Camera Labs

I am purchasing a Sony Alpha A900 in a couple of weeks, but having a dificult time deciding which lens I need. Do I have to buy several different lenses?
My camera will be used for Variety of Portraits and Macro.
Concert Photography - Indoor & Outdoor Evening(mostly low dim light)
& -Outdoor\Bright situations........3 to 10 feet away from the stage.

So, for the three, which do I choose to guarantee quality prints?
Zoom, Prime, Standard....OMGosh, I'm confused! lol

Help with this will be greatly appreciated!

Thanking you in advance,

ShellieArt

With the A900, most people go for the Zeiss 24-70mm f2.8 SSM. Sounds like that would cover most of your need.
By "macro" do you mean real 1:1 or just close-ups?
Sony 100mm macro or Sigma 90mm macro, Tamron 90mm macro are all well regarded. They would do portrait quite well too.

_________________
Alpha100+18-200, DSC HX-1, Epson 3880
Alpha900+VG CZ 16-35f2.8, 24-70f2.8,Sony 70-200G2.8 SSM 70-300G SSM, 100f2.8 macro, 135mmSTF, 1.4,2XTC
HVL-F58AMX4 HVL-F56AM Minolta 3600HS-D, AF50mm1.7 AF28-105xi3.5-4.5 Gitzo1541T Cullman Mag25 Ballhead,Kata 3n1-30 backpak

Farmer Dave,
Thank's for the quick response. Your choice is very helpful!

For macro, I was going for close up's.
So the 100mm will work for my macro and portraits? That will be great.

The other info below was a little confusing as I'm slowly learning lens facts. Can you gently explain what that is again...lol

The 24-70mm f/2.8 SSM would be MUCH better for portraits than the 100mm Macro. And the 100mm Macro would be much better for macro than the 24-70. If you're looking for a combination lens that will do both, you wont get anything as good as those 2 independently, not even close. The Minolta 100mm/Sony 100mm are both significantly better than the Tamron and Sigma macro counterparts. There are a huge slew of 24-70/28-75 f/2.8's that would do well. The Zeiss 24-70 of course being ideal, but also the most expensive.

Minolta also makes a 200mm f/4 Macro which is phenomenal, but very expensive and very very hard to find.

Perfect! Thank you soooo Much! I will definately consider that!

you could try a Minolta 70 -210 F4 for those times you can`t get close to the stage, or would like a longer shot with the crowd. i have one with the A200 and i am very happy with it. you can try Adorama on the web in their used section: Minolta autofocus lenses. be sure it is a Maxxum for compatability with the camera mount. if you use flash, set your camera to TTL.

i shoot a lot of dim light conditions at a reception hall and my main lens is a Sigma F2.8 - 4 28mm to 105mm. see if you can try one at the camera store or something similar maybe a 24mm -105mm.

by the way, a prime lens is usually better quaility than a zoom, but the focus length is fixed, so you can`t zoom in and out. it`s a consideration, since you are shooting live and the performers are moving around a lot.

5 things
1. It doesn't really seem like you know what you are talking about. Go research a bit before splurging on such an expensive camera that poor people dream they can have.

2. Seems like you need good ISO performance. In that case, the D700 or 5D mark ii will suit your needs much better.

3. Zoom lenses tend to have (GENERALLY) worse quality than primes because of the more glass elements that are required. Although the elements are smoothed out to be clear multiple times at the factory, there is some reflection in the elements that create uneven sharpness or color fringing.

Standard lenses are just prime lenses that are roughly equal the the field of view a human eye has (43mm on film and 28mm on digital)
although 50mm on film and 35mm on digital is more common.

4. If you are very serious into macro photography, you might want to purchase a tripod. Focusing at very close distances is like having a very long telephoto lens, the image will be wobbling EVERYWHERE hand held.

5. If you are interested in doing bug/ animal macro, I'd really suggest getting something in the 150mm range on 35mm format. I am not sure if Sony has anything past 100mm, but Sigma makes an excellent 150mm f/2.8 macro.

_________________
Samsung GX-10, , SA 18-55mm
Canon 5D Mark II, 40D, EF 17-40mm f/4 L, EF 24-105mm L IS, EF 50mm f/1.4

www.flickr.com/glxlr

Thank's for taking the time to help me out with choosing the right lens'.

Your advice was very helpful.

Yes, I may not really know what I am talking about, when it comes to lenes at times. That is exactly why I'm here,lol.
I do appreciate any help I can get.
As far as researching further on the SLR I want, I feel my choice will suit my needs.
I will be also making the backdrops for the bands behind them, which are very large and this requires a large mp.
Please tell me if I'm wrong....I was told I need at least 24 mp to get the job done.???
And hey....I'm poor, but I deserve to treat myself for a change..lol.
Thank's again!

Wasn't planning on replying to this post (because I agree with GLXLR first "thing"), but can I just say that, from your list of uses for the camera, a Nikon D700 would seem a better option. Get a couple of primes with it, done.

If you do choose to take the Sony road, and use the camera for the purposes you listed, get at least a 50mm f/1.4, Zeiss 85mm f/1.4, Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 and a standard zoom such as the Zeiss 24-70mm f/2.8.
You might want to look into a wide lens such as the 20mm f/2.8 and a 16mm f/2.8 fisheye.

But still, Nikon seems to better suit your wishes.

- Bjorn -

_________________
Street and documentary photographer | Google+ | Twitter | Blog | Tumblr

Leica M9-P (my article on Camera Labs) | Leica D-Lux 5 | 50mm Summilux

You can check out this link for details on print sizes, DPI & resolution:

http://www.bythom.com/printsizes.htm

I find the numbers a little conservative, but thats just a hunch and not based on any experiments I've done. You can also enlarge using software that will result in a much larger print with little or no artifacts. Since you also want good low light performance, I'd say spend some time looking at the 5d mkII as the low light is good (according to reviews I've read, I have neither of these cameras), and at 21mp, I can't imagine you wanting anymore. The only downside to the Canon might be continuous shooting speed, which might be handy during a live concert.

Just beware, full frame, large MP count comes at a price (Sony, Canon, Nikon, Whoever):

- You will need tons of storage. Both CF cards and hard drive.
- Your computer needs to have plenty of power unless you don't mind waiting 15 min. for a file to load in photoshop.
- Full frame lenses do cost more than "DT" only lenses.
- No built in flash on most of these cameras.
- Heavy as a mofo , up to 7 lbs in some cases with a high quality lens.

If you don't mind, what sizes are you typically hoping to print?

If you've never owned a DSLR before, maybe you probably shouldn't start off at such a high level. Maybe a D300 or 50D or A700 might be enough? You can still buy quality FF lenses, and upgrade after a couple of years, but not have to spend so much on a body until you know you really need that much (and can use cameras that tend to be a little more complicated)?

Also, maybe try renting for 1 week. See if you really need a 3000.00 camera.

You could also check here for some moral guidance (this is my struggle, not sure if it applies to you or not) http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/want-need-afford.shtml

_________________
I wish there was a way to randomly cycle through click-able thumbnails of my most recent images :'(

http://www.laroygreen.com (under construction)