Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Oh. lol, then what's the point of the presentation?
I guess you could easily skip the preset stuff.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
NeoGAF Camera Equipment Thread | MK II
- Thread starter MRORANGE
- Start date
Oh. lol, then what's the point of the presentation?
I guess you could easily skip the preset stuff.
Beats me lol. My boss just enjoys doing these internal lectures every now and then. But honestly, if at least one picks up LR after this it would be nice so I don't have to do everything related to photos heh.
VR2 still pretty expensive. Maybe it'll keep dropping as more people buy the "VR3".
I think VR1 is kinda soft too, but it doesn't suffer from focus breathing which I know is very important for you
JadedWriter
Member
I don't see the VR1 being that much of an improvement on my D810 cause I don't even think my Sigma lens can keep up with that camera. The Sigma is serviceable, but it doesn't seem to have that pop my Nikon 24-70 and 1.8 85 have on it. I hear Tamron has stepped their game up pretty recently and I want nothing to do with the $2800 VR3.VR2 still pretty expensive. Maybe it'll keep dropping as more people buy the "VR3".
I think VR1 is kinda soft too, but it doesn't suffer from focus breathing which I know is very important for you
Lasthope106
Member
I'm at this weird point where I want to get a full frame camera. Photography isn't my main hobby, but as I find myself doing more and more I'm beginning to think that it might be a good idea to invest in something better than my Sony a6000.
All the research I've done so far is pointing me to a used Canon 5d iii. I guess my main fear with the a6000 is that I want to do macro photography. I want to get a 70-200mm lens. And so far the options for Sony are all for the full frame cameras, not to mention they are more expensive than the equivalents on the Canon side.
What do you guys think?
All the research I've done so far is pointing me to a used Canon 5d iii. I guess my main fear with the a6000 is that I want to do macro photography. I want to get a 70-200mm lens. And so far the options for Sony are all for the full frame cameras, not to mention they are more expensive than the equivalents on the Canon side.
What do you guys think?
JadedWriter
Member
Sony makes some expensive ass lenses. I don't really think you need full frame for macro, but it would probably help considering the depth of field differences. Do you just do macro? A 5DmkIII is still pretty good, mainly depends on what you pay for it and what condition it's in. 6D's are still pretty good. If you want to look at Nikon's you can find D600's at a decent price on Ebay or a refurb D610.
Astral/H3X
Member
I'm a macro guy.
Let me start with my recommendation, and then I'll go into the why's. It's just easier that way for me haha.
An a6300 or a6500, with a vintage macro lens or Samyang macro lens.
Okay now the why's.
Lens choice -- you want manual. Manual manual manual. Period. Macro doesn't like AF, because your DOF is tiny as shit. So you'll need to use manual focus. Why do anything other than a lens intended for MF, if you're going to use MF, right?
I personally use the Canon 50mm 3.5 Macro FD. This is like a 40 year old lens or some shit. It does this:
20160512-20160512-DSC03458.jpg by Hunter Mauro, on Flickr
20160512-20160512-DSC03475.jpg by Hunter Mauro, on Flickr40 years old! $80. Mmmmm tasty
I also use the Samyang 100mm Macro. Your DoF will be tinier than a spider's asshole.
Trust me, I know.
But it's a stupid sharp lens that lets me be a tiny bit further away from my subjects. I'd show some photos from it, but I use it more with my figure photos and MEH you can find those of mine yourself >.>
Now, camera choice. You're using a manual focus lens, so you need to do everything you can to enable that. Mirrorless cameras reign supreme here, since when something is in focus, it can highlight so you can see what the hell you have in focus. Also faster bursts, which help you compensate for the movement that your heartbeat causes in your camera, because Macro is a dick like that.
Mirrorless also has the advantage that it can brighten or darken the viewfinder, or in this case definitely brighten. An OVF will be dark as shit, even wide open, when shooting macro. That might fly for AF, but AF doesn't work on macro anyway.
BUT THERE'S A PROBLEM! The a6000 in particular is in that annoying gap where while it's good enough for macro photography, Sony actually managed to improve in regards to this area A LOT with the a6300, a6500, and a7II and beyond. Why? EVF lag. When things get dark to the sensor, the a6000's EVF gets kinda laggy, and that can make macro a bit of a pain, though it's certainly possible. I use my A7II now, which has a bunch of improvements that make using the EVF that much easier (and like hell will I use a dark ass OVF for this).
