First prime lens

C

CallumMarshall

Suspended / Banned
Messages
41
Name
Callum
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all, looking for a bit of advice, looking for my first prime lens want something nice and wide as im going to the usa and plan on photos of the Grand canyon/hoover dam golden gate bridge and Vegas

and was wondering what focal lengths and apiture you would recommend?
 
Any particular reason you want to have a prime for this trip?

I ask as you specify 'wide' but on a cropped sensor such as you A390 you won't get a very wide prime - the 20mm F2.8 sony is well regarded but not really that wide.
 
RichardtheSane said:
Any particular reason you want to have a prime for this trip?

I ask as you specify 'wide' but on a cropped sensor such as you A390 you won't get a very wide prime - the 20mm F2.8 sony is well regarded but not really that wide.
Click to expand...

well i currently only have telephoto lenses and think a prime will be a good addition to what i have, alone with hopefully being able to get more in from closer up?

feel free to correct me if im wrong
 
You'd be better off going for something like the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. Don't have one myself, but thats the one i'd go for. Or a Samyang 8mm fisheye.
 
You'll struggle getting an ultra wide angle for £250, even second hand. The Samyang 8mm fisheye can be had for £220 brand new on ebay. It's a diagonal fisheye too so it fills the whole frame (on a cropped sensor anyway,compared to a circular fisheye that gives you a round image). Aparently very sharp (i will be getting one when funds allow), and although manual focus, this doesnt really matter when shooting landscapes.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/fish-eye/pool/
 
Maybe a "standard" zoom in the 18-50mm range might be something to think about? As you'll probably be wanting quite a wide lens and a reasonably large depth of field maybe this option will be better than a prime?

The main advantage of primes (IMVHO) is that they offer wider apertures than zoom lenses and therefore allow shallower depth of field and faster shutter speeds in lower light, neither of which seem necessary here, maybe. Standard zooms are usually reasonably priced so that might be the way to go?
 
yeah that sounds quite good, although im not 100% keen on the fish eye effect.

sorry to be a noob but whats the difference between a corp sensor and an uncropped or whatever?
 
woof woof said:
Maybe a "standard" zoom in the 18-50mm range might be something to think about? As you'll probably be wanting quite a wide lens and a reasonably large depth of field maybe this option will be better than a prime?

The main advantage of primes (IMVHO) is that they offer wider apertures than zoom lenses and therefore allow shallower depth of field and faster shutter speeds in lower light, neither of which seem necessary here, maybe. Standard zooms are usually reasonably priced so that might be the way to go?
Click to expand...

well i currently have a 18-70mm f3.5-f5.6 kit lens and a 70-300 tamron lens so was looking at adding a prime anyway, so i was considering one for this, or is it possible to get a tellephoto with a range -18mm??

i thought i could use the wide angle for getting more in the picture and in a dark vegas it would mean i can stay out of the high ISO range where my camera struggles and creates a lot of noise.
 
I think that the widest common prime is probably 20mm f1.8, although you may find a 18mm f1.8, so your kit lens would be the same width or a little wider but of course the prime would give you the option of shooting with a wider aperture.

To satisfy your prime lust (and that's a very good thing) you could think about getting a "standard" prime, somthing like a 20, 28, 30 or even 50mm at f1.4 or f1.8? Any one of those lenses would be nice on APS-C depending upon which length you like.
 
yeah i was looking at a 35mm prime which can be had for £140 ish in the f1.8 variety.

would it not be better to get a wider one as at then end of tha day if there is stuff you dont want in you can crop it oot.

the fish eys also interests me but i think it might be a bit too abstract for what i want?
 
A 35mm f1.8 would be nice. I used a Sigma 30mm f1.4 on my Canon APS-C. If you got a wider lens you could crop the image but if you crop a lot you'll end up with a much smaller image. Overall I think it's best to get as near as possible to the framing you want in camera, that's just my opinion.

As you have a "standard" zoom why not set it at various lengths like 20 and 35mm and see how you get on with the length? That might help you decide what's for you.

I don't own a fisheye. They do produce striking images but it's not a look that I'd want over and over again to be honest. I have wide lenses and I like the wide look but a fisheye is something different again. Just to see if I liked the fisheye look I bought a cheap fisheye adapter which although not offering the same image quality gave a pretty good idea of the overall look and after playing with it for a while I decided not to go for a real fisheye lens.
 
woof woof said:
A 35mm f1.8 would be nice. I used a Sigma 30mm f1.4 on my Canon APS-C. If you got a wider lens you could crop the image but if you crop a lot you'll end up with a much smaller image. Overall I think it's best to get as near as possible to the framing you want in camera, that's just my opinion.

As you have a "standard" zoom why not set it at various lengths like 20 and 35mm and see how you get on with the length? That might help you decide what's for you.

I don't own a fisheye. They do produce striking images but it's not a look that I'd want over and over again to be honest. I have wide lenses and I like the wide look but a fisheye is something different again. Just to see if I liked the fisheye look I bought a cheap fisheye adapter which although not offering the same image quality gave a pretty good idea of the overall look and after playing with it for a while I decided not to go for a real fisheye lens.
Click to expand...


Well I bet you too that one, took the camera out and played with it t 20, 35 and 50 I found 20 too wide, 50 too close nd 35 spot on. So think I will go with that.

Yeah I think it's an intrsting abstract effect but in my eyes it's not worth the 200 sheets, I'd rather spend the money on something else
 
Sounds like a good decision.

You could always do like I did and buy a cheapo fisheye adapter. They're good to play with but like you I wouldn't want to spend hundreds on a real fisheye lens.
 
Something 30mm/35mm will stitch a panorama very well for the wider scenes. Even without a tripod you can get some impressive panoramas shooting handheld, with a bit of practice.

The great advantage of something around this focal length on a crop sensor is that it records the view you experience. You are going to struggle to beat the image you can get on a postcard of the wide-open expanse and overall majesty.. but you aren't going to get a postcard of the view you experienced. 30/35mm primes are great at capturing the human scale view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top