What is the 'Best' Lens ...?
Nov 23, 2015 17:57:10 #
I have been reading much on Depth of Field. I am not a person that collects a lot of glass nor do I enjoy carrying weight when shooting.
Equipment (although not critical to the question): A6000 (low weight, 24 meg, good APC sensor, 18-200 mm tele and 18-55 kit)
I am starting to recognize depth of field matters, and am 'willing' to carry one prime lens. Looking to be able to 'narrow' depth to blur distracting background.
I am interested in member's ideas/thoughts/recommendations for a prime lens to control and gain DOF control for street, family portraits and indoor captures. What focal would folks suggest ... before I use the metadata search in Lightroom to see where I take most of my photos.
(I did research DOF and besides focal length ... I am learning that increasing distance to subject can allow me to narrow depth of field) See Depth of field
Equipment (although not critical to the question): A6000 (low weight, 24 meg, good APC sensor, 18-200 mm tele and 18-55 kit)
I am starting to recognize depth of field matters, and am 'willing' to carry one prime lens. Looking to be able to 'narrow' depth to blur distracting background.
I am interested in member's ideas/thoughts/recommendations for a prime lens to control and gain DOF control for street, family portraits and indoor captures. What focal would folks suggest ... before I use the metadata search in Lightroom to see where I take most of my photos.
(I did research DOF and besides focal length ... I am learning that increasing distance to subject can allow me to narrow depth of field) See Depth of field
Nov 23, 2015 18:05:20 #
Thats a wide open question but the common denominator would be a prime with around a f1.4 aperture. I like the Sigma 50 ART on my D800 with a Cropper, that would be around a 35
Nov 23, 2015 18:11:23 #
I think any in the 18-28mm range for APSC sensor cameras. F1.4 is nice, but f1.8 is acceptable.
Nov 23, 2015 18:27:34 #
I have--but almost never use those--My pet phrase is "too short to be useful and not wide enough to be interesting"
Stan
Stan
Nov 23, 2015 18:54:40 #
This will be tricky for you!
The thing is, everyone has their own style and you're going to get answers all over the board. So, a couple general thoughts:
1. You'll want a fast prime - something in the 1.4 ~ F2 range. Most primes (not all, but most), will likely fall into this category. The wider the lens, the more you'll want those larger apertures (longer lenses have shallower depth of field by nature, so it's easier to get away with 1.8 or F2 - or even 2.8 +, depending on how long the prime is).
2. As for which lens, I'd recommend looking through your photos and see what images you like the most and the focal lengths were used. With a bit of luck, you'll find that one of your favorite focal lengths is close to a prime (i.e. 50mm for instance). That's the one you should get IMO.
The thing is, everyone has their own style and you're going to get answers all over the board. So, a couple general thoughts:
1. You'll want a fast prime - something in the 1.4 ~ F2 range. Most primes (not all, but most), will likely fall into this category. The wider the lens, the more you'll want those larger apertures (longer lenses have shallower depth of field by nature, so it's easier to get away with 1.8 or F2 - or even 2.8 +, depending on how long the prime is).
2. As for which lens, I'd recommend looking through your photos and see what images you like the most and the focal lengths were used. With a bit of luck, you'll find that one of your favorite focal lengths is close to a prime (i.e. 50mm for instance). That's the one you should get IMO.
Nov 23, 2015 18:55:38 #
You might want to view a lot of photos on line first.. You can't have it all. You mention Family portraits for instance. With an aperture of F/2.8 which will render most backgrounds out of focus, only the eyes of two parallel family members sitting together would be in focus, leaving any others out of focus. Now if your shooting individuals, that's a different story. Also the distance between your subject and the background makes a ton of difference. Maybe post a photo and explain what you want in and out of focus. So many answers/opinions to your questions
Nov 23, 2015 19:10:06 #
Lots of variables to consider:
Focal length affect DOF Shorter FL, greater depth
Aperture of course. !.4 much narrower DOF than 2.0
Hard to meet all your needs with one lens. I would at least consider the Sony Zeiss 35mm 2.8...great images and will work well for most of your needs. Also the Sony 28mm 2.0 is faster and almost as sharp.
Focal length affect DOF Shorter FL, greater depth
Aperture of course. !.4 much narrower DOF than 2.0
Hard to meet all your needs with one lens. I would at least consider the Sony Zeiss 35mm 2.8...great images and will work well for most of your needs. Also the Sony 28mm 2.0 is faster and almost as sharp.
Nov 23, 2015 19:25:49 #
this one I believe....but you cant have it ,,,,its mine
... sorry I just had to do it....I had physical therapy today for my rotator cuff, and I needed a laugh.... thanks Tom
... sorry I just had to do it....I had physical therapy today for my rotator cuff, and I needed a laugh.... thanks Tom
Nov 23, 2015 19:32:40 #
Nov 23, 2015 19:34:19 #
Bob, I missed the part where you explained why you relate narrow depth of field to prime lenses?
Nov 23, 2015 19:38:46 #
Increasing the subject distance dosn't always mean narrower depth of field.
Think about the aperture, the subject distance, and how much of the subject is filling the viewfinder (the last one may also depend on the focal lenght you are using)
I tend to think what focal length do I want to fill the frame and then what aperture is needed for the correct exposure. Then I will think about what DOF is needed. If I want to isolate the subjects there may be other ways of doing it.
I tend (not always) to use fast (f2.8 of zooms or f2 or faster primes) when I want shallow DOF.
A 50 f1.4 is great for head shots indoors (available light) and good outdoors. An 85mm f1.8 or a 135mm can also be good. A 70-200 f2.8 zoom is also good, howver may be a bit longf for some indoor shots.
I do use a 35mm f2 sometimes, however that is mostly because of it light gathering ability.
Think about the aperture, the subject distance, and how much of the subject is filling the viewfinder (the last one may also depend on the focal lenght you are using)
I tend to think what focal length do I want to fill the frame and then what aperture is needed for the correct exposure. Then I will think about what DOF is needed. If I want to isolate the subjects there may be other ways of doing it.
I tend (not always) to use fast (f2.8 of zooms or f2 or faster primes) when I want shallow DOF.
A 50 f1.4 is great for head shots indoors (available light) and good outdoors. An 85mm f1.8 or a 135mm can also be good. A 70-200 f2.8 zoom is also good, howver may be a bit longf for some indoor shots.
I do use a 35mm f2 sometimes, however that is mostly because of it light gathering ability.
Nov 23, 2015 19:46:57 #
Blenheim Orange wrote:
Focal length does not affect depth of field.
Mike
Mike
It may depending on subject distance and how big the subject is in the viewfinder
Example -
I was very close to the plate. The wall was probably 40-50 feet away.
This was shot with a focal length of 6.1mm @ f8.
The image has been downsized for web publishing.
Nov 23, 2015 19:50:43 #
RichardTaylor wrote:
It may depending on subject distance and how big the subject is in the viewfinder.
Yes, the apparent depth of field changes, since out of focus background objects appear larger in the image when a longer lens is used.
Focal length and focusing distance are not the same thing.
Mike
Nov 23, 2015 23:00:16 #
tradio wrote:
Thats a wide open question...
All humor aside, the faster the better. Check the reviews first - some bright primes can be fuzzy at the corners. On an APS-C sensor camera like yours, 35mm would be a good size.
Nov 23, 2015 23:21:17 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.