So why not just recommend an A7II? Well, I *could*, but honestly, if you're going purposefully for macro, I think that APSC has a lot of advantages. It'll let you get "closer", since 1:1 on an APSC sensor will make a subject larger (since the subject will be larger in comparison to on a FF sensor). Also, lighter, and you'll have a giant honkin ass flash setup, so unless you're rambo you'll notice the weight.
tl;dr, save your money, get a cheap vintage macro that's still good, and go shootin. If you want to change cameras, get the a6300/6500. IMO.
EDIT: I'm sure there's other opinions out there but I dunno about you, I work out. And even my A7II with my flash and my honkin ass 100mm gets tiring when you're holding it as still as you possibly can't for 15 seconds trying to wait for the wind to stop blowing for just one damn second and fuck there goes the bug time to try again.
I would absolutely not want a Canon 5D for that. Hell I don't want a Canon 5D to put on a shelf, I'd be worried it'd break the thing.
Lasthope106
Member
No I also plan to try to get into astro, landscapes, and maybe wildlife. I really considered the 6D and was actually a preferable option because I didn't want to spend that much. But I'm finding that the price difference between the 6D and the 5dM3 is about $500-600 on ebay, so I might as well pay up for the superior auto focus.
For the past couple of week I've seen 5dM3s with the 24-105 lens go for about $2.3k US on average. I want to see if I can snag one with that lens for about $2k. Is that a good price for one with below 20k shutter count?
Thanks for the reply. I'm actually considering the Samyang 100mm for macro on my a6000. When I first started thinking about upgrading I was considering the a6500, but I really want to get a full frame camera. I should mention that my girlfriend is doing paid gigs and wants to try to do a wedding, and I'm reading that the 70-200mm lens is a must for events like that. I also get worried about her not having a dual-card in her current camera. Another option is the A7ii but again the lens selection is more expensive than Canon.
I'm going to try your suggestion in the meantime though. Get a cheap macro vintage lens. Maybe that will be enough for me to get me started and see if it's a thing I like.
JadedWriter
Member
Pretty much if you're running around doing events you're going to want a 70-200 on one camera and 24-70 on another, expensive as fuck, but it keeps you from fucking about switching lenses all the time. With astro you're going to need a wide angle, fast aperture lens as well, wildlife equals reach. I consider the 24-105's as walk around lenses, it really depends on the lighting of the event and how much you want to work with a flash. I do a mix of flash and natural light depending on what's going on for my events, so with that said I use my 2.8 24-70. Bright sunny day the F4 would be fine, but I don't own any F4 lenses cause I do too much indoor stuff for it to justify the purchase unless I find something at the right price.
Astral/H3X
Member
I mean, sure, Sony lenses are more expensive, but the bodies are much cheaper. Plus, you can actually use Sigma lenses now with the MC-11 ($250), so outside of that small bump, the price difference disappears. Just something to keep in mind. One or two lenses? Get the MC11 and save the dough on the body. My A7II was $1600, vs the 2.5k you're mentioning. That's nearly $1000 of difference there to make up for lens.
Many of the things I mentioned about macro also applies to astrophotography. You'll be using MF, and you'll be using the focus magnifier. Can't really AF on stars.
Your GF might change things, but none of what you mention begs for full frame, except maaaaaybe landscape. FF mainly wins in events and low light events, and the A6300 and 6500 very much impressed a professional photographer buddy I knew -- said he felt like he had no reason to worry about using an A7 series with the 6300 in hand. Apparently the sensor does *really well* at low light.
EDIT: Well, I guess full frame also is better (though marginally) for using vintage lenses, but only if you're doing Mirrorless or Nikon.
sankt-Antonio
Banned
So im back in Germany and my A7II works flawlessly. Regardless of which batteries I use. So I did a simple test. Pulled out the LCD and heated the camera up with a 20sec blast from my hairdryer. So it reached roughly the temp that where present when I was in Mauritius. The camera started to auto shutdown and freeze again. Once I cooled down to room temps (25 dcelsius) everything went fine.
