choosing a prime lens to go with a kit zoom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spetsnaz26

The kit lens...is bundled with the body.

---

Then you might want to check other suppliers: Amazon France offers just the body at €679 (and the kit with 18-55mm
for about 100 € extra). The Sony site also shows the body with or without lenses, so if you only get
offered the bundle with the kit lens, someone is playing games.

As to why the usual advice is to use longer focal lengths for portraits: objects close to the camera appear bigger than
objects farther away. If you use a tele lens, ears and nose of your subject are at about the same distance of the lens
(say the nose at 1m, ears at 1.15m, or 15% farther), so the distorsion isn't visible. if you use a wide angle lens, the
nose will be at say 30 cm, and the ears at 45cm, or 50% farther. That means that the nose will appear much larger
than in reality, and the ears much smaller, which is not very flattering for your subjects...

Other point: don't hesitate to use higher ISO settings: with my A330 I can go up to 800 ISO without getting noise
problems (provided I don't under expose). And a bit of noise is less objectionable than an unsharp photo due to camera
shake... The A57 is one or two generations newer, so I'd expecta decent result up to 1600 or perhaps even 3200 ISO.

Finally, wrt barrel distortion:
Are you sure the camera is level when framing skyscrapers? Or do you tilt the camera upwards? In the latter case, all
the buildings will seem to lean inwards, even with a perfect lens, as the 'distortion' is a normal optical effect that is
independent of the lens. It's the same 'distortion' that makes a railway seem to disappear in a point at a distance. The
Sony kit lens does have some barrel distortion @ 18mm, but not all that much either, and it is supposed to be a good
lens in its class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spetsnaz26

What I don't understand is (because my experience is not as varied), why people would shoot portraits with anything but a wide angle or normal focal length, lens? Is the subject sometimes 'uncooperative'? I ended up shooting most of my portraits at a focal length of 18mm, which is the widest angle shot I can make with the kit zoom.

---

With a portrait you generally want to blur the background, and have only your subject in-focus, for which a more telephoto length is very helpful. That way your subject "pops". People often say that the perfect portrait length is from 85 to 135mm on a full frame camera. Adjust the lens length downwards if you have a 1.6x (or 1.5x or 2.0x) crop frame camera.

Also in portraits, you want to get only the head, or head and shoulders, so you't have to be pretty much in-your-face close to your subject to achieve that with a wide-angle lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott Stephen

Also in portraits, you want to get only the head, or head and shoulders

---

I've gotta disagree with you, Scott. Certainly head shots and head-and-shoulder shots are an important part of portraiture. But let's not exlcude full-body shots and environmental portraits that include an entire room or outdoor setting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spetsnaz26

Frank, could you recommend any Canon or Nikon camera that is suitable for a beginner, perhaps close in specs to SONY A57?

---

It might be easier to prioritize your requirements and check out the various camers that meet your budget and requirements.

I got a D3100 as an entry level camera but if I were getting one today, it would more likely be the D3200.

If a mirrorless system is a requirement then you will be quite limited in your choices. On the other hand, if you look at the majority of the images posted here and on the web, I suspect that the ones taken with a mirrorless camera would be almost non-existent but that doesn’t stop folks from taking some pretty fantastic images.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spetsnaz26

This correlates well with the frustration I often had when calculated shutter speed is way too slow for hand held when I'm walking around without a tripod..

---

A less expensive solution here is to have a good mini-tripod for resting on and holding against steady things. Make sure the ball movement has enough play to meet the second requirement.

Boy I have been slacking! How did I miss this! I shoot Sony....but by now everyone has gotten you fairly squared away. I can tell you that I have learned while the kit lenses are not optimal they can do a very nice job as long as you pay attention to their limitations. Where that bit me was the kit zoom 75-300. While in great light and fairly close it was flawless....and less than that in anything but.
I have since upgraded to the 70-400G a phenomanal lense. I have never used the 18-55, I can only say I have heard many say they were eager to upgrade as the sharpness suffers a bit.
I bought the A77 a while ago and rather than stick my kit 18-70 on it, I opted for the kit lens offered....16-50 2.8. While my 18-70 was descent...the 16-50 2.8 was a shocker fast and sharp! The extra light is nice at times. This lens is fairly nice to be a kit lens but it comes at a price as well.

