Camera Nerds?

[AZRedhawk44]

I'm about to take ownership of my first decent quality camera, a Sony a6400 mirrorless.

I've owned a couple of Nikon CoolPix pocket cameras (14MP and 16MP) that I've been less than thrilled with, and a Kodak EasyShare bridge format camera that I was fairly happy with until its limited 7MP sensor just made it underwhelming compared to newer offerings that I never really chased.  So my camera stable is decidedly out of date and relatively low tier, and I just prioritized other things over a good camera, especially since it seemed they always wound up being out of date after 5 years no matter what.  Seems the pixel chase has slowed down finally and a digital camera might be a more reasonable long term investment, so here I am.

I never took Photography in high school, but I have a basic comprehension of F-stop, ISO sensitivity and shutter timing.  Between that and a willingness to apply myself to an entry level photography book I think I'll be able to make good use of this camera.

I bounced back and forth between ordering the camera body-only and going aftermarket for my first lens, or one of the kit lenses with it.  At one point I was dead-set on the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 lens over the kit 16-50 F3.5, but then the image stabilization in the kit lens won me over in spite of its slower F-stop.  So I have the kit 16-50 lens coming with the camera.  If I find it to be underwhelming, I can always order to the Sigma 17-50 F2.8 or go with Sigma's popular assortment of prime lenses(16, 30 and 56 each with F1.4), and only be out $100 for the kit lens.  And if I shoot any video or long exposure stills at all, a lens with OSS will still be valuable which Sigma doesn't offer in the Sony a series.

So my question to any of you photographers out there, is what should my priority be for lenses?

I'm gearing up for a motorcycle trip to the Arctic Circle if Canada ever reopens their border for a summer again.  Ideally I'd like a glorious shot of a grizzly bear where you can see the breeze manipulating its fur.  And not be eaten afterwards. 

Doing some back of the envelope math and assuming a griz is 7-8 feet long, Sony's 55-210mm OSS stabilized telephoto lens has an angle of view of 7.8 degrees at 210mm.  One degree is about 5 feet at 100 yards, so our 7.5 foot griz will consume 1.5 degrees of a 7.8 degree field of view, or 1/5 of the image.  I'm not particularly keen on being 100 yards away from a creature that can cover that distance at 30mph or 44 feet per second, or roughly 8-9 seconds.  I don't think the Sony 55-210 is going to be able to yield the shot I want, and neither will their 18-135 obviously.  Any reasonably affordable recommendations for a lens that can take a good picture of such a scenario from 100+ yards?

I'm leaning heavily towards picking up Sigma's 16mm F1.4 prime lens, I think it'd be great for landscapes and close portrait type work (obviously not for the fantasized bear shot).  But I probably won't purchase a prime lens until I play with the kit lens for a bit and decide what length(s?) I like best.

What's your critical lens inventory?

[JTHunter]

As a former wedding photographer who used 35mm film, not digital, my help will be limited.
On my Contax/Yashica camera, a "normal prime" lens was 50-55mm as that was what approximated the field of view (fov) of the human eye. If the Sigma lens you mentioned (17-50mm) follows that standard, you would be going from a rather strong "wide angle" to "normal".  The same applies to that kit lens.  Under 28mm causes distortion at the edges of the FOV but is good for broad landscape views.
The lens I used most frequently was a Tokina 35-135mm F2 as I could zoom in for good close-ups without getting in peoples way.  For personal use, I had a Tamron 70-210mm F2.8 as well as a "doubler".  That allowed me to boost it to just over 400mm but I lost 1-2 f-stops.  If you want a good shot of a bear - ANY bear - distance is your friend.  The bears, wolves, bison, and elk will behave normally (desirable) and not be skittish or aggressive.  If you can find a decently priced lens that will give you a MAX of at least 250mm (I remember some 50-250mm zooms years ago), your animal photos will be better  - and safer.  IIRC, there used to be a 100-300mm lens years ago that would be great as you could zoom in (300) on animals and back off for flowers, plants, "head & shoulder" portraits (100).
Prime lenses are nice but not really needed anymore.  While F3.5 in that kit lens is rather slow, the likelihood of needing the other end (F22) is even less likely.  You will fine a greater need for a lens that can get clear pictures in low light while being held in your hands.  That's why I liked that Tokina F2 so much.  The 50mm F1.7 prime that came on the camera was almost never used.  I did use it a few times when I used it on a bellows to get extreme close-ups of certain insects or flowers.  I also had a 28mm F1.4 prime that got more use (landscapes) than the 50mm lens.
AND GET A GOOD TRIPOD that gives you multiple ways to mount your camera AND raise and lower it at different angles.  You will need the steadiness for those "low light" shots with that F3.5 lens.
You mention using a motorcycle.  Will you also be hauling a "tow-behind" trailer?  If so, you might want to wrap the camera in your sleeping bag for extra protection.  Vibration is no friend to electronics.
One HUGE advantage of digital over film is the immediate viewing of what you just took.  It gives you the opportunity to adjust your depth of field by changing your f-stop, focal length, even your ISO.
Good shooting !

