I think I've finally decided on a camera set up!

"Anon" (tjsielsistneb)
11/06/2014 at 23:36 • Filed to: None

I'm going to buy a Sony Alpha a6000, a 19mm (28mm eqv. for street shooting and car photography), a 30mm (45mm eqv. for general use), a 60mm (90mm eqv. for portraits), and finally a manual focus 8mm Fish Eye (12 mm eqv. for long exposure astro photography. All for around $1400 which i think is pretty damn good considering I was originally planning to spend $1400 on a sony a7 for the body alone!

DISCUSSION (17)

Laird Andrew Neby Bradleigh > Anon
11/06/2014 at 23:41

Hmm.. a Sony Alpha 58 is only $640, can't you get that in the US?

Anon > Laird Andrew Neby Bradleigh
11/06/2014 at 23:45

The a6000 is pretty much the same thing in a smaller body minus the mirror. Also the viewfinder on the A6000 in over to the side which I like since I have a giant nose.

Laird Andrew Neby Bradleigh > Anon
11/06/2014 at 23:47

Ahh. I love the mirror, but if the A6000 is better for you I'd say "GO FOR IT" :)

D > Anon
11/07/2014 at 01:19

I may be wrong but I believe the reason people use 80mm's for portraits is because of some property a true 80mm focal length possesses (special type of blurred background or something). I don't think using a a 60mm-cropped-to-90mm setup delivers this effect, because it's not just the effective focal length—like I said it's something about true 80mm lenses. Like I said, I may be wrong but this is my belief.

ToyDeathbot > Anon
11/07/2014 at 02:17

I would actually go against getting the 3 Sigmas. It's probably better to shell out more money on the prime that you're going to use the most (i.e. the fifty eqiv or the wide) for the wide aperture and autofocus, and then just use old manual focus lenses for the stuff that you'll use less (it's cheaper and the image quality is sooooo much better). The A6000 is great for putting old lenses, and picking up average-ish lenses seems to be a wasted opportunity.

Happy Panda > ToyDeathbot
11/07/2014 at 02:39

Honestly the Sigma 30mm for Sony is really good. I know you can get lucky with buying older manual lenses, but I had great results with the 30mm.

Happy Panda > Anon
11/07/2014 at 02:43

I could send you my fisheye as well, I don't use it. It has been used maybe 5 times. It is the same as the Bower, just has the European branding (so says 'Walimex Pro').

ToyDeathbot > Happy Panda
11/07/2014 at 04:48

I'm just thinking that limit your aperture range is not a particularly good idea. For daytime use, it's fine, but once the sun is setting or you're indoors, an f/1.8 (or something around that region) is going to be way handier - where shutter speeds and ISO really matter. It's about balancing it out between all your lenses. The ones you use the most generally have a faster aperture/autofocus, and the ones you use the least can be slightly compromised. Otherwise, you might as well just get the standard f/2.8 zoom that most camera systems have (although Sony doesn't seem to want to make some!).

Stephen the Canuck > Anon
11/07/2014 at 08:36

Any particular reason for having so many primes? Three of those could be replaced with something like the Tamron 28-70 f/2.8.

Stephen the Canuck > D
11/07/2014 at 08:40

I think you're close, but there's more to it. From what I understand, full frame equivalent of 50mm is the closest to reproducing what the eye can see. Beyond that is where the focal lengths can really separate the subject from the background. Two of the most popular Canon lenses for portraits are the 85L and the 135L.

So the 60mm 90 equivalent would work fine for portraits.

Anon > ToyDeathbot
11/07/2014 at 09:29

Actually the sigmas are widely regarded to be the best primes for the E mount, the 60mm even beats the $1000 zeiss primes as far as the dxo sharpness raitings go. Sigma really has become like hyundai recently! They used to just make junk but now they make stuff that competes against the high end brands at a fraction of the price. Also 2.8 is a fine apature for me. However that being said, I am considering a canon fd f1.2 50mm for mad bokeh action!

Anon > Happy Panda
11/07/2014 at 09:33

If your serious my email's alex7302@gmail.com I'll send you my info!

Bryan doesn't drive a 1M > Anon
11/07/2014 at 11:44

That's a great setup, but you may want a slightly faster normal prime like the Sony 35/1.8. Depends on your favorite focal length, but it's super helpful to have at least one faster lens.

Kudos on ignoring full-frame, going mirrorless, and getting primes. I have that same Bower fisheye for m4/3 and it's addictive. Hard to get good results, but worth the effort.

ToyDeathbot > Anon
11/07/2014 at 16:24

Haha soinds like you know what you're doing then! I feared you just went an ordered the lenses according to price!

That FD 50mm 1.2 is legendary.

D > Stephen the Canuck
11/07/2014 at 16:28

Okay. But would you say it's true that the farther you get from 50mm, the more separation of background and subject you get? Which would be why using a 60mm for portraits is a step in the right direction but not ideal?

Stephen the Canuck > D
11/08/2014 at 04:27

I think it's mostly getting over the 50mm mark. You wouldn't want to go too long though because then you have to be stupidly far away to get the shot. That's why 55mm to 150mm is the usually used focal length. Lots of people will use the longer end of a 24-70 for portraits, or use a 70-200. I know the Canon 85L and 135L are loved for portraiture for the sharpness, clarity, and bokeh effect, not so much because they're of the specific focal length. The 60mm one he's talking about is 90mm equivalent, so it would work perfectly fine. A 50mm lens on a crop body works well for portraits.

Happy Panda > Anon
11/08/2014 at 14:41

I sent you an email. Cheers