Since I couldn't find people online who have the same problem (people from Australia / Asia or large parts in the US where temperatures do. crawl up to 30/35 degrees celsius don't seem to have a problem with the cam).
I guess I have picked up an orange (or whatever one says in Englisch).
Going to contact Sony. Sadly their internet side is busted so I could not search for a Sony Center what have you in Munich / Germany - a Nikon store would be right around the corner
I know exactly how things will work out. I'll send them the cam. It'll work fine , they are not going to test it under the temps I have the problem with the camera, send it back without having touched anything and charge me money for the inspection.
Since I couldn't find people online who have the same problem (people from Australia / Asia or large parts in the US where temperatures do. crawl up to 30/35 degrees celsius don't seem to have a problem with the cam).
I guess I have picked up an orange (or whatever one says in Englisch).
Going to contact Sony. Sadly their internet side is busted so I could not search for a Sony Center what have you in Munich / Germany - a Nikon store would be right around the corner
I know exactly how things will work out. I'll send them the cam. It'll work fine , they are not going to test it under the temps I have the problem with the camera, send it back without having touched anything and charge me money for the inspection.
Art Teitlebaum
Member
Going to contact Sony. Sadly their internet side is busted so I could not search for a Sony Center what have you in Munich / Germany - a Nikon store would be right around the corner
I know exactly how things will work out. I'll send them the cam. It'll work fine , they are not going to test it under the temps I have the problem with the camera, send it back without having touched anything and charge me money for the inspection.
Oh you're soo right with your expectations. Dealing with the abysmal Geissler 'service' is not for the faint of heart. I only had to deal with them once but that was more than enough for me.
Here is the Geissler thread in the Sonyforums just for shit and giggles: http://www.sonyuserforum.de/forum/showthread.php?t=50461
Wish you all the best though.
JadedWriter
Member
From what I've heard Sony has dog shit customer service flat out and Sony cameras have the oddest temperature tolerances. They are notorious for over heating while recording video. Not only this even if they did take it in for repairs they don't even repair them themselves, they ship it to a third party. There are moments where I'm like, "I should look into Sony." Then I do and realize why I'm never purchasing a Sony camera and if I do It would have to be something throw away, something that could break and I wouldn't give a shit or be effected by.So im back in Germany and my A7II works flawlessly. Regardless of which batteries I use. So I did a simple test. Pulled out the LCD and heated the camera up with a 20sec blast from my hairdryer. So it reached roughly the temp that where present when I was in Mauritius. The camera started to auto shutdown and freeze again. Once I cooled down to room temps (25 dcelsius) everything went fine.
Since I couldn't find people online who have the same problem (people from Australia / Asia or large parts in the US where temperatures do. crawl up to 30/35 degrees celsius don't seem to have a problem with the cam).
I guess I have picked up an orange (or whatever one says in Englisch).
Going to contact Sony. Sadly their internet side is busted so I could not search for a Sony Center what have you in Munich / Germany - a Nikon store would be right around the corner
I know exactly how things will work out. I'll send them the cam. It'll work fine , they are not going to test it under the temps I have the problem with the camera, send it back without having touched anything and charge me money for the inspection.
sankt-Antonio
Banned
Yeah, i always figured "hey I'm not a pro and do not depend on my gear to make money so I can go Sony" but after a while the system starts to become expansive, so do my trips -that changes things.
Ill try to maneuver through this as good as I can, will keep GAF informed.
@Art Teitlebaum: That is like... the worst link you could have posted right now
Ill try to maneuver through this as good as I can, will keep GAF informed.
@Art Teitlebaum: That is like... the worst link you could have posted right now
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
That's why I usually recommend Fuji over Sony.
Sony sensors in general are awesome though. It'll be a sad day if they ever stop providing them to third parties.
Sony sensors in general are awesome though. It'll be a sad day if they ever stop providing them to third parties.
sankt-Antonio
Banned
They are imo never going to stop supplying sensors to whoever wants some, but they stopped supplying 3th parties with their top of the line sensors (last one was Nikon D800/810) From now on they are only going to be used in Sony cameras going forward. The 42mpix A7rII/A99II sensor is nowhere else to be found. Thats the theory at least right now.