[castle key]

One of the problems you're facing is that you are beginning a trek towards a forced dedication to a specific manufacturer, in this case Sony.

Sony makes some tremendous camera stuff. Their bodies are fantastic and the glass is generally quite good. When you select a lens, see if it will function on a "better" body if you decide later to upgrade the body. The glass is far more important than the body.

For lens selection, you need to think about what subjects you will be shooting and what sort of budget you can do. If you want to shoot bears and not have them eat you, you will need a pretty hefty long telephoto or zoom.

I like Sigma a lot. I don't love Sigma, but they have some darn good stuff at reasonable prices. For wildlife, I would strongly consider the Sigma 150-600. It's a bit slow at 5-6.3 but it's just a bit over $1000. Darn good for the money. I have that lens with a Nikon mount and I used it a lot. I upgraded to a Nikon 200-500 and prefer that.

I pretty much use only the 200-500 since most of my stuff is wildlife. The Sigma will work with a 1.4 converter and you only lose about one stop. Any beefier a converter will pretty much screw you up. My dream lens is the Nikon 800 fixed, but it costs about $18,000, which is kinda steep!

For new camera stuff, stick with BH or Adorama. They both sell the same things at the same prices, which are good prices, and the service is excellent. I prefer BH because their service is slightly better, and unlike Adorama, they don't crush you with emails all of the time once you make a purchase. You should strongly consider used lenses, but only from one source, KEH. KEH sells quality stuff that is well checked out and will not be a knockoff or grey market item. I would steer clear of any used place other than KEH.

DO NOT buy anything from Abe's of Maine. They have better prices, but they sell only grey market stuff and you have no warranty... and they aren't even in Maine!

The best camera is the one you have available.

[zxcvbob]

What size sensor?  I have a mirrorless micro 4/3 camera, (Olympus) and a 50mm lens acts like what you'd expect from a 100mm.  A normal lens is about 24mm.  I have a mix of Panasonic and Olympus lenses; I think the Panasonics are made by Leica, but I don't remember.  If yours has a 35mm sensor, then lens focal lengths will be what you expect.

[RoadKingLarry]

It's hard to beat a good piece of glass!
Your lens choice is maybe as, if not more, important than the camera body you buy. When you decide on a brand you are deciding on more than just the camera body. You are choosing a lens mount system, make sure what you pick has upward compatibility if the camera brand has different tiers. Canon has the EF (full frame) and EF-S (crop frame) EF lenses work with EF-S bodies but EF-S lenses don't work with EF bodies. I don't know if the Sony Mirrorless does a similar system. With my EF lenses I can "upgrade" to a full frame body if I wanted to and still use my EF lenses.
As mentioned above while primes were the top of the heap in the days when film was king, today's good modern zoom lenses are very nearly as good and unless you are planning on going pro probably aren't worth the extra $$$.  At the consumer/prosumer level any of the good brands will serve you well. Sigma makes good stuff.
I'm also a big fan of B&H, I've never had a problem with them.

Of course my personal opinion is that all this digital crap is just a fad and if you're not shooting large format 4x5 or bigger film you're just wasting your time.

