Hey everyone, I am a novice shutterbug and I need some help. ; I have a Sony A350 camera and a few different lenses that I use. ; I have a 18-200mm 3.5-6.4, 17-35mm 2.8-4, 70-200mm 2.8 and the box 18-70mm 3.5-5.6. ; I am trying to choose a lens that is in the 17-70 or 17-50 category that is a fast lens. ; I use the 70-200 and the 18-200 most of the time. ; The 17-35 is great for fireworks in the MK and is usually my goto lens for that. I have tried many times to take shots in lower light areas and have failed miserably. ; I would like to get a faster lens for low light stuff. ; If you all could help, I would like some opinions on what is available for my A350. ; I am not a pro and for the most part this camera does everything that I need. ; We bought it in advance of the birth of our daughter and for that it has never let us down. I am wondering what you all think of any of these as a choice of my next lens. ; 1. ; 105mm 2. ; ; 50mm 3. ; ; 30mm 4. 17 - 70mm (sigma) ; 2.8 - 3.5 ; 5. ; 17 - 50 (Tamron) fixed 2.8 For versatility I am considering the 17-70 lens from sigma but I would like to know your opinions. ; As a rule I dont do portraits or anything like that. ; I want something that has more than 1 use and could be used as a walk around lens if I choose to. Opinions?
Hi Unibits, not sure if I welcomed you a while back, so welcome! You have an excellent mix of lenses, and I'm not sure why you would want to have a second lens that covers the 17-24mm range, since you already have an excellent lens that covers it. For low light stuff I would start with either the Sony 35/1.8 or an old Minolta 50/1.7. BUT for a new walkaround zoom lens, if money is no object.... Rumors are that they will announce a new CZ 16-50/2.8 lens on Monday. ; Otherwise, as of right now, you can get a CZ 16-80/3.5-4.5, the Sony 16-105 or maybe even the Tamron 28-75/2.8 - that way you wouldn't duplicate your existing 17-35 Minolta.
Roger, Sorry for the delay.... ; I seem to always have trouble in lower light shots. ; Anything I do always seems to blur or is overxposed? ; I have even tried to shoot in the preset mode that the camera has with and without flash and I cant seem to get repeatable success. ; Its hit and miss so to speak. ; I am of the understanding that I need a "faster" lens at the from as you said 35mm range and up. ; That was why I considered the sigma and the tamron. ; I recieved the 17-35 in a trade a while back and for what I use it for it is a great lens. I would like to have a more universal lens that is the below the 70-200 f2.8 that I have. ; That lens in any light with or without flash has never let me down. ; I am a novice and probably dont know how to use what I have. ; I am probably out to lunch ; too. ; I took a class a while back and have since experimented and for most of the things I do i have some success, at least I like what I have done I do have a good tripod too. ; My biggest issue is in lower light. ; Either at or near dusk or later or in lower lighted areas. ; I cant seem to get things right. Can you clear this up before I make a decision on this? ; Im confused!
Hopefully we can get is cleared up! Do you know what ISO you are using for your low light pics? ; And what things are you photographing?
I have tried as high as ISO 400 so far. ; If I try a higher ISO then I get really grainy images. ; Any shot for the most part that I try either at dawn or dusk, usually messes up. I tried to take a picture of Niagara Falls at dusk where the lights of the falls and the light snow falling produced a haze in the air. ; I could not get it no matter what I did. ; I was able to use bulb mode and get some of it but not what my eye saw. ; My buddy had a 17-50mm F2.8 lens and was able to get the shot. ; I emailed him to get the shot but currently out of the country for a while. I shot these last summer/winter for friends in Florida who have never seen Niagara Falls. ; I would consider these good shots for the amateur that I am. ; They were shot on Bulb mode. ; I dont remember the iso settings. ; They may be in Auto or I may have played with it. ; I do know that the some of my shots were really grainy due to the noise that is inherent with hign ISO.
For those night shots a tripod is best - that would allow you to use a lower ISO. ; Even at a low ISO you may start to see sensor noise from long exposures however.... Sony's new products were delayed, mainly because I think they don't know when they can actually supply them. ; With that in mind, I would look at the Tamron lenses first. ; Sony owns a large chunk of Tamron, and even before Sony bought Konica-Minolta's camera division, Tamron and KM were sharing things. ; I haven't heard of any issues with compatibility, like I have with Sigma (old Sigma lenses won't work on my camera without being rechipped, and they can't fix lenses not made recently). ; Some of the Sony lenses currently in production are basically rebranded Tamron lenses, like the 28-75/2.8 or the 18-250, the latter no longer being made by Tamron. ;
Welcome indeed, in case I too forgot! Rog has some good advice so far - indeed, those types of shots you posted are really best to do on a tripod, and using the lowest ISO you have. ; Generally, you could use 'Aperture Priority' mode, set it to a reasonable level for sharpness (most lenses between F5.6 and F11 or so are at their sharpest), set ISo to 100, and let the camera decide how long to trigger the shutter. ; Adjusting the 'EV' up for longer exposures, or down for shorter ones, can fine tune the results. One thing you may not have done - whenever shooting on a tripod, it's best to do a few things to ensure shake doesn't get through the lens while exposing. ; 1. Always turn off your steadyshot stabilization. ; You may actually be able to shoot lovely shots with it on, and never see the effects, but there are some times when it WILL end up ruining a photo, so better to turn it off. ; When on a tripod, any tiny vibration from your hand, wind, etc will trigger the SS system to try to counter it, and with the camera body bolted down on a tripod it has no give, so the steadyshot will actually cause worse vibration than without it. ; 2. Use the self-timer to take the photo, rather than you pressing the shutter button. ; This will allow you to trigger the shutter, and then give a few seconds for the camera to overcome any residual vibrations from your hand touching it - once it's ready to fire the shutter, the camera will have stabilized. You really don't need a fast lens for scenic nightshots - the fast lens only helps when you are trying to do handheld night shots or very short exposures, and need a big aperture and raised ISO levels to freeze action or movement, either by you or the subject. ; When you're shooting scenics like Niagara Falls, or buildings, cityscapes, or Disney scenery (!), even the slowest, most basic lens will do just fine...just stop down a bit, go to the lowest ISO, use a tripod, use the timer, turn off stabilization, and shoot as long an exposure as you need or want. If you DO decide to go for a fast lens, for maybe those other types of shots, I have had very good experience with Tamron on Sony bodies, and have heard very good things about the 17-50 F2.8. ; Otherwise, the cheaper options as Rog mentioned would be picking up a used Minolta 50mm F1.7 for spare change, or the new Sony 35mm F1.8 which is cheap and sharp.
Thanks guys, I do use a wireless remote for long exposures. ; I could not have shot that stuff without it. ; I will practice a bit before our next trip. ; I will take your suggestions and play around a bit and see what happens. ; I have looked at the 35 and 50mm lenses. ; They are cheap and readily available. ; Ill set the budget up and see what happens. Thanks for your imput! David
