Reading mode: Light Dark

A stupid question really

Go to last post
S

Sagar S

New member
Messages
7
Reaction score
2
I have a slt a77 which i absolutely love.The lens that I use the maximum is the kit lens which is the 18-135 f3.5-5.6 Sam.
Recently during a visit to rajasthan I was trying to take some photos during a dance ritual in not very good light.Flash wasnt allowed.I was using aperture priority and keeping the aperture as low as allowed by the lens which in this case was 5.6.I was at a distance of about 25 feet because of which i couldn't use my 50 mm prime without cropping the image.
Sorry about the long rant I was wondering how much difference would have a fixed aperture lens like sigma 24-105 f/4 make in same condition.
Also if someone has used the two lens how good is the sigma in comparison with the sony.Is it really that good that it warrants an upgrade.
Thank you for reading my large post.Sorry about the length and grammer.
 
Sagar S said:
... 18-135 f3.5-5.6 ... I was using aperture priority and keeping the aperture as low as allowed by the lens which in this case was 5.6... I was wondering how much difference would have a fixed aperture lens like sigma 24-105 f/4 make in same condition.
Click to expand...
It would make one stop difference at the long end of each lens, so you could have used a shutter speed twice as fast at the same ISO. If you used flash for illumination, the difference in maximum subject distance would be about 1.4x. So instead of 25 feet, your subject could be 35 feet away for the same flash exposure.

Note that you would actually lose some lens speed at the extreme short ends: f/4 at 24mm vs. f/3.5 at 18mm. (But at 24mm, the 18-135 is probably f/4 as well.)
 
Last edited:
IF you are not shooting video... as it is a screw drive focus lens. (can shoot in MF to keep it quiet)

Another interesting option for this situation would be the old Minolta 100-200 F4.5

Ebay about $60...

It is not a close focus lens, 6ft is its close focus distance.

Its not quite a full stop faster than the F5.6. but it is a very compact telephoto lens that I have shot with at events where a larger lens doesn't work well.

--
K.E.H. >> Shooting between raindrops in WA<<
Don't Panic!.. these are just opinions... go take some pictures..
 
Last edited:
It is a good question: Perhaps the SAL-1650 F/2.8 would be a better lens for low light.

GaryG
 
Another possibility is the Minolta 28-135mm f4-4.5. It's an excellent lens and gives you as much reach as you 18-135mm. They go for between $200 and $300.

The main shortcoming is the minimum focusing distance - 5 feet.
 
BigGG said:
It is a good question: Perhaps the SAL-1650 F/2.8 would be a better lens for low light.
Click to expand...
An excellent choice! That lens can stave off needing a fast prime... but eventually you encounter a situation that needs something faster then f/2.8. The Sigma APS f/1.8 zoom comes to mind for zooms, or if 50mm prime is too long, the new(ish) APS Sigma 30/1.4 sounds like it would have been a perfect fit for the situation.

Most of the kit "super" zooms work well in daylight, but their weakness really shows when the sun goes down.
 
Sagar S said:
I have a slt a77 which i absolutely love.The lens that I use the maximum is the kit lens which is the 18-135 f3.5-5.6 Sam.
Recently during a visit to rajasthan I was trying to take some photos during a dance ritual in not very good light.Flash wasnt allowed.
Click to expand...
If flash is not allowed, I would suggest use a F2.8 lens.

and shoot raw + DXO Prime noise reduction, it can make the high ISO shoot looks better.
Sagar S said:
I was using aperture priority and keeping the aperture as low as allowed by the lens which in this case was 5.6.I was at a distance of about 25 feet because of which i couldn't use my 50 mm prime without cropping the image.
Click to expand...
Yes, 50mm is too short for this distance, 16-50mm F2.8 will not work also.

Unless you crop a lots.
Sagar S said:
Sorry about the long rant I was wondering how much difference would have a fixed aperture lens like sigma 24-105 f/4 make in same condition.
Click to expand...
You will get 1 stop improvement,

If you are using ISO6400 on F5.6 lens, then you can use ISO3200 on F4.0 lens

But if you want 2 stop improvement, then you need a F2.8 lens,

70-200 F2.8 is great, but it may be too heavy for travel.
 
Sagar S said:
I was using aperture priority and keeping the aperture as low as allowed by the lens which in this case was 5.6.I was at a distance of about 25 feet because of which i couldn't use my 50 mm prime without cropping the image.
Click to expand...
If the 50 was too long, you sound an excellent candidate for the Sony 35mm F1.8.
Second choice would be the Minolta 24mm F2.8 if you can source one.
Both are compact, light, excellent and extremely affordable.
With 24mp you should be able to do some light cropping with the 24mm.
 
Thank you all for taking out the time to reply.So its decided the next purchase i make will be the sigma. Thanks again.cheers.
 
My understanding of the original post was that the 50mm prime was too short, not too long so a 16-50 f/2.8 (Which is an excellent lens!) would have also been too short.

From the conditions described it sounds to me like a Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 would have been the perfect lens for the particular situation. One of the many 70-200 f/2.8 (Sony, Tamron, Sigma) also might have been a good choice for the situation. The problem with all of these f/2.8 telephoto lenses is that they are kind of expensive as well as pretty big and bulky. I would love to own one of these lenses but for the few times I would use one I can't justify the expense myself. I would have chosen the 50mm f/1.7 prime and cropped. 24 megapixels gives you a lot of room to crop and still have plenty of pixels left over for a sharp intermediate sized print (8x10 or even 11x16).

I would guess that a f/4.0 lens, while being a bit better than f/5.6, would not have given the desired results... which a f/2.8 probably would have.
 
Last edited:
There are two other choices: the Sony 24mm F2.0 Zeiss & the Sigma 35mm F/1.4 ART but they are more expensive. A cheaper alternative is the Sigma 30mm F/1.4 which is a pretty good lens.

GaryG
 
MikeInOr said:
My understanding of the original post was that the 50mm prime was too short, not too long so a 16-50 f/2.8 (Which is an excellent lens!) would have also been too short.

From the conditions described it sounds to me like a Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 would have been the perfect lens for the particular situation. One of the many 70-200 f/2.8 (Sony, Tamron, Sigma) also might have been a good choice for the situation. The problem with all of these f/2.8 telephoto lenses is that they are kind of expensive as well as pretty big and bulky. I would love to own one of these lenses but for the few times I would use one I can't justify the expense myself. I would have chosen the 50mm f/1.7 prime and cropped. 24 megapixels gives you a lot of room to crop and still have plenty of pixels left over for a sharp intermediate sized print (8x10 or even 11x16).

I would guess that a f/4.0 lens, while being a bit better than f/5.6, would not have given the desired results... which a f/2.8 probably would have.
Click to expand...
Then one day I bought the 70-200 G1 for 1500, used! I quickly found out that you get what you pay for. Also, once you have a great lens and see its results, you make use of it!

Not buying a quality lens, IMO, will cost you more in the long run because you will or may never be pleased with your results.

Save up, buy once and buy right! Even if that lens is on the shelf, its there for that "one time" and you will be glad it is!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top