What ever your chosen range turns out to be.....save your money and buy the best glass you can. In the end you will not regret that move. A good tripod is another...never regret.

If you decide you need a 50mm prime....look for a Minolta Maxxim 1.7...the can be had for $100 in the used market...have auto focus and are fantastically sharp.

As for the Sony lense availability....yes it has been somewhat lacking in the past....am I worried? No. Their line up is growing quickly and as it is there is a fairly good selection, not including Zies and other after market lenses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spetsnaz26

The kit lens...is bundled with the body. I wanted to get perhaps a 18-105mm lens instead of the garden variety kit zoom but SONY won't allow it.

---

This might be one of many reputable stores who would ship to Shanghai.


So I cannot see any difficulty in buying the camera and the 18 to 105 . . .

Also, considering this fact and the tasks you describe maybe consider buying the camera body only and a couple of the fast primes which you mentioned?

The 35 and 85 would be my choice, but all three would be a great set.

WW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by revi

Then you might want to check other suppliers

---

I'm buying from within China so shipping such a delicate non-military grade equipment long distances is going to be hairy. In China at least up to A57 the cameras are never offered as a bare body. Even the flagship NEX7 comes with a A-mounted adapter whether you like it or not. I plan to drive straight to a SONY main outlet in the city center, in person, as buying from the Internet elsewhere is a bit insecure these days. Thanks for the help though.
Do people buy cameras from Amazon, seriously? I buy books regularly from Amazon US, but can never think about buying cameras. I don't know of any reasonably priced courier who can guarantee the safety of my purchase. Even those dudes from UPS and FedEx are known to throw things around.

Portraiture certainly can be a Tight Head Shot – but that tight head shot need NOT be necessarily made with a Telephoto Lens:

http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...9272173-md.jpg
Informal Portrait II - Woman in Sunlight
EOS 5D and EF50F/1.4 Available Light

***

Portraiture also is NOT limited to only the Tight Head Shot nor the Head and Shoulder Shot.
Also Wide Angle Lenses can be used most effectively for Portraiture:
http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...2352872-lg.jpg
Peter Sesselmann-Artist
EOS 5D EF 16 to 35F/2.8L Available Light.

WW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrankMi

If a mirrorless system is a requirement then you will be quite limited in your choices. On the other hand, if you look at the majority of the images posted here and on the web, I suspect that the ones taken with a mirrorless camera would be almost non-existent but that doesn’t stop folks from taking some pretty fantastic images.

---

I got a mirrorless NEX5 and now want to move up a little in the world. I looked at specs and reviews of both SONY A57 and Nikon D3200 and found that they are quite similar in overall capability, and price too, although D3200 can be bought without any kit lens. I do wonder about differences in number of AF points and the viewfinder. A57 has 15 and D3200 9. What is the AF points fuss all about? Also, do people find an electronic viewfinder particularly objectional?

Of course, there are situations where a short lens is good/best. But OP was talking about using 18mm for a portrait, and saying he often found it too long. And if your head shot is on a cropped camera (not sure about the 5D), you used a ~75mm equivalent there, close to recommend shortest focal :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William W

This might be one of many reputable stores who would ship to Shanghai.

---

Thanks, a friend recommended B&H before. I use it frequently when I'm researching equipment, but actually buying a fragile camera from US...raises eyebrows. I'm not an expert. Finding some subtle fault due to rough handling during shipping some time after I sign for the package, and returning it to the US...could be vexing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spetsnaz26

I got a mirrorless NEX5 and now want to move up a little in the world. I looked at specs and reviews of both SONY A57 and Nikon D3200 and found that they are quite similar in overall capability, and price too, although D3200 can be bought without any kit lens. I do wonder about differences in number of AF points and the viewfinder. A57 has 15 and D3200 9. What is the AF points fuss all about? Also, do people find an electronic viewfinder particularly objectional?