There is a Tony Northrup video regarding Sony where he discusses this and some interview with Sonys imaging CEO.
Its going too be interesting how things pan out. I mean what if Nikons D810 successor is still behind a Sony camera thats in the marked for nearly two years regarding its Sensor performance? People seem to care more about IQ then is good for them imo, but thats what drives the sales it seems.
JadedWriter
Member
Just because you don't make money off of it that doesn't give you an excuse to buy unreliable gear especially considering how expensive and A7R2 is. At that price shit better work consistently, if it ain't going to it can go fuck off, nobody needs a $2000 headache. Matt Granger did a video complaining about Sony's professional service; he likes their cameras, but the dude is so rough on gear he can't rely on them to fix them in a timely fashion or even respond to him with any element of respect. There's a lot of good tech in their cameras, but that sort of stuff not to mention their mount being a bit fragile to the point where lenses break is a "no fucking way" for me. I'll get IBIS from either Panasonic or Olympus if I need it that badly.
I think that rumor has been walked back actually. Sony would seriously be fucking with their bottom line if they didn't sell their sensors to third party sellers. They sell their sensors to pretty much everybody but Canon, Olympus and Panasonic if I remember right. That's a lot of money not going their way if they just withhold sensor tech, unless Sony thinks they can make money purely off their camera tech, which is dumb. Considering that not a lot of working pros would even touch their cameras especially anybody doing any sort of sports photography them deciding to withhold sensor tech is stupid fucking hubris.
JadedWriter
Member
I still see this being stupid from a business point. It's not exactly like Sony and Nikon has the same user base.
sankt-Antonio
Banned
They do now or will in the future. The D810, 5DMKII and A99II/A7rII are considered to be in the same league. Just look at the many reviews with all three of them put against each other. So now, with phones taking over the point and shoot + entry DSLR market, Sony wants to stay in the high priced FF range in direct competition with these two companies and steal their user base.
Its only been like four years where Sony tried to seriously get into the "pro" marked. This year they started their "pro support" and G-Master lens line to directly counter Nikons and Canons offerings. They are not there yet, and what better way to bully yourself into the marked then to not sell the best sensors to your competitor?
And you are right, these cameras should work, the whole thing kind of scared me of and made me (still) consider switching systems.
Astral/H3X
Member
They absolutely are selling to the same user base.
As they mentioned, yeah, their support isn't there yet, and prices aren't quite what people want or expect (in the lens department, the bodies are stupid cheap compared to the others) but Sony's cameras absolutely are selling to professionals and enthusiasts. What, you think there are that many people out there that just drop $3000 on a camera only because "shiny tech toy?"
As they mentioned, yeah, their support isn't there yet, and prices aren't quite what people want or expect (in the lens department, the bodies are stupid cheap compared to the others) but Sony's cameras absolutely are selling to professionals and enthusiasts. What, you think there are that many people out there that just drop $3000 on a camera only because "shiny tech toy?"
TheShinobi
Neo Member
Does anybody have the Tamron 150 - 600mm G2 lens? I'm into wildlife photography and I want to upgrade the lens. I am also considering upgrading my body to either a canon 7d mark ii or a 5d mark iii.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
A lot of the user base overlaps, but there's still a chunk of it that doesn't.
If you need the kind of body and fps that a 1D or a D5 offers, Sony doesn't have anything to offer you.
If you need the kind of body and fps that a 1D or a D5 offers, Sony doesn't have anything to offer you.
JadedWriter
Member
When it comes to lens ecosystems Sony will never be able to touch either Canon or Nikon. There's a lot of specialty focal lengths that Sony will never see the need in making cause the user base just ain't there to make it profitable. I really don't consider the G-Master stuff in the league of Canon or Nikon either. I think from what I've heard from people doing tear downs of that stuff there's just too much damn plastic and prone to having the mount shear off. A lot of the times I've seen an A7 with an actual non Sony lens on there they just adapted a Canon lens to it. If you want to stay with a MILC then just get a Fuji, at least the build quality is there. And no I don't hate Sony, I just don't like how people act like Sony is the only company in the mirrorless game, they're not. The best thing about them is their sensors, but I've always found their camera ergonomics leaving something to be desired.
