in the hundred $$$$'s. Usually the faster lens (ie, constant 2.8 aperture) will be the higher priced. If you're looking for low light handheld shots that may be what you need but with the great high ISO capabilities of the A550 and if most shots will be in good daylight you may be fine with a lower costing lens. These lenses also are usually lighter weight compared to the constant 2.8 aperture lenses.

 

[wisbucky]

What is your budget? There are some lenses that will cost in the $1-2K range that would cover what you want or others in the hundred $$$$'s. Usually the faster lens (ie, constant 2.8 aperture) will be the higher priced. If you're looking for low light handheld shots that may be what you need but with the great high ISO capabilities of the A550 and if most shots will be in good daylight you may be fine with a lower costing lens. These lenses also are usually lighter weight compared to the constant 2.8 aperture lenses.

I would like to stay under $900 for both lenses if possible. Does that help?

 

[disneyboy2003]

I would like a wide angle lens. But at the same time I thought maybe a conversion lens would be fine. I am basically looking to use it to get shots that the camera itself can not all see. Such as a photo of from Boardwalk looking over the water showing Jellyroles all the way over to the ESPN club. Hope that helps.

Hmmm...I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "getting shots that the camera itself can not all see". Do you mean taking several photos of the Boardwalk, from the ESPN club down to Jellyroles, and then stitching them together in Photoshop to create a panorama? That's probably the best interpretation I can come up with for your statement. If your camera / lens can only see part of the Boardwalk (not the entire Boardwalk), then this would probably be the way to go.

The camera can only see whatever image comes through the lens. If you get an ultra-wide-angle lens, you might be able to get all of the Boardwalk in 1 shot. There's actually a thread on these message boards specifically about ultra-wide-angle lenses: http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2264410

Folks here seem to like the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 lens. However, I think it's only available for Canon & Nikon.

Actually, looks like Sony offers a 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 lens. (link) Maybe that's the ultra-wide-angle lens you're looking for.

The second lens I would like is one that will capture wildlife from a distance away such as 1/4 of a mile or less. I would like to have a great zoom. Someone told me to buy an after market lens but I am not sure what to look for or what lens are great for this.

Wow! I tried to think of how far 1/4 mile is. Looks like it's 440 yards, or the length of 4-1/2 football fields! Where are you going that you're shooting wildlife from 1/4 mile away?

If money weren't an issue, then I'd recommend the Canon 1200mm f/5.6 lens. It's no longer in production, but you can buy an excellent-condition used lens from B&H (link) Here's a review with video of this lens from the-digital-picture.com: link. Looks like this would be the lens that's "powerful" enough to capture wildlife from 1/4 mile away. Whew!

The slightly-more-affordable Canon 800mm f/5.6 lens might be able to reach subjects a 1/4 mile away (link to B&H and a review).

The other option I can think of would be to mount your camera onto a telescope. Astrophotographers do this all the time, but I'm not sure how much it would cost. It's gotta be tons cheaper than the above lenses, and might be within your budget.

Of course, I'm only familiar with Canon lenses. You'll have to look for the equivalent Sony / Minolta lenses...if they exist. Unfortunately, I'm not sure you can go from the widest wide-angle to the longest telephoto in just $900. You might have to make some compromises.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I would like to stay under $900 for both lenses if possible. Does that help?

Yes, that helps although it will be difficult to do. You might want to consider just one of the lenses at the moment and saving up towards the other. But you might get lucky and find two used lenses for around that amount.

I would skip any converters since they won't work very well with the lenses that you have.

The Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 ($480 new) or a used Minolta 11-18mm ($350 or so used) will be a couple of your least expensive options and both are good wide angle lenses. I have the Sigma and like it a lot and DH's camera came with the 11-18mm sony version which I also liked. Or if you wanted to try the fisheye route and were ok with manual focus take a look at the new lens Code bought - the 8mm Rokinon fisheye for Sony.