[zxcvbob]

AND GET A GOOD TRIPOD that gives you multiple ways to mount your camera AND raise and lower it at different angles.  You will need the steadiness for those "low light" shots with that F3.5 lens.

I would never discourage someone from getting a tripod, but with a modern digital camera you might not need it.  The image stabilization is very good and you can shoot handheld at slower shutter speeds.

[AZRedhawk44]

AND GET A GOOD TRIPOD that gives you multiple ways to mount your camera AND raise and lower it at different angles.  You will need the steadiness for those "low light" shots with that F3.5 lens.
You mention using a motorcycle.  Will you also be hauling a "tow-behind" trailer? 

I've got a cheap full height tripod, as well as a little one with 9" legs.  Was thinking I might look into some sort of monopod for the trip, though I can always use a tripod as a monopod with only one leg extended but I can't trick a monopod into being a tripod.  Definitely going to need a tripod for the long wildlife shots, even with OSS (no IBIS on the a6400 but even with both IBIS and OSS, a handheld shot with a heavy 300mm+ lens at a 100+ yard target is not going to be easy).

The moto is going to be my 2013 Triumph Tiger 800XC.  Mosko 35L soft saddlebags left and right, and probably a locking Seahorse case or proper top case on the tail rack.  I'll wrap the camera in its soft case and with a blanket or towel around it and it will go in the Seahorse case.  I really don't like the Givi "UFO" look of most top cases and prefer how the Seahorse case looks.  Most of the time I have a Mosko BC30 tail bag on the bike rather than the Seahorse case, but for a long ride like that I want at least one locking compartment.

No trailer.  Just the two 35L side bags, the Seahorse case, and if really needed, then one more duffel bag across the pillion seat (though I'd prefer not).  Last big trip I took around the lower 48, I did on a Honda Shadow 750 with much smaller saddlebags but a very large tail bag, and I even had my work laptop with me though I didn't have extensive camera gear (I think I got by with just my cell phone camera and the Kodak bridge camera I mentioned earlier).  Lived off it for 6 weeks.

I really dislike tank bags, but I may suck it up and get one just to keep the camera rapidly accessible for the trip.  There's less padding there for countering vibration, but this is a Triumph Triple, not a thumper or a HD V-twin.  Glass-smooth engine, customized suspension.

[Ben]

Castle Key and RKL made good points. The body is just the body. Invest in glass.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news on the bear (get it?  ) but 200mm is not going to cut it. Wildlife lenses are generally big lenses. I have a Nikon D300s, and my primary lens is the Nikon 18-200. It's an excellent lens for all around use, but for wildlife, I almost always go to my Sigma DG 150-500, and often that's not enough if you want "portrait" type shots of animals. They are big, heavy, expensive lenses. For a close up of a bear from far away though, it's the big expensive lens, or maybe a doubler, but with a much less sharp image. Also note that when you hit the max zoom, you lose some sharpness, so a 500mm lens will be sharper around 400 than 500.

Below are some examples if it helps you. Some of them I took years ago, so I'm doing distance from memory, but they should be pretty close. Images are greatly reduced in size for posting.


Pelicans at 200mm and probably 50 yards:




Squirrel at 200mm and ~25 yards:




Heron at 450mm and ~75 yards:




Dolphin at 500mm and ~100-125 yards:

[castle key]

Don't get a cheap/flimsy tripod. If you have a bunch of cash sitting atop a flimsy tripod, you will likely need to upgrade your body and lens sooner than expected!

Also, a gimbal head is a game changer.

Unfortunately, this stuff isn't cheap. This is what I have.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1086836-REG/jobu_design_tcf_36_algonquin_carbon_fiber_tripod.html

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/682023-REG/Jobu_Design_BWG_J3K_BWG_J3K_Jobu_Jr_3_Gimbal.html

[AZRedhawk44]

Been lens researching a lot today and came across the Tamron B061, an 18-300mm F3.5-6.3 with vibration compensation.  New lens, good reviews so far, priced at $700.  Aimed square at the traveler looking for a do it all lens.