I've seen people shooting with D750's fully in auto. You'd be surprised what people buy when they have the spare cash.
No kidding lately I've become really cognizant of what photojournalists use during press conferences, they ain't Sony's. That machine gun like shutter slapping is usually coming from a 1D, D4, D3 or D5. I might have also seen a couple of 5DmkIII's. I've even seen a couple of Fuji's though it really depends on what kind of event it is. I think during a parade I was covering somebody had an XPro.
sankt-Antonio
Banned
While its true that Sony does not have a pro body yet, it's burst rate is comparable to the Canon/Nikon offerings at double the mpx and much less cost! I know that these Cameras can't be compared but in this regard...
Nikon D5 12fps 20mpx
Canon 1D 14 fps 20mpx
Sony A99II 12fps 42mpx
And the remark that Sony G-Master lenses are inferior to the other brands is ... just not true. One example of the guy who I think knows his stuff. All these Lenses are made out of plastics inside, no one would be able to hold or carry them if they where completely (internals) made out of metal i think.
edit: One thing to add:
"When it comes to lens ecosystems Sony will never be able to touch either Canon or Nikon. There's a lot of specialty focal lengths that Sony will never see the need in making cause the user base just ain't there to make it profitable."
Sounds cliche with the Sony stuff, but one can use adaptors - so in the worst case you are stuck with the selection of Nikon/Leica/Canon glass with a shit AF performance.
Still worth nothing if the stuff breaks down
Nikon D5 12fps 20mpx
Canon 1D 14 fps 20mpx
Sony A99II 12fps 42mpx
And the remark that Sony G-Master lenses are inferior to the other brands is ... just not true. One example of the guy who I think knows his stuff. All these Lenses are made out of plastics inside, no one would be able to hold or carry them if they where completely (internals) made out of metal i think.
edit: One thing to add:
"When it comes to lens ecosystems Sony will never be able to touch either Canon or Nikon. There's a lot of specialty focal lengths that Sony will never see the need in making cause the user base just ain't there to make it profitable."
Sounds cliche with the Sony stuff, but one can use adaptors - so in the worst case you are stuck with the selection of Nikon/Leica/Canon glass with a shit AF performance.
Still worth nothing if the stuff breaks down
JadedWriter
Member
I have heard so many differing opinions on G Master stuff. One says is it's fine another showed pictures of the lens mount separating from the lens body. As usual with stuff like this each are probably right.
Astral/H3X
Member
As with anything, there are pros and cons to each. I wouldn't take a Sony camera to a warzone (and I say this actually as a person who conceivably may end up taking a camera to a warzone), as I can definitely say the traditional dslr's are more rugged since they don't really care how much weight they have.
But studio setting? As a person who handles everything gingerly? Walking around on the street or in the woods? My A7II has done fantastic, and I can damn near use any lens I want to. I literally do not own a Sony lens that goes on my camera.
Also I'm pretty sure burst speeds are something that MILC is really good at, typically.
Fuji doesnt have a full frame variant. Maybe if they did Id consider them, but they don't.
I've heard that the G Master lenses are optically superior. Whether that's true or not, I haven't checked, but if we're hearing "their shit" from one side, and "they're amazing" from the other, then clearly it's not too far either way.
But, I do remember seeing some side by side comparisons between a G Master (I think 85mm?) and the Zeiss equivalent, and the G master was winning out.
But studio setting? As a person who handles everything gingerly? Walking around on the street or in the woods? My A7II has done fantastic, and I can damn near use any lens I want to. I literally do not own a Sony lens that goes on my camera.
Also I'm pretty sure burst speeds are something that MILC is really good at, typically.
Fuji doesnt have a full frame variant. Maybe if they did Id consider them, but they don't.
I've heard that the G Master lenses are optically superior. Whether that's true or not, I haven't checked, but if we're hearing "their shit" from one side, and "they're amazing" from the other, then clearly it's not too far either way.
But, I do remember seeing some side by side comparisons between a G Master (I think 85mm?) and the Zeiss equivalent, and the G master was winning out.