For a longer telephoto lens than what you have with the 18-250mm you'll probably want something that goes to 400mm minimum or 500mm. The Minolta 100-400mm would be an option. Pretty decent optics but won't be the fastest lens. It's a lighter weight lens though for the length. You can find them used for around $500 now. Or one of the Sigma's - 50-500 (bigma) or the discontinued 170-500mm - I saw one of these for $600. There's also a current 150-500mm Sigma. Or the Tamron 200-500mm ($800-$900). Any of these would take most of your budget buying new but the 170-500mm or 100-400mm paired with the fisheye or a used wide angle wouldn't be too far off from what you're looking to spend. AFAIK all are considered to be very decent telephoto zooms. If you look at the Sony alpha photo thread you'll find many pictures by Zackiedawg taken with the Tamron.

I can send you the links for the used lenses if any are of interest and you can take a look.

 

[disneyboy2003]

I just found out about a whole field of photography called "digiscoping", where you attach your camera onto a spotting scope. Apparently, you can achieve images with an equivalent focal length of 1,000 - 4,500 mm!!! (some folks have even mentioned 9,000mm!) You can take pretty good photos of subjects that are ~1 mile away!!!

Spotting scopes are commonly used by bird watchers, and I think they're the ones who first pioneered digiscoping. Swarovski (the folks who make crystals...just ask my wife) makes spotting scopes, and they're available from B&H.

Here's a photo of a dSLR attached to a spotting scope:

 

[wisbucky]

Im hoping I can clear my post up a bit. We live in the country and we have woods behind us where wildlife comes out. It probably is under 1/4 mile away but I used that as a reference since the wildlife dont come up to my back door. I am looking for a lens that would give me the close up shot but without the price tag of thousands.

A wide angle lens photo would be one where I could stand on the train station at Mk and take a shot showing the castle, main street USA along with Tony's and city hall. Does this help clear things up? I know you can get a fisheye lens buy it distorts the photo. Disneyboy's thread about Sony's wide angle lens is probably what I am looking for. Can anyone elborate on the pros and cons of this lens. Or can anyone give some insight on a lens by another company that might compare.

Thank you all for your input.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Im hoping I can clear my post up a bit. We live in the country and we have woods behind us where wildlife comes out. It probably is under 1/4 mile away but I used that as a reference since the wildlife dont come up to my back door. I am looking for a lens that would give me the close up shot but without the price tag of thousands.

A wide angle lens photo would be one where I could stand on the train station at Mk and take a shot showing the castle, main street USA along with Tony's and city hall. Does this help clear things up? I know you can get a fisheye lens buy it distorts the photo. Disneyboy's thread about Sony's wide angle lens is probably what I am looking for. Can anyone elborate on the pros and cons of this lens. Or can anyone give some insight on a lens by another company that might compare.

Thank you all for your input.

The lenses I mentioned in my post above are all to cover what I thought you were talking about - and just confirmed. The Sony 11-18mm, the Minolta 11-18mm or the Sigma 10-20mm will probably be your best options of current lenses for wide angle and staying in the budget you listed. The Sigma obviously has more range but not much. I personally like the colors produced by the sony (and Minolta will be similar). Also, the Sony lens is designed to accommodate a filter should you wish and the Sigma will not allow it although a filter on the Sony would possibly produce vignetting unless it were very thin. What I do like though is that the lens doesn't protrude the way it does on the Sigma and I tend to get less finger prints on it b/c of that. We have both the Sigma and Sony in the house so I'm familiar with them. Eventually I'll sell one and although it's a tough decision I think the Sigma is the more likely to go. Both are good lenses and shouldn't disappoint IMO.

 

[vandort]

I'm glad that Kathy responded to your note. She is extremely knowledgeable about Sony cameras and the lenses for them. Kathy is also a great photographer.

I have a Sony DSLR and an assortment of Minolta Maxxum lens, a few Sigma lenses and one Sony lens. I also own a Swarovski spotting scope with a DSLR adaptor.

