sony alfa100

[debz_xoxoxo]

Help!!! I am looking to buy a new lens... Sigma an Tameron are suppose to have

70-200mm f2.8 for about $799. although B&H still doesn't have it availible.

I have the kit lens thats 75-300 F4.5 . I like this lens... its good but I would still

like to get closer.. I shoot sports... and I have trouble in the gym with low lite.. I did

purchase a sony 55 mm 1.4 its pretty good but u just can't zoom in.

I have some trouble with this lens though, it wants to focus on the wrong subject

all the time, I struggle with it. Its very good in low lite situations though.

Any way I haven't been into photography long... I don't always know what I'm doing.

Mainly I just shoot my kids photos. which are growing up on me here now!

So.. back to the lens.. should I look at the 500mm instead? And I am going to

want to get a lens for close up things tooo for crawling critters.. I don't only do the

sports thing, but I like to shoot the backyard birds toooo.

Am I going to get any closer with the 70-200mm at the f2.8. Or should I look in a

nother direction? I've seen photo's with the cannon 70-200mm with f/2 stop, but its

a L series.. an they get really close... but I have the sony soooo... which I was

steered in the wrong direction when I purchase that.

So any advice would be appreciated

Thanx.

 

Debz

[evan_goulet]

The 70-200 mm f/2.8 will not get you closer than your current 75-300 mm f/4.5. In fact you will lose 100 mm of focal length zoom capability (that's what gets you closer). The f/2.8 will allow you to have faster shutter speeds in lower light conditions because of the larger aperture.

 

Before you buy a lens, I would recommend purchasing a book on the fundamentals of photography. Understanding the basics of the interrelationships between shutter speed, aperture, exposure value, and depth-of-field will go farther in improving your photographs than a lens. It will also give you the knowledge you need to be able to understand all of the numbers in lens descriptions and how they will help you create the images you want to.

 

I don't think there is anything wrong with the Sony Alpha 100

[aaron meyer]

What do you mean by "getting close"? There are different ways of doing so.

 

Long Telephoto: Used when you are far away, usually 300mm or more and can get quite expensive when using a "fast" lens (i.e. a lens that allows a lot of light to pass through it). Typically these are not zoom lenses, though there are some slow zoom lenses available (like the 75-300 lens you have, which is f/5.6, not f/4.5 by the time you're at 300mm or the Sigma 50-500mm lens, which is very slow at f/6.3 by 500mm) and the slow 500 f/8 mirror lens (which is mainly good for wildlife photography against backgrounds where its strange bokeh effects won't be as noticeable). None of these later lenses will be particularly good for use indoors. A 70-200 f/2.8 would be better for indoors, but you won't be able to zoom in as "close" as you can right now with the 300mm lens.

 

Macro Lenses: These are used for "critter" photography and entail getting very close to the subject (sometimes within an inch or so at maximum magnification). These are typically faster lenses, but they are usually primes (that is, they are not zoom lenses) and are more common in the 50-100mm range, though there are 180mm f/3.5 Macro lenses out there. That will sacrifice some speed though since an f/2.8 lens will be able to gather more light.

 

Of note, shooting indoors requires a fast lens and high ISO. Inside a well-lit room I'm usually needing ISO 800 or ISO 1600 even with an f/2.8 lens. Even then, I'm not getting the 1/500 second shutter speeds necessary to "stop" fast motion like sports.

 

The A100 is a great little camera, but high ISO shooting is not its strongest point. It's better than any current non DSLR at high ISO, but it's still a little noisy.

 

Overall, I second Evan's recommendation to get a basic photography book and start playing around with that to figure out a little more about the ins and outs of photography.

[evan_goulet]

Aaron, I didn't even think that "getting closer" might have meant a close-up working distance. I had just assumed zoom reach. Good that you brought that issue up.

[debz_xoxoxo]

Thank you guys... yes I do need to have a better understanding. Yes with the ISO over 400 there's that grainiess... I like the zoom, but I want to get closer then what I'm getting with out the grainiess. I don't have a lot of wide angel on this lens either. I can get some great close up shots too, but when I can't be as close to the person as I'd like then I want something more... should I look at the 500mm These other pictures I have seen the people say they have the 70 - 200 mm but it is on a cannon or Nikon. The pictures are close... sharp.. the color is brilliant.

I just know I'm not getting what I want rite now... and I need some direction... http://cu.miningjournal.net/pages/photo_page.php?mm=1908546&gallery=299742

check out these rodeo pictures... this is what I want to be able to capture!

[evan_goulet]

Do you post-process your photos? Maybe that is what is lacking. The images you linked to definitely have some post-processing applied... vignetting, saturation, and most likely sharpening. They don't look to be much sharper than average.