---

Moving up would be a NEX7 IMO as a M4/3 user. There is quite a good range of lenses with M4/3 these days and almost any lens with manual controls will work with an adaptor tube so the range is vaste, I believe the NEX is similar to a lesser respect.

Of the options EVF is my preference ... the major argument against it is manual focusing which neither it or optical viewfinders today are designed to facilitate. If you get a camera with firstly a very small target area which can be placed anywhere on the screen you can use AF as you would manual focusing. I have the Panasonic G3 and I believe the GH models are similar in this respect ... trouble is they may not be available ... I don't know why.

Getting a more expensive camera may not be 'moving up', learning how to fully utilise what you have is 'moving up'. It is you who sees and takes the photos not the machine in front of you.

I don't know what the add-on EVF for the NEX5 is like but I am not impressed with the version [ VF-3 ] which fits on my Olympus, so when I mention the NEX7 I think that would be preferable to getting a EVF attachment for your NEX5. Perhaps I am spoiled with the EVF on my G3 and earlier Panasonic cameras.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by revi

Of course, there are situations where a short lens is good/best. But OP was talking about using 18mm for a portrait, and saying he often found it too long. And if your head shot is on a cropped camera (not sure about the 5D), you used a ~75mm equivalent there, close to recommend shortest focal :rolleyes:

---

I found even 18mm too long for portraits because the kind of portraits I regularly take are set usually in offices/meeting rooms/restaurant VIP rooms/houses where you can only back off from the subjects for a few meters and the lighting seems alwasy too low. I guess you can call these 'utility' portraits instead of 'artistic' portraits you guys are talking about.

My experience of parcels from B&H and KEH has been that they are very well packed for the 12,000 mile plus trip :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcuknz

Moving up would be a NEX7 IMO as a M4/3 user. There is quite a good range of lenses with M4/3 these days and almost any lens with manual controls will work with an adaptor tube so the range is vaste. Of the options EVF is my preference ... the major argument against it is manual focusing which neither it or optical viewfinders today are designed to facilitate. If you get a camera with firstly a very small target area which can be placed anywhere on the screen you can use AF as you would manual focusing. I have the Panasonic G3 and I believe the GH models are similar in this respect ... trouble is they may not be available ... I don't know why.
Getting a more expensive camera may not be 'moving up', learning how to fully utilise what you have is 'moving up'. It is you who sees and takes the photos not the machine in front of you.
I don't know what the add-on EVF for the NEX5 is like but I am not impressed with the version [ VF-3 ] which fits on my Olympus, so when I mention the NEX7 I think that would be preferable to getting a EVF for your NEX5. Perhaps I am spoiled with the EVF on my G3 and earlier Panasonic cameras.

---

Thanks. However NEX7 really is SONY' flagship model today and is priced close to A65, and that's beyond my budget. Adding to that NEX7 comes with a mandatory kit zoom that is identical to one that I already have except for the colour...so that's a no-go.

I agree with your view on what moving up is supposed to mean, but fact is I decided to give my old NEX5 away to a close relative so one way or another I must get a new one.

