Photography: Next lens after nifty fifty?
Beginner amateur photographer here (emphasis on the amateur - zero desire to monetize my photos or start a business). Several months ago I bought a Sony A6000 after doing some research on cameras for beginners. The camera was fine but to completely honest I wasn't very enthused with the pictures coming out.
Then I bought a 50 mm prime lens, and what a difference! Compared to the kit lenses, my photos started coming out the way I envisioned them. They say you should never blame the gear and while I agree with the general sentiment, photography became a lot more fun after acquiring my nifty fifty.
My question to all the photographers out there is, what next? For context, I mostly enjoy shooting people from close distances (1-5 m) away. However, a lot of my shots are of groups of people doing sports-like activities so when there's more than two people I have trouble capturing it all with my current setup. Any recommendations are much appreciated!
One thing to note is that the Sony A6000 has a crop factor of about 1.5, which means that you multiply the focal length of your lens by about 1.5 to get the "full frame" focal length. This means that your 50mm lens is more like a 75 mm lens on a full frame camera. It's not a perfect comparison but getting your head around crop factor is important when shopping for lenses.
When I was doing a lot of photography I enjoyed the 28-35 mm focal lengths, especially because they were smaller and made my camera more nimble and packable. You can get a lot more in with those focal lengths, but it does take a bit more practice in composition to get there.
Another note is that it's commonly believed that 85mm is the perfect portrait lens, so that 50mm is about as good as you can get for that on a DX sensor.
If anything, I'd suggest getting a 35mm prime so you can see what shooting at full frame 50mm is like.
So when people talk about a 50 mm being good for portraits, does that mean I should be using the 35 mm for an equivalent effect?
The conversion goes the other way actually-- a 50mm DX lens (the one you use) will emulate the effect of an 85mm full frame lens. A 35mm DX lens will emulate the effect of 50mm full frame lens.
50mm is ideal for portraits, but only on DX lenses. The 85mm lens is the optimal full frame spot for portraits. Going with a 35mm DX lens as your next will put you at the great workhorse spot for any occasion-- 50mm. I learned to shoot on a full frame 50mm prime. I did that for years before I switched to anything else for photography. You can literally use it for any purpose, and knowing that will allow you to get the best shots possible.
To give you a visual representation of why the DX/full frame sensors line up like that here is a visual representation of why it lines up like that. The DX sensor is smaller, so it does not capture as much information. If you try to use a DX lens on a camera with a full frame sensor you'll get a lot of vignetting.
A bit of theory on why 85mm is ideal for portraits would be that it's a focal length that compresses the background a bit more than 50mm (again, this is talking full frame), giving your subject a trimmer, more flattering appearance. Shorter focal lengths will tend toward rounding out your subject, which most people find unappealing in portraits. If you think about it in the extreme, a fisheye lens will be in the 10-12mm or lower range, and those, as the name implies, really make everything distorted outward in the circular shape of the lens.
There's a lot to know about photography, but you really shouldn't get too bogged down into all of it. Just go out and have fun. Making it a job changes the enjoyment factor of it. That's why I, largely, don't shoot weddings anymore and mostly just do landscapes.
At any rate, if you do have any other questions, feel free to ask. I've been shooting for a long time and have a degree in film. Happy to pass along all the knowledge I have accrued.
Thank you so much for the clear and comprehensive explanation! This beginner definitely learned a lot today thanks to you and everyone else here!
Come back to show us some shots soon!
Yes. As another example, my GH5, with a 2x crop factor, uses a 25mm lens for the "nifty fifty" focal length.
The reason that 50mm is popular for portraits is that 50mm is roughly the same focal length as our eyes, so it yields very natural-looking pictures. But your 75mm equivalent is also going to take awesome portraits, and you'll be able to get more interesting background compression than you would with a 50mm equivalent, i.e. a 35mm.
Here's an illustration of the difference
Keep in mind that different lengths will distort the way faces appear; longer lenses will "fill out" a face while shorter lenses will "shrink" the facial features as you perceive them. Generally speaking, I prefer to use longer lenses for portraits if I can, as finicky as they can be. My best portraits are shot outdoors from about 15 paces away.