I have enjoyed the optical quality, color and bokeh of my Minolta lenses. I don't have a wide angle lens (<16mm) yet, but that is probably my next purchase. For wildlife, I use an 400mm f5.6 Sigma lens. I took this picture from inside my home with this lens. I have taken pictures of birds much farther away, but obviously they are smaller in the frame.

I think that a zoom is better than a prime lens for wildlife, but you can find good used copies of this particular lens for ~$200. If you visit the Sony alpha thread, you can enjoy Justin's great wildlife pictures with his Tamron 200-500mm lens.

The spotting scope (digiscoping) is another thing entirely. Good quality spotting scopes and lenses are very expensive (a few thousand dollars for the body and then a few thousand dollars for objectives). I will also tell you that learning how to take good pictures with this set up is extremely challenging. It takes a lot of patience and hard work. You are trying to coordinate 2-different optical elements at the same time. I've had my digiscope set up since Christmas, and I feel like I still have a way to go. This is a picture I took of the moon in January with my lowest objective scope lens and a 35mm lens with my camera. I have hope that I will eventually get the same quality image out of my camera that I see when I look through the scope.

 

[disneyboy2003]

The spotting scope (digiscoping) is another thing entirely. Good quality spotting scopes and lenses are very expensive (a few thousand dollars for the body and then a few thousand dollars for objectives). I will also tell you that learning how to take good pictures with this set up is extremely challenging. It takes a lot of patience and hard work. You are trying to coordinate 2-different optical elements at the same time. I've had my digiscope set up since Christmas, and I feel like I still have a way to go. This is a picture I took of the moon in January with my lowest objective scope lens and a 35mm lens with my camera. I have hope that I will eventually get the same quality image out of my camera that I see when I look through the scope.

I was really hoping the digiscoping idea would work out. The examples of digiscoping photos on different Web sites make it look like a viable alternative to super-expensive super-telephoto lenses. I started thinking about all the different things I could photograph a mile away using a spotting scope...

There goes that idea.

 

[vandort]

I'm sorry to disappoint you. I'm just being honest.

I do think that you can probably find a lens that will work for you. Remember that you have cropped sensor; so, it makes 400mm lens work like a 600mm lens. This also has a less desirable effect on the wide or ultra wide lenses.

For the longer focal length, you also need to think about whether or not you want a hand-held lens (easy to hold) or one that sits on tripod. My 400mm Sigma is definitely a tripod lens. I don't have the 100-400mm Minolta lens that Kathy described although I think that it is a hand-held lens. I do have the 100-300mm Minolta lens, which is my favorite hand-held outdoor sports lens.

If you can, I would recommend that you visit a camera store and try out some of the options you are considering. I think that Flickr might have a group for each lens that has been ever made (maybe an exaggeration here). I browse that website to see the pictures that people are actually taking with a particular lens. http://www.dyxum.com is also a great site for reviews and pictures of old and new lens that will fit the alphamount (Sony/Minolta).

 

[wisbucky]

Thanks everyone for your help so far. I am wondering if anyone can chime inm on the three wide angle lens I have listed. the pros and cons of each.

Sony 35mm f/1.4 G-Series Wide-Angle Lens

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG IF HSM Aspherical Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens

Sony DT 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 Aspherical ED Super Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Sony Alpha Digital SLR Camera


I am going to use then for many night shots, such as parades, fireworks, sunsets etc. so please let me know any info you have on these lens and how they woud work for my situation.

 

[DznyFan]

without looking at the prices, to give you the most range, my personal choice would be the 35mm f/1.4 for the low light capability, and the 11-18mm, since the kit lens starts at a focal length of 18mm, doesn't it? Have you got somewhere local that you can go and play with the lenses?

 

[disneyboy2003]

Thanks everyone for your help so far. I am wondering if anyone can chime inm on the three wide angle lens I have listed. the pros and cons of each.

Sony 35mm f/1.4 G-Series Wide-Angle Lens

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG IF HSM Aspherical Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens

Sony DT 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 Aspherical ED Super Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Sony Alpha Digital SLR Camera


I am going to use then for many night shots, such as parades, fireworks, sunsets etc. so please let me know any info you have on these lens and how they woud work for my situation.

Well, I can't speak to the pros & cons of each lens.

However, in general, if you're planning on doing night & low-light photography, you'll need a lens that has a large aperture (smaller f-number) to allow more light into the camera. So, of the 3 choices you presented, the 35mm f/1.4 would be perfect for low-light / night photography since it has the largest aperture (smallest f-number).

However, if you're looking for the widest-angle lens, then the 35mm lens wouldn't exactly meet that criteria. Your current lens (actually, I don't recall you mentioning which lens you already have) probably already covers the 35mm focal length. The focal-length difference between the Sigma and Sony is almost negligible (ie. the difference between 11mm and 12mm, and looks like they have the same variable apertures, too).

Because their apertures are so small (f/4.5-5.6), you'll have a tougher time with night & low-light photography. You can certainly increase the ISO, but at the risk of introducing additional grain / noise in your night photos. Or, you can use a tripod and longer shutter speeds, but only if your subject is stationary.

Hope that helps. Let us know which lens you end up deciding on.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I haven't seen the 35mm 1.4 G lens and don't think it has quite the reputation of the other Sony G lenses but I've read positives on it. It will be very good for night parades. You might also consider the Sigma 30mm 1.4 which is an excellent lens and will cost quite a bit less than the G lens. As disneyboy2003 mentioned the 35mm isn't terribly wide on a crop sensor but will be best for handholding dark shots.

When I got my full frame I had to switch my wide angle and got the Sigma 12-24. The positives are that it is a full frame lens should you ever upgrade to that. It isn't a fast lens though so it won't be good for night parades but would work fine for fireworks etc. where you are using a tripod. It would be fine for sunsets also. Although I'm happy enough with the Sigma I'd personally stick with the Sony 11-18mm with an APS-C sensor unless I planned on going full frame. The Sony also isn't fast so won't be good for night parades but will be fine with the tripod. I found the 11-18 to be a sharper lens than the Sigma 12-24 but some of that could be coming from the increased resolution of the A850.

 

[zackiedawg]

Sorry I missed this thread earlier. I have the Sony A550 too - fantastic camera. Thanks guys for the reference to my Tamron 200-500 pics. I keep my galleries online by subject matter, but also keep copies of all my pics in a gear file separated by camera body and lens...to see all of my shots from the Tamron 200-500, you can go to my lens gallery here:

http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/tamron_200500mm_f563

It is indeed an excellent lens for wildlife and birds, though it is in the $800 range so it wouldn't be possible to get two lenses for that budget and include the Tamron. Same goes for the Sigma 50-500 or 150-500. Older Minolta lenses are a possibility - check out some used lens places like keh.com where you can sometimes find a deal on one.

Also, with the ultra-wide angle lenses, everyone so far above has missed one lens which is worth consideration - the Tamron 10-24mm F3.5-4.5. This is a very nice lens, very sharp, respectably fast at F3.5, great distortion and flare control, and pairs very well with the A550. It goes for around $400 too, and is a nice alternative to the Sigma and Sony wide lens options (note that the Sony 11-18 UWA is actually made by Tamron for Sony...and the 10-24mm Tamron is a newer lens with optical and speed improvements to the 11-18). Here's my 10-24mm gallery link:

http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/tamron_1024mm_f3545_lens

When shopping for a lens for the wide duty, any described as ultra-wide or wide angle without 'fisheye' listed, will achieve what you mentioned of fitting in a big, wide scene without rounded distortion. With an APS-C crop sensor like your A550, ultra-wide angle would generally be a lens ranging from 0-20mm. Remember, your lens you already have, the Sony 18-250mm F3.5-6.3, will go to 18mm wide...so something like the Sony 35mm F1.4 is NOT going to give you a wide view like you described. It's LESS wide than your current lens. It is a great lens for low light work, because it has a nice, fast F1.4 aperture...but wide it is not. I'll also second Kat's recommendation on the Sigma 30mm F1.4 as an alternative to that lens for low light work - it's wider and cheaper and still quite good.

