- This topic is empty.
Any Advice?
-
I have recently acquired a Sony Alpha :D and
have a Minolta AF 28-80 and a Sigma DG 70-300 1:4-5.6 lens, Ithe Sigma was
bought in UK for ?99 and I think it is twice that here)
I like to take photographs of wildlife, landscape and would like to
try portraits and macro, will the lenses I have be adequate or should
I add to my inventory and if so what should I get :?: I dont have a
fortune to spend but would prefer to save and wait for a decent lens rather than
making do. Would appreciate any advice.Shutterbug
I’m mindful of the fact that you’re on a budget (who isn’t :( ) so the following may be useless to you (I hope not). It’s more by way of general advice than specific recommendations.
Generally speaking, if you’re looking at a zoom lens, a lens with a fixed max aperture will give a better quality image than one with a variable max aperture and a lens with a wide max aperture (such as f/2.8 or wider) will be better than one with a smaller max aperture (such as f/4.0). Now before everyone jumps at me and points out examples where this isn’t true, note I said generally speaking. There are of course, exceptions to this advice, but you’ll find that in a lot of cases it will hold true and may be used as a reasonably useful indicator of lens quality (but not an absolute guarantee!!!).
I would suggest waiting till you have the cash available for good glass. I have been there and got burnt, i bought cheap stuff just so i had a lens, then with 2 months got rind of it at a fraction of the price to by better. the other thing is, buy good glass from the main brands and it will generally hold its value (well with reason)
You only have to ask Ciaran, which is the best normal zoom lens from sigma with a 1:2.8 maximum aperture, or read into other threads dealing with this question. I have a Nikkor 18-70/3.5-4.5 and after a month, I’m thinking about upgrading for a faster lens (Ireland is an old man in a cloudy coat, you need all the photons that you can get). Usually these slower lenses can be optically good, but only if you go down to 5.6 or 8 f-stops… that means they can be safely used in Spain or in the Caribbeans. Maybe I should just move to the Caribbeans instead of blaming my equipment :) You’ll have to spend at least 4-600, so I suggest, you should save for it and buy what you can use for years.
Thanks for the advice, guess I will keep feeding the piggy bank
for a while longer!! ……..like the idea of moving to the Caribbean
though :)Shutterbug
I am also working on a budget. My lenses tend to start at 3.5 or 4.5. I don’t think this makes a lens optically bad though just inconvenient. The first SLR I bought had a 50mm F2.8 Tessar as standard and it served me well. There can be too much emphasis on hardware as opposed to taking photographs. My advice is to concentrate on what is possible with the equipment you have until you are certain of the photographic direction you want to follow.
Shutterbug, I have a friend who has a whole array of Minolta lenses. Not sure if they would suit your job or budget but I know they are for sale and I can ask if you like.
Thanks Derek, for the moment anyway I am going to stick with what I have
and learn to use the camera properly before I add to my gear, I recently took
the camera to Rome and found that I used the 28-80 all the time never even
put the other lens on, so I guess the way to go is thoroughly test what I have
before I decide. Thankyou for thinking of me though appreciate it. :)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