I haven't done hobby photography for a long time, so take this all with a grain of salt.
It's actually the opposite. Longer focal lengths make faces appear thinner. Shorter focal lengths will fill out a face. A good way to remember that is to think of the effect of a fisheye lens-- lenses that are 12mm or lower. Those really give the fish bowl circular distortion that is unattractive in portraiture.
You are right! I fudged that one. Thank you for the correction.
Happens to the best of us.
Nah, thats more personal taste. 50mm was always a very cheap lens and a good all-rounder, thats part of why it's always used for portraits. Lots of people prefer 85mm for portraits and others like 35mm, 105mm, or 135. If you're liking the portraits with your lens then don't get another focal length just to get the proper portrait focal length.
This was going to be my suggestion as well. I use a GH5 and while lenses have come and gone over the years, the one I keep coming back to is my 17.5 (35mm equivalent).
I had no idea! I got lucky with my A6000 but I guess I should have done a bit more research before pulling the trigger. It looks like several people are advocating for that range so I'm going to start looking up specific Sony lenses in that zone.
Ansel Adams wrote a series of books called The Camera, The Negative and The Print. He wrote for film photography but I found the stuff he wrote to still be relevant to digital photography. I would recommend getting those books and reading through them to gain a better understanding of cameras, light, exposure, printing, etc. They're a great resource for a beginner photographer!
I would recommend looking at a longer focal length lens if you are interested in capturing sports-like activities. You can be farther away from the subject, but the depth of field will be different. However, it may be worth it if you are interested in capturing different scenes and subjects.
This is a 100mm Sony e-mount lens that I would recommend
It is relatively cheap and different enough from the 50mm you already have to give you some variation in the effects you can achieve.
Disclaimer, I am not a photography expert. I mostly do hobby video stuff, but I think some of the lens knowledge can translate to photography.
Agreed but I think a macro lens is probably a bad idea unless OP is interested in macro photography
I'm embarrassed to say I didn't even know what macro photography was before you started talking about it! Unfortunately I don't think it's in my wheelhouse right now. Most of the pictures I take are of things moving around so trying to get it all with a macro lens would be quite the feat.
No need to worry about it being called a macro lens. You can shoot anything with a macro lens, just like any other lens of the same focal length. They are often more expensive though.
A macro lens is only labeled such because of its close focusing ability. In all other regards, it's usually the same as any other telephoto lens. So I wouldn't necessarily disregard the lens if it's well reviewed. The advantage of having one is that you can use it just like a telephoto lens, but then do close up if you ever get the urge or are bored inside on a rainy day, win-win!
So refreshing to hear this. As an amatuer photographer myself, the amount of people online advocating for monetisation is ridiculous. The instragram influencer grindset makes me feel ill. Is it not enough to just quietly enjoy your hobby..? I don't want to be a fucking wedding photographer in my spare time haha.
Anywho, in terms of lenses, if you like photographing people up close I would suggest experimenting with widening your angle, dropping to something like the 23-28mm range - you will start to look for scenes as well as subjects. Check out the photography of Garry Winogrand for some nice examples of that particular focal length.
Thanks for the article! A lot of the photos there are so evocative and make you feel like you're a part of history. I particularly enjoyed this photograph of a protest that shows the subtle tension between the police and the protestors.
After spending way more time than I'd care to admit on exactly this topic for myself, the answer for you will most likely come down the answers to a few questions that you may not know until after you start. Budget, willingness to change out lenses, total size and weight you're willing to carry around, low light vs well lit venues. I've been reasonably happy with my 28, 50, & 70-300 f4-5.6 but if I had the money it would have been f2.8. This was on a Canon but should translate in general.
Consider going for a 23/24mm prime lens. It may last you a long time as it covers 80% of situations — so on your camera this focal length* will let you fit groups of 2-3 from a reasonable distance easily (including any outstretched limbs), and you can move in closer for portraits.
*Which is equivalent to shooting with a 35mm lens on a full-frame camera, a classic street photography length.
