Best Lens for Candid Potrait Photography: Hi , I have a Sony Alpha A58. I am currently using the kit lens for all the potraits. Sadly I have two 50 mm 1.4 lens ( minolta MC-MD) lens...

AimlessPixels Loc: New Delhi,India

Hi ,
I have a Sony Alpha A58. I am currently using the kit lens for all the potraits. Sadly I have two 50 mm 1.4 lens ( minolta MC-MD) lens which doesnt work with my cam ( Alpha mount).

So i am planning to get a new lens and need advice from all about the best ( appropiate) lens for my purpose.

1> Food Photography.
2> Candid potraits.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

AimlessPixels wrote:

Hi ,
I have a Sony Alpha A58. I am currently using the kit lens for all the potraits. Sadly I have two 50 mm 1.4 lens ( minolta MC-MD) lens which doesnt work with my cam ( Alpha mount).

So i am planning to get a new lens and need advice from all about the best ( appropiate) lens for my purpose.

1> Food Photography.
2> Candid potraits.

You can take both of those with your kit lens I'm guessing; what is the focal range of the kit lens?

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

AimlessPixels wrote:

Hi ,
I have a Sony Alpha A58. I am currently using the kit lens for all the potraits. Sadly I have two 50 mm 1.4 lens ( minolta MC-MD) lens which doesnt work with my cam ( Alpha mount).

So i am planning to get a new lens and need advice from all about the best ( appropiate) lens for my purpose.

1> Food Photography.
2> Candid potraits.

Two REALLY good lenses for your consideration: the Minolta AF 50mm f/1.4 and the Sony Carl Zeiss 85mm F/1.4. EITHER lens will serve your purposes, though the Minolta (or it's current Sony incarnation) will do the job for considerably less than the Zeiss. ;)

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

CHOLLY wrote:

Two REALLY good lenses for your consideration: the Minolta AF 50mm f/1.4 and the Sony Carl Zeiss 85mm F/1.4. EITHER lens will serve your purposes, though the Minolta (or it's current Sony incarnation) will do the job for considerably less than the Zeiss. ;)

The Sony 16-50 f2.8 is a remarkable lens, very sharp, high quality, and worth the money. Excellent glass. :thumbup:

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

when you say "candid" I picture either a long focal length black lens shot from a distance or a small lens that is not noticeable.

AimlessPixels Loc: New Delhi,India

rpavich wrote:

You can take both of those with your kit lens I'm guessing; what is the focal range of the kit lens?

its the standard 18-55 mm F3.5 carl zeiss lens. its works great outdoors. But severely lacks low light prowess.

AimlessPixels Loc: New Delhi,India

bull drink water wrote:

when you say "candid" I picture either a long focal length black lens shot from a distance or a small lens that is not noticeable.

I would rather be happy with a small unnoticeable lens ( possibly the cheaper of the two) !

8-)

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

AimlessPixels wrote:

I would rather be happy with a small unnoticeable lens ( possibly the cheaper of the two) !

8-)

What is your current kit lens?

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

AimlessPixels wrote:

its the standard 18-55 mm F3.5 carl zeiss lens. its works great outdoors. But severely lacks low light prowess.

As lukan mentioned above, the Sony 16-50mm f/2.8 SSM is an excellent lens... equal to the Sony Zeiss 16-80mm f/3.5 in image quality, but superior in low light performance and it has a built in focus motor instead of screw drive like the Zeiss.

Another great but affordable lens for portraits is Sony 70-300mm f/4.5 G lens; a zoom with pretty good optics that is probably longer and bigger than you want, but will give you quality results.

You can't go wrong with the 50mm f/1.4 (inexpensive quality) or the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4, literally the BEST lens you can put on your Sony camera in terms of overall image quality... but at a price.

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

CHOLLY wrote:

As lukan mentioned above, the Sony 16-50mm f/2.8 S... (show quote)

This sums it up pretty accurately and completely, especially for not knowing your budget. The more I think about your question, the more I believe you should check out the 16-50 f2.8 and the 50 f1.4. Either will give you top quality in low light, and either or both are affordable.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Yep. :thumbup:

I've seen copies of the original Minolta 50mm f/1.4 in excellent condition on ebay for $150-200. The restyled Konica Minolta version in Excellent condition goes for $250-350. A new Sony version (SAME optics) retails around $550. At ANY price, the 50mm f/1.4 is an EXCELLENT lens... SERIOUSLY, and as good as if not better than the offerings from Nikon and Canon for LESS MONEY.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

CHOLLY wrote:

Yep. :thumbup:

I've seen copies of the original Minolta 50mm f/1.4 in excellent condition on ebay for $150-200. The restyled Konica Minolta version in Excellent condition goes for $250-350. A new Sony version (SAME optics) retails around $550. At ANY price, the 50mm f/1.4 is an EXCELLENT lens... SERIOUSLY, and as good as if not better than the offerings from Nikon and Canon for LESS MONEY.

55.00 buy it now.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Minolta-MC-ROKKOR-PG-50mm-f1-4-1-1-4-for-minolta-MD-mount-/181480352797?hash=item2a41126c1d

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

CHOLLY wrote:

Yep. :thumbup:

I've seen copies of the original Minolta 50mm f/1.4 in excellent condition on ebay for $150-200. The restyled Konica Minolta version in Excellent condition goes for $250-350. A new Sony version (SAME optics) retails around $550. At ANY price, the 50mm f/1.4 is an EXCELLENT lens... SERIOUSLY, and as good as if not better than the offerings from Nikon and Canon for LESS MONEY.

I know both of these lenses and I currently own the Canon 50mm f1.4, and have shot extensively with the Sony. They are different, and the Sony is worth every penny because it renders beautiful images, even wide open. It's really a top notch lens. :thumbup:

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

^^^When I grow up I wanna be JUST like you. :D

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

CHOLLY wrote:

^^^When I grow up I wanna be JUST like you. :D

CHOLLY, thank you, and I can only hope that you're sincere. I don't blame you because I work very darn hard at being me, and it's working out just fine thus far. :lol: :mrgreen: