lens advice for a beginner

[genevieve_leigh]

hi! i feel like such an idiot for asking this, esp. since photo.net

has given so much advice on lens types in its tutorial section. but

i am very new to photography and trying to teach myself. (couldn't

get into any classes in college b/c they won't allow non-photography

majors into photograhy courses!) i am still very confused and

indecisive about what kind of lenses to get! i already decided on a

body (minolta maxxum 7 35mm slr) but i need some advice for the

lenses. i figured i needed at least 2 to begin with...but i have a

fairly nice budget to work with and wondered if any of u could point

me to some good ones? thanks!

[john falkenstine]

Tell us what kind of lenses you have to go with the camera. The information can usually be found by looking directly at the front of the lens by holding the camera toward you.

[harry_akiyoshi]

Why do you need two lenses to being with? Get either a 50 or a good standard zoom (moderate wide to short telephoto), and see what you need. If you consistently find yourself needing a wider or longer lens, buy one. Many people never use anything but a 50, although you won't find many of them on Photo.net. We're pretty gear-oriented here; most of us are better at buying camera equipment than we are at using it.

[mendel_leisk]

Maybe JUST a Minolta 50mm standard lens? This used to be THE choice when purchasing a 35mm slr, but has fallen out of favour. You will not be lumbered with zoom decisions, the 50mm is just about identical to looking at the scene with just your eyes, and a lot faster than any zooms. For my latest purchase, I went for the faster f1.4 lens (mainly just because I'd always wanted one), but f1.8's are cheaper, a bit lighter, and at least as sharp.

[jim schwaiger]

The 50mm lenses are great learning tools and incredibly useful for many types of

photography -- and they are pretty dang cheap. It is much easier to learn with a

simple prime lens, so consider getting one and learn to use it very well. You can get

by with it for months or even years.

 

If you have to have a zoom, consider one that goes from wide to short telephoto. I

have a Nikon 28-105mm that is very good and useful for many situations.

Landscapes at 28mm, portraits at 105mm, and it has macro capability for flowers and

such.

[jbq]

2 lenses? how about a pair or 50/1.7?

 

Seriously, if you had decided for a Nikon body I'd recommend a 35/2 and 85/1.8. Not knowing what your budget is, I'll recommend to get two of these 3: 28/2.8 50/1.7 100/2. It all depends on what you plan to shoot.

 

If you're not sure, start by a 50/1.7, at worst wou won't like it, you'll know whether you want something wider or longer, and you'll sell it at a small loss.

 

If you're really unsure get a 50/1.7 and either a 24-105 or 28-100 (I don't know how good those are, but seeing the price I image that the expensive one is better than the cheap one).

[arnabdas]

BTW, great choice for camera body. The Maxxum 7 is *the* perfect film SLR -- that from a 100% nikon user.

 

Buy a 50mm or a short tele such as 85mm.

[oleg_kosyakovsky]

Get the Minolta AF 24-105 f3.5/4.5 D if you can afford it.

If you cannot, get it anyway and save on the camera body - i.e. Maxxum 5 QD instead of Maxxum 7.

I won't recommend the 50/1.7 - I have both the 24-105 and the 50/1.7, and almost never use the latter. If you do intend doing low-light-and-depth_of_field kind of photography, pay more for 50/1.4 .

 

Your second lens (though you don't need it immediately) could be Minolta AF 75-300 f4.5/5.6 D. Or, if your budget grows, Minolta AF 100-300 f4.5/5.6 D .

[marklcooper]

First off, I am strictly an amateur and I like to shoot available light.<p>

 

Second, what kind of photography interests you right now? If you are a bird watcher a 50mm will be useless. If you are into still life, you probably won't want a 300mm. If you want to carry a camera around everywhere you go, a short zoom would be a good starting point. If you are interested in available light candids (my current interest) you will want a fast prime to start. <p>

 

I find I use my 50mm 90% of the time.<p>

 

I purchased my camera back in 1978 with a 24mm f/2.8, a 50mm f/2.0 and an 80-200mm f/3.5 zoom. In those days I spent a lot of time at auto races and used the 80-200 almost exclusively. But, now that my auto racing days are behind me I find myself shooting events: street fairs and festivals, Christmas parties etc, and use the 50 and 24. I just recently purchased a 50mm f/1.4. I like not using a flash. I think it allows people to be more relaxed. In many cases they don't even notice I'm there with my camera.<p>

 

I think my style has evolved to where a 35 f/1.4 and an 85 f/1.4 would be perfect. I use the 80-200 just enough to recommend having one on hand. I usually don't pack it, but it is there when I want it.<p>

 

HTH<p>

 

Mark<p>

[mark_bouquet1]

It's kind of disturbing to hear that your college won't let non-majors take any photography classes. Would the English department only let English majors take literature or writing classes? Photography is as much part of our culture as literature is. Who knows, you might become a photography major after taking a few classes. Is there anyone else reading this who's ever heard of such a thing?

[stemked]

Hello Genevieve.

