Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR, Sony SLT

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 30, 2010, 4:52 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 22
Default Lens(es) for Portrait/Landscape shots

I have an Alpha 200 and have the kit lens (18-70) and a Tamron 70-300. Most of my shots to date are landscapes/scenery. However, my wife and I are expecting our first child in December and so will be taking lots (probably thousands) of portrait photos.

My question is whether I would achieve better results obtaining something like a Minolta AF 28mm f/2.8 and/or a Minolta AF 50mm f/1.7 and would I really notice a difference on the A200 body?

Any experiences/suggestions welcome.
Big4heD is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 30, 2010, 5:37 AM   #2
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

I would forget the primes, too much like hard work especially when they get a bit older so go for the convenience and quality of the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, not the VC one just the original. Very good lens, will allow you to blur the background more and still give you a usable range. The 70-300 will also be of good use for outdoor shots etc.

Congrats on the upcoming baby!!!! Make sure you share 'some' of the thousands of photos
__________________
[SIZE=1][SIZE=2]Any problems with a post or thread please use the report button at the bottom left of the post and the team will help sort it out.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2010, 8:32 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

I agree about the primes, but for babies and small children, 50mm isn't very long. The Sigma 24-70/2.8 or Tamron 28-75/2.8 (or the overpriced version with the Sony nameplate and the shorter warranty) might be a better choice. 50mm is good for couples portraits, but for babies, you might have to be so close that you block your own light (if you don't want to use flash.)

Your thoughts, Mark?
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2010, 9:40 AM   #4
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

It's a good point about the length, I hadn't thought about that. I've just looked through some baby photos by a shooter who does well at this and they are working at up to 200mm on a 40D and as wide as 35. The majority are in the 100+ area though with baby portraits and f5.6. With good lighting (bounced flash or other) the 70-300 could be well employed for this.
__________________
[SIZE=1][SIZE=2]Any problems with a post or thread please use the report button at the bottom left of the post and the team will help sort it out.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2010, 9:54 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
wave01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North West England
Posts: 1,749
Default

Yes I would go with the longer lens a lot easier IMO with babies and children
wave01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2010, 12:35 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

To shoot a 3 foot tall subject (and average 2 year old) with a 200mm lens on an APS-C dSLR, vertically, you'd need to be about 25 feet away! 200mm sounds awfully long to me. With a 70mm lens, you'd still need to be over 8 feet away, but for a head & sholders portrait that would be about 4 feet, which sounds about right.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Aug 30, 2010 at 12:56 PM. Reason: sp
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2010, 12:43 PM   #7
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

Wasn't talking full length, and also was for babies getting tight. Here is a link to one of his series. http://photocamel.com/forum/kids-fam...ing-again.html
__________________
[SIZE=1][SIZE=2]Any problems with a post or thread please use the report button at the bottom left of the post and the team will help sort it out.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2010, 11:15 AM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 22
Default

Thanks for the input guys, but can I just clarify...

What you're suggesting is using the Tamrom 70-300 for head & shoulder/close up shots, and replacing the kit lens with the Sigma 24-70 or Tamron 28-75 for full-body?
Big4heD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2010, 7:15 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Decatur, GA
Posts: 2,053
Default

I'd also consider a 50 -150mm f/2.8 lens such as this one

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...2_8_II_EX.html

sure its a little expensive but I had one for my Sony A350 and loved it for lower light indoor shots. I no longer us my Sony D-SLR bodies........

dave
Photo 5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2010, 2:23 AM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 22
Default

So to update you. My A200 suffered terminal damage by colliding with a tree when I fell off my MTB, so I guess I'll be upgrading my camera.

I have posted a separate question here:
http://forums.steves-digicams.com//s...errerid=108462
Big4heD is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:27 AM.