While its true that Sony does not have a pro body yet, it's burst rate is comparable to the Canon/Nikon offerings at double the mpx and much less cost! I know that these Cameras can't be compared but in this regard...
Nikon D5 12fps 20mpx
Canon 1D 14 fps 20mpx
Sony A99II 12fps 42mpx
And the remark that Sony G-Master lenses are inferior to the other brands is ... just not true. One example of the guy who I think knows his stuff. All these Lenses are made out of plastics inside, no one would be able to hold or carry them if they where completely (internals) made out of metal i think.
edit: One thing to add:
"When it comes to lens ecosystems Sony will never be able to touch either Canon or Nikon. There's a lot of specialty focal lengths that Sony will never see the need in making cause the user base just ain't there to make it profitable."
Sounds cliche with the Sony stuff, but one can use adaptors - so in the worst case you are stuck with the selection of Nikon/Leica/Canon glass with a shit AF performance.
Still worth nothing if the stuff breaks down
The JPEG and RAW buffer rate is a lot larger on both the 1DX Mark II and D5. For some professionals, the buffer rate is probably going to matter a lot more than the burst rate.
JadedWriter
Member
There's that and the added work flow of just getting 42mp images on your computer is not some thing I want to deal with. I added the D810 to my kit...I don't think I want bigger image files. I used that thing uncommpressed once and switched that thing right back into uncompressed lossless cause there is no way in fuck I want to mess with 75mb images and anybody doing sports is going to have a ton of those and chew through memory cards.
Damn I put in the order for the X-T20 and just cancelled it after a few days. After someone told me buying it and just the 18-55mm lens is like buying a $5,000 stove and buying all your food at Stop-N-Shop.
Picking the right first camera is kind of hard since this would be my first professional camera and I kind of want to get something that would allow me to do a bit of everything. I'm still in the learning phase too...
Picking the right first camera is kind of hard since this would be my first professional camera and I kind of want to get something that would allow me to do a bit of everything. I'm still in the learning phase too...
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Personally I find that I like having a lens that does a few things very well, rather than a lens that does a lot of things just okay-ish.
Art Teitlebaum
Member
At the beginning I was completely uncertain what kind of scenarios I'd like to shoot. Landscape? Macro? Portraits? Street? Cathedrals? Concerts? Food? Sports?
Hell, how could I know from the start what will be most fun for me? And how could I get most bang for my bucks, the poor student that I was?
So I went with the kit zoom plus a cheap nifty fifty for lower light situations. In hindsight I should have gone for good primes 20, 35 and 85. Damn...
Long story short: When you don't know what you'll need precisely, the kit zoom is the cheapest and most flexible choice. Gear Acquisition Syndrome will come fast enough anyway.
TerryLee81
Member
The 18-55mm 2.8-4.0 is a very good lens. I'd say this and one fast prime is all you need for a long time.
JadedWriter
Member
Pretty much this. You don't know what you need till you start shooting. As long as he doesn't touch low light event photography he'll be fine, cause that... that gets expensive.
Lasthope106
Member
Bought the Canon macro lens you recommend from ebay for $80. Should be here this week.
Also decided to postpone my FF camera purchase. Instead I bought some lights, a flash with remote capability. Going to try to get people to pose for me for portraits and learn how all that works.
JadedWriter
Member
Lighting is the most important thing with photography, period so yeah it's better to spend money on lights than it is to spend money on a body. Also get a nice prime for portraits. Try finding some sort of 85 1.8.
Lasthope106
Member
I have the Sony 50mm f1.8 which in full frame is 75mm. A lot of people use it for portraiture according to stuff I've read online. I was testing it out last night, but yeah I'm pretty pumped at seeing what the lights can do.
JadedWriter
Member
Yeah that's pretty good then, I did realize you were on crop so I think I said that 85 cause when you do near telephoto head shots you get real nice background compression, should be killer at 1.8.
UnObtainium17
Member
Just subbed to the thread. I'm as newbie as you can get in photography with only previous experiences from film point and shoot and smartphones.. and I just started to hit some photography books and vids. Bought this book and the one in OP. lots of info to digest.