I'm going to dive into the Sony SEL70350G next, a 70-350mm F4.5-6.3 OSS lens.  At $1000 it's a bit more than the Tamron, and purpose built to longer focal ranges so would require pairing with a shorter lens for the trip, but also offers a smaller angle of view and native OSS rather than Tamron's VC.  Supposedly the Tamron is a bit battery hungry, but that may just be a function of the reviewer comparing it to smaller/lighter Sony OSS lenses that require less power to move their elements.  Sony's G class lenses are supposed to be their best.

I'll look at the Sigma DG 150-500 after that, I think. 

[T.O.M.]

About 2 1/2 years ago, I dove into photography as a hobby, upgrading from relatively cheap point and shoot cameras to a Canon T6i DSLR.  It came with a low end 55-75 mm.  I bought a fixed length 50 mm famous in Canon circles as the Nifty 50.  I also bought a 50-250 mm zoom lens.  I'm not doing long range shots.  I also bought a speed flash with variable angle head, which is almost required for good people shots.  Other gear I bought and actually used was an aluminum monopod.  I move too much for a tripod.  I bought a sling style camera strap, which I very much appreciate.  I bought some UV filters, mainly to protect the lenses.  I bought the Canon battery/grip adapter which adds a second battery, meaning I can go a whole day without a battery change.  SD cards.  And a backpack for it all.  I am considering a macro lense.

[Bogie]

I have one of these, with a cheap ball head. Not my ebay listing, just for info.
 
Sometimes people find it hard to articulate, but...
 
(I've done everything from feature photo stuff to weddings to sports to portraits to forensic...)

https://www.ebay.com/itm/133896123241?chn=ps&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&mkcid=2&itemid=133896123241&targetid=1263433206934&device=c&mktype=&googleloc=9022871&poi=&campaignid=14859008593&mkgroupid=130497710760&rlsatarget=pla-1263433206934&abcId=9300678&merchantid=114715260&gclid=Cj0KCQiA4b2MBhD2ARIsAIrcB-T0PmoWKqjafYOmaz3HWHKvIoFoQMfI-L6JQaNB_mXiQ3nmAMNUIn8aAsDJEALw_wcB

[AZRedhawk44]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news on the bear (get it?  ) but 200mm is not going to cut it. Wildlife lenses are generally big lenses. I have a Nikon D300s, and my primary lens is the Nikon 18-200. It's an excellent lens for all around use, but for wildlife, I almost always go to my Sigma DG 150-500, and often that's not enough if you want "portrait" type shots of animals. They are big, heavy, expensive lenses. For a close up of a bear from far away though, it's the big expensive lens, or maybe a doubler, but with a much less sharp image. Also note that when you hit the max zoom, you lose some sharpness, so a 500mm lens will be sharper around 400 than 500.

So evidently all APS-C lenses are effectively 50% longer on the 35mm scale than comparable lenses.  I'm still struggling to wrap my head around the why of that, but an APS-C 55-210 is actually more like a 35mm 80-320.  So if I get an APS-C E-frame lens around 300 or 350mm, it's going to be on par with a 450-500mm focal length on 35mm scale.  As for what that will do to detail compared to a 35mm scale camera with a matching scaled focal length lens, I've yet to find out.

[Ben]

So evidently all APS-C lenses are effectively 50% longer on the 35mm scale than comparable lenses.  I'm still struggling to wrap my head around the why of that, but an APS-C 55-210 is actually more like a 35mm 80-320.  So if I get an APS-C E-frame lens around 300 or 350mm, it's going to be on par with a 450-500mm focal length on 35mm scale.  As for what that will do to detail compared to a 35mm scale camera with a matching scaled focal length lens, I've yet to find out.

Here's a quick rundown:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/crop_sensor_cameras_and_lenses.html

Also, the Nikon D300 is an APS-C camera, so the images I posted still relate to the Sony you are looking at.

[Ben]

Oh, and this stupid dumbdummydumbdumb thread now has me looking at Nikon bodies, dammit! 

I love my D300s body, and forked over the dough for it at the time because besides the excellent photographic features for the time, especially for outdoor photography, it was as benproof of a camera as you could get back then. These current bodies have some pretty amazing features, with what looks to be the current equivalent tier going for less ducats than I paid for the D300 body.