I talked about the viewfinder because on DPreview they called it an advantage when they mention D3200's optical viewfinder. I guess there must be a grain of truth in this statement and I have seen it before elsewhere. I have never used either on a DSLR, but I have some experience with optical viewfinder on a old film camera and an electronic one on a SONY bridge camera. The optical one suffers from view coverage problem and no information display capability. The electronic one I used... is awful with low resolution and strange on screen info arrangement...I understand A57's viewfinder is more high-end than a bridge camera but until I've used it for a while I really can't be certain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by revi

Of course, there are situations where a short lens is good/best. But OP was talking about using 18mm for a portrait, and saying he often found it too long. And if your head shot is on a cropped camera (not sure about the 5D), you used a ~75mm equivalent there, close to recommend shortest focal :rolleyes:

---

The Tight Head Shot of the Woman used a 50mm lens on a 5D – that has the equivalence of approximately using a 33mm lens on the Sony Camera.
The Portrait of the Artist was shot at 24mm and would be the equivalence of using a 16mm Lens on the Sony Camera.
That is why those two examples were chosen, because both were relevant to comments made specifically regarding “Portraiture” and specifically to comments made by the OP.

WW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spetsnaz26

I found even 18mm too long for portraits because the kind of portraits I regularly take are set usually in offices/meeting rooms/restaurant VIP rooms/houses where you can only back off from the subjects for a few meters and the lighting seems always too low. I guess you can call these 'utility' portraits instead of 'artistic' portraits you guys are talking about.

---

I have found rarely the need to shoot at wider than the equivalence of FL = 18mm on your Camera.

In Tight Shooting Scenarios, I suggest you take the time to think about the Arrangement of the Group and the Framing of the Shot.

Low Light for mostly all Corporate and Informal Portraiture is accommodated by using Flash.

http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...6011796-md.jpg
EOS5D 24F/1.4 Off Camera Bounce Flash as Key, Ambient Light as Fill

This is an example of a Utility Portrait in a tight and confined Public Area and in Low Light. Using the equivalence of a 16mm lens on your Sony Camera the Shooting Distance is about 2.7mtrs.
The low light area is accommodated by using with Off Camera Bounce Flash.

The group is arranged very tightly but the casual arrangement of the group and their travel gear used as props provides the illusion of space and adds to the relaxed feeling of the Portrait.

***

http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...6011794-md.jpg
EOS50D EF16 to 35F/2.8 @ FL = 16mm Sunlight, On Camera Flash as Fill.

“Utility Portrait” made at a Corporate Function in tight Surrounds – The equivalence of a about 17mm Lens on your Sony APS-C Camera. Shooting Distance is just about 1.8mtrs.

A lot goes to how tightly you arrange the group, but still keeping them with the appearance of being relaxed and not appearing squished.

Also when using wide Focal Lengths it is important to keep both axes of the Lens perpendicular to the Subjects and ensure the Subjects are straight – this is a good example, because the men were leaning backwards over the stern and that had to be taken into account and that is one reason why the shot was framed as an Half Shot – and also there was no more room to back up and the other option was to use a wider FL.


***

If you really cannot use flash in a tight area which is also a low light shooting scenario, then the only answer is a Fast Wide Angle Prime Lens – this is the equivalence of a 23mm Lens on your Sony Camera:

http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...6011795-md.jpg
EOS5D EF35F/1.4 – Available Light

Sample of Candid Portrait in tight surrounds Party inside an house using only Available Light.
This lens is the equivalence of FL =23mm on your Sony Camera

WW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William W

Also when using wide Focal Lengths it is important to keep both axes of the Lens perpendicular to the Subjects and ensure the Subjects are straight – this is a good example, because the men were leaning backwards over the stern and that had to be taken into account and that is one reason why the shot was framed as an Half Shot – and also there was no more room to back up and the other option was to use a wider FL.

---

Thanks,Bill, although I don't understand the above. Which axes are you referring to? Are you talking about doing this to avoid showing too much distortion due to the wide angle lens?

On Dpreview there's a caveat about using a pancake 16mm f/2.8 lens for portraits :

"It's certainly not a great choice for photographing friends or family on a day out; because of its short focal length, that F2.8 aperture isn't going to give you significantly blurred backgrounds, and the inevitable wideangle distortion means anyone towards the edge of the frame will look unflatteringly fat."

Are you talking about the same effect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spetsnaz26

I don't understand the above. Which axes are you referring to?

---

http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...6018692-md.jpg

WW