I like an ultrawide. My camera bag contains a 60mm (90mm full-frame equivalent) lens and a 12mm (18mm equiv), and just for kicks an 8mm fisheye. I don't use hyperzooms any more, just primes. They're so much sharper.
The 12mm Samyang is gorgeous for the amount it cost, which was about £250. It's manual focus but if you stop it down to f5.6 or so and set the focus just below infinity, it'll focus from about 2 metres to infinity just fine. For closer shots you do need to adjust it, but as a walk-round street lens, it's superb. It also does landscape and architecture nicely too. Mine is Fuji-X but I'm pretty sure they do an E-mount version.
The 8mm Samyang is insane but great fun. I wouldn't recommend getting it unless you really want to. It takes real care to get the best from it's ridiculous 180 degree fov, and you mostly can't fix things in post. But you can get some great pictures with it.
This is a good occasion to recycle and update a comment I once made in the fuji X subreddit. It was about someone who had the lens for a long time but didn't find much use, and was asking how to make him like that lens. So here you go:
I have the same-ish combination as /u/mat (12mm + Fuji X-T3). I can confirm it's very good.
According to the official page at Samyang website, there's a E-Mount (Sony) version, so you're golden. I'm also too lazy to upload my own pictures so here's some decent ones from flickr:
At 18mm (FF-equiv), the field of view make small space bigger and large spacer even larger. This (presumably) normal-sized room looks now like a palace.
Small objects at or near the foreground gets more attention, while large objects that have something in the foreground are now titan-like. Of course if you play with the perspective you can enlarge whatever you want.
The FOV is good for environmental portrait since there's so much free space beside the subject.
In landscape it's really handy when you trying to frame a big structure that's all around you
Also: it's a F/2, so it really gets a lot of light (have you seen that bulge ?). This is critically important for astrophoto where it can really shine (you may want to stack the photo to get the best milky way).
Lazy bonus: You can capture everyone around a table without moving from your chair. Hyperfocal distance in sufficiently lit areas (i.e where you have to go around f/8) is ridiculously short (1.37m), so it's super easy to eyeball the focus.
There's some very noticeable color fringing when shooting with too much light, but Lightroom handle it well. Unfortunately I switched to CaptureOne and it doesn't support it :/ (UPDATE: with CaptureOne 23 it can).
While my favorite lens is the 23mm f/2 (sometimes I wonder if i should get an X100), this 12mm is by far my second choice. I got it 2nd hand and I'm not the best at being careful with my equipment, but it still function flawlessly. It has no right to be that good with the price I paid (around 200 CHF).
I would say that if you're in a position to afford an X100 just for fun, absolutely get an X100 just for fun. The X100 is by far the most joyful camera I've ever used. It would never be my only camera, but as a little thing to throw in your pocket and take beautiful photos with, it's peerless. It's one of the "purest" photography experiences I've had ever (only a few film cameras compare, mostly the Lomo LC-A and a couple of Leica-like rangefinders), and certainly the most "pure" digital camera I've used. Once you get a feel for the controls it's just like part of your hand in a way that most cameras can't quite reach.
I adored my X100 but I couldn't keep it because it didn't work for my work stuff and I couldn't afford to just have one for fun at the time. I dearly love my current XE3 but it doesn't feel the same.
Now I'm thinking I should buy a used X100....
Yeah I should have left that part out. I has been nearly 3 years since I first wrote this and I don't think a X100 would fit into my current kit, practically of phyisically. Now if I had a X-Pro2 instead of the X-T3...
I wish Fuji would bring out an XE-5, I really like the XE form factor but I don't think we're going to see one any time soon. It's not like the XE-3 is missing all that much, and the XE-4 wasn't compelling enough to upgrade - but I would like to try a few of the new firmware features and film presets that are around nowadays.
A friend of mine has been shooting X-Pros since they came out and absolutely swears by them, but I find them a bit chunky. I have quite small hands.
