Newbie: Will I notice the difference with a prime lense?

Nice dog!! You will definitely see a difference, both in sharpness as also in lower depth of field if you buy an f2.8 or better. Good lenses normally make a MUCH bigger difference than different camera bodies. A good and cheap start with prime lenses is often a Minolta 50mm f1.7.

Welcome to the party forum!

Primes tend to have larger, brighter apertures and the potential for greater sharpness. Due to the larger apertures, shallower depth of field is possible along with handheld shooting in lower light.

Of course, all of these things come along with having to do any "zooming" with your feet. For some, including myself, it's more fun this way.

Dirk W said:

Dirk W wrote:

Nice dog!! You will definitely see a difference, both in sharpness as also in lower depth of field if you buy an f2.8 or better. Good lenses normally make a MUCH bigger difference than different camera bodies. A good and cheap start with prime lenses is often a Minolta 50mm f1.7.

Click to expand...

I'll second the Minolta 50mm f1.7 recommendation, it's a gem and the price can't really be beat either.

I'd like to also second the nice dog sentiment. Your dog looks happy to not be getting flash-blasted. :-D

Welcome ... and congratulations on your A57 purchase; great decision. My two cents is that, yes, you will see a discernible difference with a prime - and I can't recommend the Sony 35mm 1.8 high enough (excellent performance and price point; just a bit plasticky). Moreover, with the 35 1.8 for instance, your flashless dog shot would have been taken at 1600 ISO, with far less (barely noticeable) noise and greater clarity.

Good luck .. harry

Cacophonic Visions said:

Dirk W wrote:

....A good and cheap start with prime lenses is often a Minolta 50mm f1.7.

Click to expand...

I wish I'd thought that through before deciding in December that I wanted a DSLR for xmas! I sold my Minolta Dynax last year on ebay - with the orginal 50mm lense. Would that have been compatible?


Something that I've still not quite got my head around which you maybe able to help me clear up. My mind still equates lense size to a 35mm film camera. Which typically used to be supplied with a 50mm lense.

Am I right in thinking that when people use the term FF they are referring to a lense suitable for 35mm film cameras - or ones with larger sensors than APS-C? With lense sizes for the A57 providing more magnification per mm when compared to the same lense on a 35mm film camera?


Are you suggesting I look for a 2nd hand minolta lense by the way, I assumed minolta had sold all their camera/lense business to sony?

thanks both for the quick responses!

Generally speaking primes at any given focal length will be optically superior to a zoom at that same focal length as a zoom is a compromise to get the best results over a range of focal lengths, where as a prime is designed to get the best results at that focal length, and usually a prime will have a larger aperture (or at least the same aperture) as a very good zoom lens.

Larger Apertures will allow you to shoot at lower ISOs , faster shutter speeds (or combination of both) and in lower light situations without a flash (on camera flashes tend to be harsh and direct lighting - on off camera flash will give you more options and can provide more diffused and/or indirect lighting, like bouncing it off the ceiling)

The downside of larger apertures is shallower Depth Of Field which can make focusing more difficult and really show how good your technique is.

If you have spent a lot of money on really good zoom lenses, you might not notice too much of an improvement. If you have cheaper kit lenses, then the improvement will be more noticeable.

You might know much of this already, so sorry if it is not as in-depth as you were wanting

dyxum.com is a pretty good site to check out for lenses, and they usually have links to more professional reviews of lenses that go in to detail about lens specs and performance

Depends on the prime, and the zoom compared to. The tamron 28-75 2.8 is razor sharp at F4-F11, and you will be hard pressed to find a prime lens sharper. CA and distortions on the other hand, even spherical aberations, can be better on primes as they do not suffer from the same complexity in design.

Wire Haired Viszla?

They are THE most awesome dogs

thanks - I'm impressed with the rapid responses/warn welcome already.

The other advantage of moving my feet is that I can probably multi-task that bit - whilst thinking about some of the other aspects of the shot.

topstuff said:

topstuff wrote:

Wire Haired Viszla?