 

[wisbucky]

Well after much reading and dicussion with DH. I have decided to bypass two lens right now and go with one wide angle lens. So with that in mind I can spend more money on the one lens. I do want to shoot parades at night but also use it during the day. I am leaning more to getting one that will give me the best night shots (parade fireworks etc). And it has to be one that works great hand held.

Keeping this lens under $1000 yes you all heard that right. DH says get one that is going to work and not one that you are going to put in a drawer because it just wont work for you as you want it to.

Now please fire away with this new info. I plan on purchasing this on our next trip to Disney which we leave March 21 for. There is a Sony store in the Mall of Millenia that I can get a Sony lens at. If you suggest another lens please let me know where in Florida I could purchase it.

Thanks everyone you are all so helpful.

 

[disneyboy2003]

Well after much reading and dicussion with DH. I have decided to bypass two lens right now and go with one wide angle lens. So with that in mind I can spend more money on the one lens. I do want to shoot parades at night but also use it during the day. I am leaning more to getting one that will give me the best night shots (parade fireworks etc). And it has to be one that works great hand held.

Keeping this lens under $1000 yes you all heard that right. DH says get one that is going to work and not one that you are going to put in a drawer because it just wont work for you as you want it to.

Now please fire away with this new info. I plan on purchasing this on our next trip to Disney which we leave March 21 for. There is a Sony store in the Mall of Millenia that I can get a Sony lens at. If you suggest another lens please let me know where in Florida I could purchase it.

Thanks everyone you are all so helpful.

Well, in general, if you're trying for low-light / night photography, you'll need a lens with a large maximum aperture (small f-number). So this will be a very important feature to look for.

Next, you'll want to figure out whether you want a zoom lens or a prime lens. A prime lens is also known as a fixed lens because it has no zoom...it's a fixed focal-length. Prime lenses tend to have larger apertures (smaller f-numbers), so in many ways, they're better for low-light photography. Here are some prime lenses to consider:

• Sigma 30mm f/1.4, about $400 - a great lens that is highly recommended by folks on this message board
• 50mm f/1.8 - about $100 - the cheapest lens for low-light photography, a great value
• 50mm f/1.4 - about $400 - another great lens

However, if you're looking for a wider-angle lens, then the 50mm lenses above would not be considered "wide". Even the 30mm lens would be considered a "normal" lens.

Another disadvantage of prime lenses is that they don't have the flexibility of zooming. If you need a wide-angle zoom lens, then you'll have to compromise a little on the maximum aperture. Typically, the maximum aperture of low-light zoom lenses is f/2.8. What does this mean? Compared to an aperture of f/1.4, an f/2.8 lens will let in about 3/4 less light into the camera than the f/1.4 lens. Remember that for low-light photography, you want to try to get as much light into the camera as possible.

On the other hand, the same f/2.8 lens is still better off than a lens with a maximum aperture of f/5.6, which itself lets in 3/4 less light than the f/2.8 lens.

Anyway, if you're looking for a low-light, wide-angle zoom lens, then you can consider:

• 17-55mm f/2.8
• 24-70mm f/2.8

Of the 2 lenses above, if you're looking for a wider-angled view, I would lean toward the 17mm lens. The 24mm focal length for the 2nd lens might not be considered "wide".

I would also recommend NOT getting a variable-aperture zoom lens (ie. lenses that change their maximum apertures when you zoom). Variable aperture zoom lenses will list 2 different apertures on their lenses (ex. f/3.5-5.6, for example). If you're currently using the "kit lens", then you can see that it is a variable-aperture zoom lens.