I'm one of those users who has yet to get the most out of the 12mm Rokinon/Samyang. But in my case, it's not that I don't know what to shoot, it's that I have barely taken the 70-300mm off my camera since getting it :)
Honestly, just try out as many as you can to see what you like. It's quite a rabbit hole, but a fun one. I love lots of things about photography - the creativity, getting out and about, the relaxation of doing things slowly. etc. - but gear acquisition is still one of the fun parts. Don't feel guilty about it if you enjoy it!
How you go about trying lots of different lenses will depend on your budget. There's a strong second-hand market, rental places if you live near a big city, classifieds, friends, relatives, photography clubs...
I'm primarily into landscape photography, but I also like to do street photography, portraits, macro and abstract. So my kit includes 1 "walkabout" zoom (16-80mm), 1 telephoto zoom (70-300m), 1 wide angle (12mm) and 1 macro/portrait lens (60mm). This covers just about everything I want to shoot (not that it will stop me from buying more when I can afford to).
One final point: don't be afraid to try out the budget lenses from manufacturers like TTArtisans, 7Artisans, Meike, Pergear, etc. In many ways, you get what you pay for, but they can still be really fun and produce some excellent results. The fact they are often manual focus is also a good way to practice those old school skills. Don't be too obsessed with sharpness. People have been taking great photos since cameras were invented, which proves that sharpness is not a critical element of a good photo!
So I am also an amateur photographer with the one distinction that I prefer to shoot with film (I like the slow feedback loop more than digital but that’s a conversation for a different day).
I noticed that you complained about not being able to get the whole scene with sports-like events. This is also a favorite subject of mine! Specifically, I love shooting baseball games, ranging from my beer league softball team to the pros (albeit normally I’m shooting from much farther away, except when I have the chance to go to spring training where you can get seats very close to the field). Go Dodgers!
Besides recommending something with a smaller focal length, my advice is to not try to get everything, but try to anticipate the action and just grab pieces of what’s happening. Ideally you nab important pieces of the game but that can be very hard because the game moves fast! For example, look at the works of Robert Riger, one of the most famous sports photographer of all time. Most of his shots only feature a handful of players, and that allows him to really capture all the details and emotion of his subjects. You won’t get Sandy Koufax staring you down or Willie Mays losing his hat sliding into third if you try to get the other 9 (or more) guys on the field in the shot, too! Depending on how close you can get to the action, pick an appropriate focal length, then try to get a sufficiently fast lens depending on the lighting conditions of your sport. After that, it comes down to anticipating the action, trying to set up the photo ahead of time, and luck (maybe less luck depending on how fast your camera can shoot!)
My recommendation would be a telephoto lens with a low f-stop. I got a 70-200 F4L and I really enjoyed how it let me create a lot of compression in the length of the shot or get closer to the action without being in it. I even brought it to a few soccer games and enjoyed taking photos there. I love that lens. Then I had to get a lens that was better than the kit lens...
Agreed on 70-200mm. Even if you’re not looking to take action shots, it makes for great candid photography.
For close distances, I would echo what other people are saying about portrait lenses. However, for groups of people or just in general, I think it's quite nice to have a a wider angle lens. I've got a 28mm Rokkor that I really love shooting with. Wide angle lenses give more of a sense of depth to your photos, so I find that it's easier to think in more painterly terms of fore-middle-background.
honestly kit lenses are one of my universal exceptions to this rule
I have a Sony α7ii, I’ve taken some very nice pictures w/ the kit lens, which is lightweight and versatile, the real weakness it has is that the aperture doesn’t have many blades so spots of light in Bokeh look unpleasantly triangular, I think this looks worse combined with either RAW compression or JPEG compression.
I have a 100-300mm lens which is about as big as you can handhold but does well for sports photography, I hardly ever use the end of the range, I also have a 70-200mm lens which is busted and that may be a better choice.
I also have a 90mm macro lens which is good for portraits but also pictures of flowers and such.
I am a fan of wide angle lenses too and I have. a Zeiss zoom which is 16-35 mm, if I had to pick absolutely one lens it might be that, for years I had a Canon and a 20mm prime and never felt I needed another lens.
Instead of more lenses, you might consider getting a tripod and/or an off-camera flash.