They are THE most awesome dogs

Click to expand...

top marks!

Yes she is absolutely gorgeous - 14 months old. When I manage to get a picture of her on-point I'll be posting it on here. That is the most incredible sight to watch, totally natural and instinctive.

I miss more good shots. Many times have been caught with the wrong lens and missed a great shot. One of the main reasons I use my Leica gear so little. Modern pro quality lenses are as short as most primes.

EEUK said:

EEUK wrote:

Click to expand...

EEUK said:

I prefer taking pics without the built in flash as I tend to find it quite brash - any tips on that front welcome.

Click to expand...

Topic for another day. But don't knock flash. It gets knocked a lot by people who simply don't want to take the trouble to get good at it. I totally understand that. I don't want to take the trouble to learn German. But I don't tell myself that I "prefer" English because German sounds harsh. Point is: Flash exists for a reason, it's useful. And it's not that hard to at least get mediocre with it, and there's very little that'll do more for the quality of your photos than increasing the light. Yeah, you can take a photo at ISO 3200. But in most cases, it'll be better if you take it at ISO 400 and use a flash.

EEUK said:

The kind of pictures I expect to take over the next 12 months or so will typically be portraits and perhaps some landscapes, as I've still got a little bit of xmas money left I've wondered whether to buy a prime lense - perhaps a Sony 85mm F2.8 SAM lens.

Click to expand...

There you go. That's a good choice.

EEUK said:

Will I notice much difference in the quality of output of a prime lense when compared to the zooms I have?

Click to expand...

Okay, now we get to The Big Question. My answer is not politically correct. But it is correct in every other way. My answer is: You might not, especially at first. If you buy primes, DO NOT EXPECT TO BE WOWED by the results you get. You almost certainly won't be.

When zoom lens were still new-fangled, they weren't optically very good. Nowadays, the best zooms rival excellent primes in image quality. The two lenses you mentioned at the top of your posting fall into the "okay/pretty decent" category, and you might perceive some improvements with a good prime. Or you might not, especially at first. A prime lens isn't a magic pill.

So why do people buy primes?

1. If you want something wider than f2.8, you pretty much have to get a prime. There are some top-of-the line compact cameras with zoom lenses that go wider than f/2.8 at the wide end (like my Sony RX100) but the big lenses for DSLR/DSLT bodies don't. Want f/2 or f1.4? You're getting a prime. Does this make the images "better"? Well, in one sense, you can't possibly compare, because a zoom can't shoot at that aperture. Fairer to say that it makes that picture possible. At f/5.6, I'd be hard pressed to tell whether a given photo was taken with a prime or a good zoom.
2. Wider apertures of course allow you to get shallower depth of field. Want to blur the background? Open the aperture as wide as possible. And "as wide as possible" pretty much means "on a prime." See previous item.
3. Primes tend to be smaller and lighter than good zooms. The Sony 16-50 f2.8 is six times bigger and weighs about twenty times more than the Sony 50 f/1.4. I exaggerate, of course, but only slightly. ;-)
4. Primes are mechanically more reliable than zooms, I guess because they're not as complicated mechanically.
5. The reliability of prime lenses extends also to image quality. There are lots of technical factors in excellent optics: distortion and aberration, vignetting, sharpness, color rendition, bokeh. It's easier to get these things right for ONE focal length than to get them all equally right for a RANGE of focal lengths in a single lens. That's why most zooms have a sweet spot, somewhere around f/5.6 and the middle of the zoom range where they perform bests in all respects.
6. Shooting with primes is an outstanding form of artistic discipline. Really this ought to be reason #1. Knowing you've got one focal length to work with forces you to think differently about your shots, to become more deliberate. It's frankly a pain in the neck at first but if you stick with it, it becomes easier and then it starts to make sense. It's a zen thing. Work with two or three primes for a while and you start seeing the world differently, because you can actually see those couple or few angles of view. If you shoot with a zoom, well, anything is possible — not just possible it's easy. I could go on about this at length but let me just say, it's an important subject.