I'm about to go on a 3 week trip to Italy I thought I needed a dedicated camera for a rare opportuniy like that so read a lot of reviews and what not about some cameras within my price range. Almost certain on a clearanced D3300 w/ lens at sub $300 over at walmart but it sold out : ( . Did a bit more reading and I went with Sony a6000 with lens at $550.
Any reccomendation for cheap lenses good for wide angle low light landscape photography? Thank you in advance. Pretty darn excited to start a new hobby.
I'm about to go on a 3 week trip to Italy I thought I needed a dedicated camera for a rare opportuniy like that so read a lot of reviews and what not about some cameras within my price range. Almost certain on a clearanced D3300 w/ lens at sub $300 over at walmart but it sold out : ( . Did a bit more reading and I went with Sony a6000 with lens at $550.
Any reccomendation for cheap lenses good for wide angle low light landscape photography? Thank you in advance. Pretty darn excited to start a new hobby.
Astral/H3X
Member
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
This. Gear selection is all about compromises.
BigJonsson
Member
Picked up Understanding Exposure, I hope I level up my photo skills
Astral/H3X
Member
Also, I should throw in "If you pick wide angle, you automatically pick low light", because wide angles tend to pretty much all be "good" at low light, since you can use longer shutter speeds, and because they don't really tend to go further than F2.8
EDIT:
Here's what I personally use, the Rokinon/Samyang 14mm 2.8.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...on_fe14m_e_14mm_f_2_8_ed_as.html/prm/alsVwDtl
On an A7II (which makes it wider), it does this:
Lighnting Bug Through the Milky Way by Hunter Mauro, on Flickr
Wallrunning Tree by Hunter Mauro, on Flickr
Colors of the Night by Hunter Mauro, on FlickrPlease view the astrophoto at full resolution on Flickr, the sample does NOT do it justice.
Also for "landscape":
Danielle Included for Scale by Hunter Mauro, on FlickrJadedWriter
Member
Yep. No piece of kit does everything perfectly.
UnObtainium17
Member
Wide angle and cheap? Woulda said cheap twice but lol at these sony lenses didn't think that through when I got the a6000.
I really want a cheap lens good for landscapes.
Astral/H3X
Member
Anyway, wide and cheap: (Also fisheye)
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...2_e_12mm_f_7_40_rmc_fisheye.html/prm/alsVwDtl
Wide and low light:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1039948-REG/rokinon_rk12m_e_12mm_f_2_0_ncs_cs.html
Kinda in the middle:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...28_e_8mm_f_2_8_umc_fish_eye.html/prm/alsVwDtl (Again, fisheye)
Keep in mind the "middle" one is an 8mm, so even wider, but thar ya go.
I think Sony makes some AF ones but it's landscape, you got time to manually focus.
Also to be fair, most wide angle lenses are expensive. Really, only 50mm lenses can be had for "cheap".
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...2_e_12mm_f_7_40_rmc_fisheye.html/prm/alsVwDtl
Wide and low light:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1039948-REG/rokinon_rk12m_e_12mm_f_2_0_ncs_cs.html
Kinda in the middle:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...28_e_8mm_f_2_8_umc_fish_eye.html/prm/alsVwDtl (Again, fisheye)
Keep in mind the "middle" one is an 8mm, so even wider, but thar ya go.
I think Sony makes some AF ones but it's landscape, you got time to manually focus.
Also to be fair, most wide angle lenses are expensive. Really, only 50mm lenses can be had for "cheap".
Astral/H3X
Member
Samyang 12mm f2.0
APS-C only, but still
I would expect that ~$400 is pricey to someone new to this.
I totally get that but it does feel like something I should do down the line when I level up a bit.
I checked out Some fuji prime lenses and I almost fainted
I wont be doing paid events for a long time lol. Maybe I should look into that Sony a6000 bundle since it comes with a zoom lens? Or maybe I should look into getting it used? I heard that mirror less cameras fall in price pretty quickly.
This looks nice
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00NO1T55I/?tag=neogaf0e-20
Weird, it's ~300 on other mounts (Fuji, Canon M)
300 to me is still cheap because there's so little cheaper than that. It's almost all kit zooms, kit/offbrand tele zooms and random primes. Even some double gauss 50mm f1.8 are 300 :S
Similar threads
- Deleted member 47027
- Off-Topic Community Archive