[Bogie]

This guy is the "rev up your engines" of camera reviews...
 
https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/reviews.htm

[AZRedhawk44]

This guy is the "rev up your engines" of camera reviews...
 
https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/reviews.htm

I've been devouring a channel on Youtube by a fellow going by Arthur R.  Incredibly informative, I've probably watched a dozen of his Sony APS-C comparisons and various lens reviews so far.

https://www.youtube.com/c/ArthurR

Definitely an accomplished photographer, but he doesn't totally take a dump on the Sony 16-50 kit lens like many do.  He clearly illustrates its shortcomings while also indicating he will often take it with him on vacations and such.  Is a die-hard proponent of the "Sigma Trio" F1.4 lenses, but he treasures his so much that he opts to take different lenses on trips for fear of losing them or for increased utility and compactness of a single zoom vs 3 special purpose lenses.  He's definitely not a telephoto guy though.

I think he has me likely to be buying a few full-manual prime lenses in the near future, to experiment with prior to committing to a higher tier automatic prime lens.  I dunno.  We'll see what happens with the kit lens.

Was SWMBO's birthday today and we went to the Boyce Thompson Arboretum here in AZ, on the edge of a town called Superior, at her request.  Wish I had the A6400 earlier today, even with the kit lens only.

[Brad Johnson]

Late to the party but very much agree with those above who endorse putting your money in glass. When I first got into photography I made the mistake that every other newb makes... putting all my money in the camera body and slapping on cheap glass.

Also, primes are so very nice, but also very limiting in ways that may have significance for your bulk and weight considerations. Locking yourself to a single focal length necessitates even more lenses to cover the wide angle and distance shots you'll invariably want to make. A few extra bucks in a premium IS zoom gives far more versatility with little, if any, discernable change in image quality.

I used to have a whole bag full of lenses, most of which got used maybe once a year. I paid a fortune for a 50mm prime that I might have used five or six times. I ended up liquidating the lot and getting two f/2.8 L-series Canons, a 24-70 and a 70-200. Those two, along with a 1.4x extender, cover all but the most esoteric needs. I keep the original kit lens for when I want a walkaround camera with better image quality than my phone, but sans the weight of my better lenses.

Get a couple of good IR filters for each lens. They don't do much in terms of optical performance but they're cheap insurance. Dork up a $30 filter? No problem. Spin on another one. Beats the hell out of scratching up the optics on a high-dollar lens. Also, polarizer. These little miracle-makers are a must for landscapes. They also let you dial out the sheen from oily skin and makeup for head shots.

Christopher Frost has a huge library of lens reviews from super cheap to ultra lux. Good resource.

https://www.youtube.com/user/christopherfrost

Brad

[AZRedhawk44]

Will do with the filters, once I decide on appropriate lenses.  Seems it might be a good idea to try and get lenses with the same filter thread if possible.

Ogling offerings some more today, I'm considering the following, in no real prioritized order:
1.  Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN, as a faster do-it-all replacement for the kit lens
2.  Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 DG DN, as a faster-do-it-all replacement for the kit lens with a little longer focal range
3.  Tamron 28-200mm F/2.8-5.6 Di III RXD, as a faster replacement for the kit lens at 28-50 lengths, and a swiss army low telephoto capability
4.  Tamron 70-300mm F/4.5-6.3 Di III RXD, as a potential telephoto, it offers no redundancy to the kit lens, it would be only if I'm very pleased with the kit lens
5.  Tamron 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di III-A VC VXD, as a potential jack of all trades, but it's going to be limited in low light

None of these are going to be that amazing telephoto lens I'm after, just leading contenders for my first purchase after playing with the kit lens.  Depending on satisfaction with the kit lens, the purchase may be right away later this week or perhaps after the Christmas sale rush is over.  I'm hoping I can be at least somewhat pleased with the kit lens so it can take over the 16-30mm range and I can be enticed into the Sigma 28-70 or Tamron 28-200.  I definitely think I want something with a more open aperture for lower light.  Probably the smartest money is on the Tamron 28-200, since it gives me F/2.8 to experiment with at low focal length, and 200mm should give me enough length to experiment with in AZ and find out what I need for my big critter shooting up north.