There are probably another half dozen reasons to use a prime lens but I can't think of 'em right now.

EEUK said:

I've attached one of my xmas test shots of the mutt, any observations and comments welcome - she's not for sale.

Click to expand...

Nice pic of your dog. I love dog pictures! I have three dogs. One of them isn't a very good model but two of them are, and I practice on them a lot. For some reason, dogs don't usually act as self conscious as people do.

Enjoy and have fun shooting.

Will

EEUK said:

EEUK wrote:

Hi,

I've just become the proud owner of an A57 with a couple of sony zoom lenses:

• 18-55mm F3.5-5.6
• 70-300mm F4.5-5.6

Its my first DSLR, having had a film SLR a good few years back that simply wasted away due to the sheer convenience of digital on the various point and clicks I've had.

Having read quite a few posting on here since xmas I'm just about starting to get my head around some of the language/abbreviations; long way to go I suspect.

There seems to be a lot of debate on here about technical spec's of lenses, one thing I've already noticed is that when I'm taking pics the camera is often setting the ISO a lot higher than I'd ever thought possible with film - I can never remember buying anything above ISO400 on film. I prefer taking pics without the built in flash as I tend to find it quite brash - any tips on that front welcome.

The kind of pictures I expect to take over the next 12 months or so will typically be portraits and perhaps some landscapes, as I've still got a little bit of xmas money left I've wondered whether to buy a prime lense - perhaps a Sony 85mm F2.8 SAM lens.

Will I notice much difference in the quality of output of a prime lense when compared to the zooms I have?

Btw, I expect to print a few images perhaps upto A4 size - maybe something larger when the new baby comes along

I've attached one of my xmas test shots of the mutt, any observations and comments welcome - she's not for sale.

thanks in advance!

Click to expand...

I just bought my first lens about 3 days ago, and it was the SAL35F18 prime.
Mate, a prime in my opinion is a must-have upgrade.

You're forced into thinking about your shots which gets really annoying at first, because you can't just zoom and frame, but when you finally get that first shot and you see it in it's glorious crispness and creamy DOF, you become addicted.
You just learn to appreciate photography so much more with a prime...

--
When people ask me whether I'm a photographer, I tell them that I'm more of a time artist. After all, my art is my ability to freeze time and capture a moment forever.

Thanks Greg, yep I can definitely understand that point. When you say....

Greg Gebhardt said:

Modern pro quality lenses are as short as most primes.

Click to expand...

are you referring to the physical size or is that a technical term?

EEUK said:

EEUK wrote:

EEUK said:

topstuff wrote:

Wire Haired Viszla?

They are THE most awesome dogs

Click to expand...

top marks!

Yes she is absolutely gorgeous - 14 months old. When I manage to get a picture of her on-point I'll be posting it on here. That is the most incredible sight to watch, totally natural and instinctive.

Click to expand...

A lovely dog. We have had smooth haired's for 16 years before old age took them.

Two years ago we got a Wirey one. He's crashed out on the rug in front of a log fire as I type this!

You have to have one in your life to realise what a remarkable breed they are. We are totally smitten.

Enjoy her.

thanks Will for the considered response. I'll probably come back to this a couple of times and have a good read as things sink in, points taken re: flash and like you say maybe that'll be another posting.

thanks Harry, when you say less noise.... is there something in my picture where I can see it?

FF (full frame) means the camera's sensor is the same size a a 35mm frame, around 36x24mm, while an APS-C sensor is around 24x16mm. The actual focal length of lenses remains the same for both systems, but APS-C appears to have a 1.5x magnification compared to FF. So your 18-55mm lens has the about the same field of view of a 28-80mm FF lens. For your A57 this means that you gain reach on the telephoto end, but lose on the wide angle lens.

As other people have stated, the 35mm f1.8 is a great lens and will give better quality images than the kit lens. The wider aperture will allow you to have more control over the depth of field in you photos.

You can see some noise in the black background. Not too bad, but visible.