Lenses for a Beginner

[amanda_lock]

Hello,

I have a Minolta 5D, and am just recently beginning with photography. I was

wondering if anyone could post a list of the lenses that they use the most.

Right now I have:

 

28-80mm

70-300mm

500mm

fisheye lense

 

Is the 35-100 lense a useful lense? Thanks!

[jacob_napthine]

Personally I would say a 50mm f1.7 (or f1.4) would have to be the best money you will ever spend on a lens re price vs performance.

Get one from KEH.com, you wont regret it. They are trully professional glass at a bargain price!

 

PS Did you know the older Minolta 35-70 f4 and 70-200 f4 are actually a Leica/Minolta collaboration? Minolta used to build the same lenses for Leica. The Minolta versions are a lot cheaper though!

 

Good luck mate.

 

Cheers

[jacob_napthine]

PS Come on over to www.dyxum.com you'll find heaps of info about Minolta digital. Im on there as GTjake.

Hope to see you over there, Amanda.

[james_frater]

I just got the 28-75 2.8, I am not a starter in photography, but if I had this from the start some of my images I was not happy with with sharpness would maybe have been different.

[scott_lewis3]

If you are just starting out then get a 50mm (1.7 is the cheapest) and use it a lot as it can zoom you will have to think different about how you photograph and your composition.

[bill_thorlin]

Amanda - a few points :-

 

1. Minolta do not make a 35-100mm lens - there are 35-105mm versions but sorry I cannot offer any feedback on them.

 

2. If you want to know what lenses Minolta have made go to - www.mhohner.de - best site I know and you will get a full list of lenses and cameras and more besides.

 

3. I would also support the suggestion of a 50mm f1.7 ( the 1.4 can be expensive ) - fast, great optics and can fit in your pocket ( or purse ) easily and can always be carried around without bother.

 

Scott - g'day mate - I think you lost your "t" - the way I drive it happens to me a lot :)

[dave_redmann]

The biggest problem will all of the lenses discussed so far is that they don't give you a wide angle. IMHO, the average photographer can really benefit from a lens as wide as the equivalent of a 28mm, or even 24mm, lens on a 35mm film camera. For the 5D, that means a lens with a focal length of 16-18mm.<P>

 

The Minolta 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens is a bit soft, but if it works for you, go for it. I have, and mostly use, a Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8, which is pretty good, but more expensive. Other lenses now, or soon to be, on the market that cover a good 'standard zoom' range and presumably are (or will be) good optically include the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5, the Tamrom 17-50mm f/2.8, and the Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8.<P>

 

That said, I agree that the Minolta 50mm f/1.7 and 70-210mm f/4 (<B>not</B> the 70-210mm f/4.5-5.6) are good and useful lenses available at reasonable prices. I have both. These three would probably cover 95% of most people's photographic needs.

[scott_lewis3]

Bugger should be can�t zoom not can zoom bloody typos. That�s what happens when you type with out thinking and proof reading. I seem to be getting famous in a few forums for my typos. :)

[bill_thorlin]

Dave - I am with you on the 50 & 70-210, both quality optics. I have no experience of the very short zooms, isn't there one that would be in the same league as the other two ? ( The G versions are pretty expensive. )

 

Scott - thought it was an Aussie thing ?!

[peterblaise]

.

 

Amanda, I want to SEE that "500mm fisheye"! ;-)

 

Lens for a beginner, eh?

 

We're ALL beginners, every day, each of us in our own way, over and over.

 

I'm a beginner very morning.

 

I go to my gear and ask, "What can you teach me today?"

 

I'm a beginner every night.

 

I go to my library and ask, "What can you teach me tonight?"

 

What I learn is that there's more to anything than the big, bold specifications. Sure, FOCAL LENGTH and APERTURE range are important, but so are CLOSE FOCUS DISTANCE, MINIMUM-OPERATING DISTANCE, and for my aged back, WEIGHT!

 

I love my zooms since they let me crop in camera and obviate the need to move closer to my intended subject (but then, how much closer can I get to the moon, the stars and the sun anyway?!?).

 

I love my close focusing lenses (and diopter attachments, teleconverters, and extension tubes) since they allow me to make unusual shots that "wow" people.

 

But, at the end of the day, when I look at my growing non-portable-folio, I see that for me, the truly compelling shots are from my "normal" lenses taken at "normal" distances.

 

What is "normal"?

 

For 35mm film, that's ~43mm (the length of the image size diagonal), and, true to form, my 40mm to 50mm shots are the ones that intrigue me well after the "shock of the new" wears off from the super zoom and close-ups shots.

 

For a 1.53x crop factor in the APS digital SLRs, that makes a 43mm / 1.53 = 28mm, so try a 28mm for a "normal" walkabout lens on an APS-sensor DSLR.

 

Of course, people say 50mm = normal for 35mm film, so 50 / 1.53 = 32mm is the approximate equivalent for APS-sensor DSLRs.

 

Amanda, I think you HAVE the focal length range anyone else says is fun, just convert to 35mm film equivalency angle of view by multiplying by the crop factor of 1.53:

 

28-80mm

x 1.53

= 42-122mm crop/angle of capture in APS-sensor DSLR

 

70-300mm

x 1.53

= 107-459mm crop/angle of capture in APS-sensor DSLR

 

500mm

x 1.53

= 765mm crop/angle of capture in APS-sensor DSLR

 

fisheye

x 1.53

= ?!?

 

Calculations fail to accurately predict once the focal length in question drops below ~1/2 of the diagonal of the capture frame size, so anything less than 21mm on a 35mm camera or 14mm on an APS DSLR is anybody's guess as to the actual angle of capture - read the specific maker's notes.

 

Beginner? Welcome, and never forget that every day, you can once again be a beginner, just like the rest of us!

 

Share some pictures, and let us know what you do!

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise perterblaise@yahoo.com Minolta Rokkor, Alpha, and DiMage Photographer http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/<div></div>

[weatherman]

50mm f1.7(price/performance) and if you can find a second hand 28mm f2.0 (expensive though).

28mm is useful because it gives 40mmish perspective and has top notch glass and optical features which is is what I use a lot.

[amanda_lock]

Here's a picture that I took recently at the racetrack. And no, I don't have a 500mm fisheye lense :)- I meant I have a 500mm (incredibly crappy one) and a fisheye. :)

[james_frater]

The image is not bad. I suppose it would depend on how much work you had to do to obtain that specific image with regard to digital editing.

[amanda_lock]

There was no digital editing; I am, as I said, a very newbie photographer and still haven't figured out how to use photoshop, etc. :) When I said beginning, I really meant it. :)