Sony APS-C lens for women photography?

[SilverPrince]

Hello, I am a new photographer. I am photographing women. I am not 100% sure about the style yet.
CUrrently, I have Sony a6500 + portrait Sigma 56mm 1.4 lens.  THis is a great combo.

However, I am sure I will need photos of people with full height. And it seems that I need a wider lens.  (if i am not mistaken).

Also, sometimes, I do street photography - when I am passing by some interesting people and I need to quickly shoot an action scene.
So again, portrait lens does not seem to catch enough angle.

Can you recommend me something good for my purpose and not too expensive?

My friend recommended me to get Samyang/Rokinon 12mm. However, i heard the distortion could be quite high for people shooting.
Any thoughts?

Thanks a lot!

[GraphicDesign]

When you say 'not too expensive' what is your price range?  The kit lens in the right hands is a beast in its own right.  Sigma is coming out with a lens Sony E 16-55mm f/2.8 G Lens - $1398 - This baby is a BEAST, good quality glass.  

A good thing using a prime is you WILL learn composition, it's very possible to get full portrait with this 56mm however you will have to distance yourself but a photographer will move wherever necessary to capture the shot.  I do think the 35mm prime would have been a better choice.  35mm prime is a good versatile lens.

Provide a sample image of a portrait you've shot with the 56mm

[GraphicDesign]

I have found that using good form, making sure lighting is in check and a good understanding of the capabilities of the camera you are able to get GREAT photos even using the kit lens, however I am frothing at the mouth over this bad boy.  This is what i'd call 'the masters lens'

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[cymmgarcia]

Hi Graphic Design,

I'm current using the SAL1650F28 / LAEA1 combo on my a6500 which the new lens is probably a rehash of.

My copy is so sharp that it puts all my primes to shame. I bought my copy for $300.

Just something for you to consider before you shell out $1398 for the over-priced,

and probably rehashed e-mount version of this lens.  

[Pieter]

3 hours ago, cymmgarcia said:

I'm current using the SAL1650F28 / LAEA1 combo on my a6500 which the new lens is probably a rehash of.

Totally different optical design. Though the SAL 16-50 is good value for money, the SEL 16-55 is a state of the art optical design. The E-mount lens is designed for mirrorless camera's, the A-mount lens for cameras with a mirror box. I expect it to perform a whole lot better than the A-mount lens, but noone knows for sure until some proper reviews are published.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[SilverPrince]

Thank you guys!

I've got 2 kit lenses to play.. However, I usually put them on, look at the picture quality and then take them off and put my sigma 56 mm back.

 SEL 16-55 sounds like a great lens. However, it's quite pricey for me right now. 
So, with SAL1650F28 / LAEA1 combo... How does the AF work?  How fast is it? 

Also, I can't quite understand what happens with the focus mm for the A-lenses for E-mount camera?
Does it go from 16-50 to 24-75 for alpha 6500?

And is it generally a viable option - to get LAEA1 or similar converter + A-mount lens combo?

 

[Pieter]

7 hours ago, SilverPrince said:

I've got 2 kit lenses to play.. However, I usually put them on, look at the picture quality and then take them off and put my sigma 56 mm back.

The Sigma 56 f/1.4 is a remarkable lens! It pretty much stays glued to my a6500. I'm contemplating on the 16-55 f/2.8 myself but feel like in the end the pictures of the Sigma will be tremendously nicer and I'd still keep putting it back on the camera leaving the zoom to gather dust.

7 hours ago, SilverPrince said:

Also, I can't quite understand what happens with the focus mm for the A-lenses for E-mount camera?

Does it go from 16-50 to 24-75 for alpha 6500?

When do people stop asking these questions? Don't think about the focal length of the lens as a variable parameter. It's the sensor size that is a variable and affecting the field of view of the final image (and in a sense, the size of the image circle projected by the lens is too). Since you'll be using it on an APS-C sized sensor, the field of view will be equivalent to a 24-75 mm lens on a fullframe sensor. No focal length ever changes! Except of course when you turn the zoom ring of your zoom lens ?

Edited September 6, 2019 by Pieter

[Pieter]

To answer your original question, there's a trio of Sigma f/1.4 lenses of which your 56mm is one. The other two (16mm and 30mm) are also great. I think the 30mm will suit your needs very well. The 16mm lens may be too wide and it'll give a lot of perspective distortion when photopraphing people close to the edge of the frame (this is natural to wide-angle lenses).

I have the Sony-Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 which I find terrific, but arguably it's way overpriced (especially when compared to the Sigma lenses).

[Pieter]

23 hours ago, Pieter said:

When do people stop asking these questions?

That came out pretty blunt, I ment no disrespect to you @SilverPrince: I'm just amazed by the amount of confusion that whole equivalency-principle causes in general. If you've only ever used a camera with APS-C sized sensor, don't think of 'equivalent focal length': any 16mm lens you slap on your camera will give the same field of view. There's no such thing as 'this 16mm lens becomes 24mm'.