 

Like everyone else I would start with the 50mm (f1.4/1.7/2). For a second it depends on what you want it for. If you really want to get into nature, I'd suggest something like a 100mm macro (good for macro and general nature). If you want a general travel lens then a 28-105 is probably a better idea.

 

I used to teach nature photography at a Liberal Arts school in Indiana. It was in the Biology department and we had some expectation that the students had at least a Biology course at some point in their life (high school or college) but we certainly didn't require the students be bio-majors. Pitty about your school though. You can learn the technical side on your own (I certainly did) but the artistic side is actually much easier with some good feedback from someone who actually knows a little about elements what makes a good photograph.

[lee_brand]

You run the risk of putting the cart in front of the proverbial horse :-)

 

You dont say what lens you use at the moment which is a pity. Why do you feel that this lens needs a brother and sister? What does it not do that another one (two?) may. My point is that you need to make the choice based on the limitations of your current lens. Do you need a longer lens for the type of photography that you are doing. Maybe you need a faster lens - 50/1.8 to do some low light stuff. Will a 50mm solve the problem - or is that focal length already covered by the lens you have?

 

I was told and have since found that the better investment is to spend the extra cash on film, at least until you really understand what it is (kit wise) that you are short of.

 

This is advise that I was given and did not really follow - I ended up with a lot of "stuff" that has not really improved my photography much :-)

[yuriy_tsibizov]

24-85/3.5-4.5 and 50/1.7 ?

[bjmarkowitz]

The is strangly taking on the shape of the anti-Omer postings in the why I hate 50mm postings (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00666a)

 

The same thing I posted in that discussion group, I post here. What are you going to use the camera for? Its the first question that must be asked before you can offer an answer as to what lens to buy. The 50mm may be right. But what if the reason for wanting the lenses was bird photography? still recomending the 50?

[jbq]

Brian: There are a few reasons why a 50/1.7 (or 1.8) is often recommended to begineer SLR users:

 

-It is cheap. At worst if you don't like it you can easily sell it at a 25% loss and not cry over it too much.

 

-It is sharp. A photographer coming from "consumer" camera worlds is likely to see the difference from e.g. a point-and-shoot zoom.

 

-It allows to take sharp pictures with shallow depth of field (think f/2.8)

 

-It's in most systems the only affordable sharp lens that allows 2 or 3 stops of low-light hand-held shooting over a consumer zoom.

 

-It's versatile. It can be used for many kinds of photos.

 

-It's small and light.

 

-Since it falls in the "middle" of the range, it can be used as a reference to move to other lenses.

 

 

Now, there are a few reasons why it's a "bad" lens:

 

-It doesn't have the dramatic perspective capabilities of a wide-angle or telephoto. You can't pull any tricks with a 50mm, the only way to get a good photo is to compose it right and expose it right.

 

-It isn't as versatile as a consumer zoom, and for people who are on a tight budget and can't afford other primes, it's likely that a 50mm will end up overlapping with a cheap zoom.

 

 

And there's the "mixed" argument:

 

-Since it's not a zoom, it's not a good snapshooting lens. Instead, you need to learn to use it in order to get good pictures. It's a lens that makes the photographer think all the time. That's why people hate it. Yet that's why it's a good learning tool.

[imaginator]

You will get many useless responses... unless you tell us what you expect to photograph... even just a general idea would help. Personally, I like primes for wide angle and "standard", zooms for mid-tele range, and primes for long tele (300mm or more) I do manual focus so fast lenses are a bonus (brighter in viewfinder) and also good for night/astro stuff. On the other hand, I decided to get an Olympus "ZLR" with a 28-110mm zoom as an all around, have with me all the time camera, so if you don't like the idea of swapping lenses often, a similar zoom might be a great way to get started. I learned on a 50mm prime, and still use it all the time. A 35mm prime is also a good starter lens if you like to do landscape. Here's the "nutshell" version of affordable lenses (some lenses cost thousands of dollars): prime 35mm or 50mm are fast and good value, anything wider costs go up (28mm is still affordable, but 24mm and below can get expensive) Above 50mm, zooms in the 70/100-200/300mm range are common, but don't expect best quality at the "long end" (if a zoom goes to 300mm, only use it to around 200mm, if the zoom goes to 200mm, use it up to around 140mmm) primes are also available in this range, with 100mm popoular for portraits, and some "macro" type do close-ups (1:2 ratio is very useful) 300mm and longer are great for nature/wildlife and some landscape shots (distant scenes with moon or sun behind) but don't expect to be able to handhold the camera... tripod is needed. If you travel in tourist areas, a single 28-120mm zoom makes more sense, and also gives you a quick way to learn what focal lengths you like to use. If you want auto focus, there may be specific issues that make some lenses better choice... can't help you with that.

[greg_mason]

i am currently teaching my 10 year old son photography and i am insisting that he use only a 50mm lens. above and beyond the reasons stated above, i think that the biggest advantage of a 50mm lens for a beginning photographer is that it forces him to use his feet to get closer or farther away and to look at the subject from different angles. only then will he really know what lens he needs next. zoom lenses tend to promote laziness in some people, myself included.