Instead, you'll want a constant-aperture zoom lens, where the maximum aperture stays the same throughout the zoom. This is especially important for your low-light photography. The above lenses I mentioned are constant aperture zoom lenses, and you can tell because only 1 f-number is listed.

Again, the lenses I mentioned above are all Canon-specific recommendations, so you'll have to look into the equivalent Sony lenses. However, the general ideas for what to look for are still applicable.

I did a quick search, and looks like Tamron has a very similar lens for $460 (the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens: link).

Anyway, just my opinion. See what others have to recommend.

 

[DznyFan]

Super wide angle, wide angle zoom or wide angle fixed focal length? Do you have an idea of what focal length range you're looking for? You want a faster lens like an f/2.8 for lower light conditions?

 

[wisbucky]

Well, in general, if you're trying for low-light / night photography, you'll need a lens with a large maximum aperture (small f-number). So this will be a very important feature to look for.

Next, you'll want to figure out whether you want a zoom lens or a prime lens. A prime lens is also known as a fixed lens because it has no zoom...it's a fixed focal-length. Prime lenses tend to have larger apertures (smaller f-numbers), so in many ways, they're better for low-light photography. Here are some prime lenses to consider:

• Sigma 30mm f/1.4, about $400 - a great lens that is highly recommended by folks on this message board
• 50mm f/1.8 - about $100 - the cheapest lens for low-light photography, a great value
• 50mm f/1.4 - about $400 - another great lens

However, if you're looking for a wider-angle lens, then the 50mm lenses above would not be considered "wide". Even the 30mm lens would be considered a "normal" lens.

Another disadvantage of prime lenses is that they don't have the flexibility of zooming. If you need a wide-angle zoom lens, then you'll have to compromise a little on the maximum aperture. Typically, the maximum aperture of low-light zoom lenses is f/2.8. What does this mean? Compared to an aperture of f/1.4, an f/2.8 lens will let in about 3/4 less light into the camera than the f/1.4 lens. Remember that for low-light photography, you want to try to get as much light into the camera as possible.

On the other hand, the same f/2.8 lens is still better off than a lens with a maximum aperture of f/5.6, which itself lets in 3/4 less light than the f/2.8 lens.

Anyway, if you're looking for a low-light, wide-angle zoom lens, then you can consider:

• 17-55mm f/2.8
• 24-70mm f/2.8

Of the 2 lenses above, if you're looking for a wider-angled view, I would lean toward the 17mm lens. The 24mm focal length for the 2nd lens might not be considered "wide".

I would also recommend NOT getting a variable-aperture zoom lens (ie. lenses that change their maximum apertures when you zoom). Variable aperture zoom lenses will list 2 different apertures on their lenses (ex. f/3.5-5.6, for example). If you're currently using the "kit lens", then you can see that it is a variable-aperture zoom lens.

Instead, you'll want a constant-aperture zoom lens, where the maximum aperture stays the same throughout the zoom. This is especially important for your low-light photography. The above lenses I mentioned are constant aperture zoom lenses, and you can tell because only 1 f-number is listed.

Again, the lenses I mentioned above are all Canon-specific recommendations, so you'll have to look into the equivalent Sony lenses. However, the general ideas for what to look for are still applicable.

I did a quick search, and looks like Tamron has a very similar lens for $460 (the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens: link).

Anyway, just my opinion. See what others have to recommend.

Thanks for the awesome input. I have come across three Sony lens from thier website and just wondering if anyone can chime in on them. They are as follows

Carl Zeiss 16mm-25mm f/2.8 sal-1635z
Sony SAL-20f28 Wide Angle lens
Sony sal-16f28 Wide Angle fish eye lens


I do know the Carl Zeiss is expensive. I am just curious about it.

The fisheye lens I know is going to be distorted on the sides but I am wondering how much so.