[GraphicDesign]

12 hours ago, Pieter said:

Sony-Zeiss 24mm f/1.8

That is a beast, I am thinking about adding it to my 'tool kit'  

[GraphicDesign]

2 hours ago, Pieter said:

That came out pretty blunt

Blunt is usually good, it teaches better than passivity  

[GraphicDesign]

I would like to do a photo competition with the Sony-Zeiss 24mm lens  I will use my trusty kit lens on my A6000 the 16-55mm 3.5-5.6 against the MAC DADDY Sony 24mm F/1.8 

All things being equal will be hard since I always make sure my lighting is on point otherwise I create good light - 

Jeremy Cowell McMahon 

[cymmgarcia]

On 9/7/2019 at 3:21 PM, Pieter said:

That came out pretty blunt, I ment no disrespect to you @SilverPrince: I'm just amazed by the amount of confusion that whole equivalency-principle causes in general. If you've only ever used a camera with APS-C sized sensor, don't think of 'equivalent focal length': any 16mm lens you slap on your camera will give the same field of view. There's no such thing as 'this 16mm lens becomes 24mm'.

Just to elaborate...All lenses MM is presented in Full Frame Equivalency.

What determines field of view is the crop factor of the camera sensor.

Sony APS-C has a crop factor of 1.5 so in this case 1.5  times 16mm gives a field of view of 24mm.

[cymmgarcia]

On 9/7/2019 at 3:22 PM, GraphicDesign said:

That is a beast, I am thinking about adding it to my 'tool kit'  

It is an absolute beast that gets plenty of mount time on my a6500.

The colors are punchy, images pop and it has very near macro performance for product photography!

[Pieter]

29 minutes ago, cymmgarcia said:

Just to elaborate...All lenses MM is presented in Full Frame Equivalency.

Nooo! You just added to the confusion! Please stop spreading this misconception. The fact that you happen to use FF-equivalence as a reference doesn't make it the Golden Standard. Look up the definition of focal length: sensor size has nothing to do with it. A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens, no matter what sensor you use.

Some cheap cameras put the FF-equivalent focal length on the lens, which is just wrong and confusing. People who know how to work with equivalence don't need this false information, people who don't know how to use equivalence don't care. For example: On the RX0 it says it has a 24mm lens, which is bullocks: it has an 8mm lens and a 1"-type sensor. People who know how to use equivalency will know a 1"-sensor has a crop-factor of about 3, so the camera has the same field of view as a 24mm lens on a fullframe sensor.

Edited September 9, 2019 by Pieter

[Photodog]

I have to agree with Pieter.  As I retired camera store owner myself or staff often explained that a "normal" lens on a 35mm camera was 50mm.  However a 2 1/4 medium format generally had an 80mm and likewise a 4 X 5 used a normal 135mm.  We never had the so called equivalence discussion.

Therefore a 50mm lens on the medium format 2 1/4 camera is a wide angle.  Also a 90mm on a 4 X 5 camera is a wide angle. 

As a "C" size sensor photographer I have no problem understanding what focal length to use.  I find new photographers to interchangeable lens cameras are often confused by all this equivalence BS.  Sue or Joe newbie are often confused by some well meaning friend, or stupid salesperson, when they are told things such as your 50mm lens is really a 75mm.  NO! a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens, basic physics. 

[SilverPrince]

Well, the whole focus distance vs crop factor thing is quite confusing.  It took me half a year to undestand and I am still not sure I grasp it fully. 
One or two sentence definitely do not usually help ?
My current understanding for portraits is that the best portrait lenses are 85 mm and more.  And 24 mm and less give distortion and have to be used quite carefully and definitely not very close to a person.
So... having a 56 mm, I understand that this is not the best portrait lens. I use it for portraits though. 
And unfortunately, some time the angle is just too close, as it is difficult to make a full or half-length portrait.
So my understanding is that I need around 30mm lens now. Or better yet 16-55 or 24-70 or some other zoom with good aperture when I have more money to spend for toys.

 

[Pieter]

In case you are still confused: focal length is a property of the lens. It is a fixed property. The field of view (or viewing angle if you will) of the resulting image depends on the sensor size the lens is used on: a smaller sensor takes a smaller crop of the projected image. The crop facor is the ratio between two different sensor sizes. A crop factor is therefore only relevant when comparing the expected field of view of a certain focal length when used on different sensor sizes. For practical uses, a crop factor of a certain sensor is generally related to the size of a fullframe (24 × 36 mm) sensor.

An 85 mm lens is indeed generally considered ideal for portraiture when used on a 24×36 mm sensor. An APS-C sensor has a width of 24 mm so it effectively takes a 66% (or 1/1.5) crop of the image compared to when the lens is used on a fullframe sensor. Your subject will thus seem larger in the final image. To get an image with the same field of view, you'll need to use a lens with a shorter focal length. Factoring in the relative crop ratio between an APS-C sensor and a fullframe sensor, that would be 85 / 1.5 = 56.7 mm. Your Sigma 56mm is therefore a great portraiture lens when used on an APS-C sensor. A 24 mm lens on a fullframe sensor is considered quite wide (and may give distorted faces), when used on an APS-C sensor it gives quite a 'normal' field of view.

But this is all really irrelevant technical stuff, especially when you only have and use cameras with the same sensor size: don't be bothered with crop factors or what is considered to be an 'ideal focal length'. In the end it comes down to your personal preference as an artist. If you like wacky distorted faces then go ahead and use that wide angle lens for portraiture. If you want full body shots, the 56mm will indeed generally be too narrow, especially when used indoors. When indoors I often use my Sony 24 mm f/1.8. The Sigma 30 mm f/1.4 is a nice alternative. A great convenience of a zoom lens however is that you can experiment a bit and try which focal length works well for you. Then one day buy a nice prime at that focal length.

Edited December 8, 2019 by Pieter