 

As far as a 500 mm lens, the only one I see for a Sony (SAL-500F80) is the mirror reflex f/8 lens. This is going to be a very slow lens that will require you to use a higher ISO than you already use with your 75-300 f/4.5. It is also such a specialized lens that you would only use it on wildlife at a great distance.

 

Do you have some samples of photos of your that are lacking the sharpness? Then someone here might have a better idea of what to tell you.

[peterblaise]

Hi Debz,

 

I see one of the best ways to get closer is to get closer. I'm impressed by photos where the photographer claims a 200mm or shorter lens in use, and still, the bird's head fills the frame - the photographer got close!

 

When I look at, say, Nature's Best magazine http://www.naturesbestmagazine.com/ I'm impressed with the PHOTOGRAPHER getting close, not the LENS. So, I subscribe, and recognize that I'm probably NOT going to create those pictures on my own, not unless I'm willing to invest in large, expensive lenses (f/2.8) and large, expensive tripods with gimbal mounts, but more importantly, investing in loads of TIME and PATIENCE in the field, let alone coming home and investing additional TIME and PATIENCE editing the thousands of shots from each trip hoping to find a world-class-beating image to share that makes people go "wow" just like I do at all the wonderful images there. THen investing the TIME and PATIENCE to present those pictures in the best way - large, accurate prints?

 

I LOVE photography and I keep at it daily even though I realize only a few of my pictures turn others on, and those that do surprise me as I didn't see the one's people like as one's that I was particularly aware of being special in any way, but they like 'em, so I'm happy, I guess. Someday, I'll intentionally and knowledgeably take a picture that others think is great. Someday.

 

I'm not trying to discourage you, Debz, I'm trying to share my own assessment of my own very same experiences as I see you writing about - trying to INTENTIONALLY and KNOWLEDGEABLY take / make images with impact. It's HARD, time consuming, in fact, life-time consuming! I wish you all the best luck and discipline. Keep at it.<div></div>

[debz_xoxoxo]

Evan these are my photo's...

No I don't do alot in photo shop, I do have photo shop elements...

How do you do the vignetting I guess I don't have much experience in this area either.. tryin to learn on my own.. Are they cropping the pictures? hmm..=(

[debz_xoxoxo]

Woops.... http://cu.miningjournal.net/pages/photo_page.php?mm=1896054&gallery=299512

[aaron meyer]

A lot of it is just throwing away a lot of photos. For every great photo you see in a magazine there are probably thousands of photos that didn't make it. It's not terribly uncommon for a pro to shoot 500+ photos in a day and only come away with 5 that are worth keeping. A fair amount of photography is just knowing what to throw away.

[glyn r]

I looked at your gallery. The indoor shots don't need a new camera or lens. Just try to be more selective and also practise shooting in continuous mode and throw away the duds. I don't see any problem working at it can't solve. The pics look fine to me.

[here in europe]

I disagree with machine gunning but wasn't it Kapa who said " If its not good enough your not close enough"

 

Regards

[aaron meyer]

David,

 

There's a difference between "machine gunning" and the realization that, back in the film days, getting a single really good exposure from a roll of film (36 exposures) was generally considered to be a reasonable "hit rate". Looking back at my post, I did seem to come off advocating a machine gun approach and I didn't mean to, so my apologies there for not wording my post well.

 

A neighbor of mine, an artist and professor of photography, recently had an exhibit of her work documenting the construction of a new bridge. She made over 1,000 exposures but the exhibit showed only about 50 prints. No machine-gunning there though since she only shoots with an 8x10 view camera. So out of 1,000 exposures, approximately 5% were ultimately "keepers". Obviously a gallery showing is more selective than the family photo album, but the illustration remains valid.

 

A lot of people buy a nice camera and then expect to get 80% or 90% great shots. That's just not going to happen. No matter how careful you are, no matter how much attention you pay to your shots, those aren't realistic expectations. Even a quarter of that percentage would be an ambitious goal. There are a lot of photos that just have to get thrown out. The temptation with digital is to try to save every photograph in post and that doesn't really work well, at least not for me.

 

Cheers!

[wingphotography]

I just recently sold my Sony Alpha 100...that camera gave me some great shots over the year I had it. I agree with the comment about how it's not the best in high ISO and low light shooting ..it's not terrible, but I do prefer my new Canon...I haven't really upgraded per say I only went with the Xti 400D - my favourite lens is a 70-200mm for what I use it for. I think if you take what you've been given here in this thread and apply a little of everything to your own needs, your Sony might really give you some great moments. I bought an instructional DVD off ebay for my alpha and it was a GREAT help and resource even as just a reminder now and then on tips and techniques to make the shots better...you might check something like that out? Otherwise I'd suggest you do like I'm doing....keep shooting, and enjoy!! :)