[zxcvbob]

Will do with the filters, once I decide on appropriate lenses.  Seems it might be a good idea to try and get lenses with the same filter thread if possible.

Ogling offerings some more today, I'm considering the following, in no real prioritized order:
1.  Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN, as a faster do-it-all replacement for the kit lens
2.  Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 DG DN, as a faster-do-it-all replacement for the kit lens with a little longer focal range
3.  Tamron 28-200mm F/2.8-5.6 Di III RXD, as a faster replacement for the kit lens at 28-50 lengths, and a swiss army low telephoto capability
4.  Tamron 70-300mm F/4.5-6.3 Di III RXD, as a potential telephoto, it offers no redundancy to the kit lens, it would be only if I'm very pleased with the kit lens
5.  Tamron 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di III-A VC VXD, as a potential jack of all trades, but it's going to be limited in low light

None of these are going to be that amazing telephoto lens I'm after, just leading contenders for my first purchase after playing with the kit lens.  Depending on satisfaction with the kit lens, the purchase may be right away later this week or perhaps after the Christmas sale rush is over.  I'm hoping I can be at least somewhat pleased with the kit lens so it can take over the 16-30mm range and I can be enticed into the Sigma 28-70 or Tamron 28-200.  I definitely think I want something with a more open aperture for lower light.  Probably the smartest money is on the Tamron 28-200, since it gives me F/2.8 to experiment with at low focal length, and 200mm should give me enough length to experiment with in AZ and find out what I need for my big critter shooting up north.

Just remember if you have a very good image at a not long enough focal length, you can crop it to get more magnification.  Your camera may even have a button to 2x or 1.4x that automatically.  You lose resolution, but you probably have res to spare.

Your 28-70 will end up your goto lens for almost everything except long shots

[JTHunter]

Ben - those are some great shots !

AZ - that tripod Bogie links to is very similar to the one of mine I mentioned earlier.  Having that arm that can "cantilever" out to the side makes it easier to get some of those close-ups, especially if you use a "cable release".  You can use the self-timer but that might take the picture just as a cloud covers the sun, affecting your shot.  With the release, you can watch the light on the subject and also keep an eye open for wind gusts that can shake the entire rig.

[AZRedhawk44]

You should strongly consider used lenses, but only from one source, KEH. KEH sells quality stuff that is well checked out and will not be a knockoff or grey market item. I would steer clear of any used place other than KEH.

DO NOT buy anything from Abe's of Maine. They have better prices, but they sell only grey market stuff and you have no warranty... and they aren't even in Maine!

Thank you for this bit, castle key.

I came across KEH from another youtube channel and your comment above stuck in my head as I was cross referencing new prices of KEH used gear on Amazon, and came across a Sony 55-210mm that was somehow branded "AOM" and cost considerably less than another 55-210 listed on the Sony store on Amazon.  Running through reviews I saw "Abes of Maine" responding to questions, but a lot of customer complaints that the lens just didn't hold up compared to friends that owned the same model.

Seems like AOM is an importer of Chinesium knockoffs or something like that.

[castle key]

I would also consider used from BH or Adorama, but their used prices aren't as good as KEH.

[AZRedhawk44]

I ordered the Sony 55-210mm OSS f/4.5-6.3 lens last night from KEH.  Used, with shipping, was under $200.  I should have it before Thanksgiving weekend, which will be great because traditionally we eschew Black Friday shopping and go out hiking or do something else outdoors instead.

I figure over turkey weekend, I will go out and stalk the Salt River horses with the 55-210 lens to get a good feel how 200mm frames large animals at distance, which will ultimately inform my nicer telephoto lens choice.  If I don't like the lens I return it to KEH, or re-sell it through them or some other means.  At $200 most of its depreciation is now gone compared to new price.

[Ben]

I figure over turkey weekend, I will go out and stalk the Salt River horses with the 55-210 lens to get a good feel how 200mm frames large animals at distance,

As someone else mentioned above, remember that cropping is your friend for bringing those animals in "closer", at least within the resolution of your camera.