# Lens question for the camera enthusiasts



## Mith (Sep 30, 2013)

So I'm currently using a Sony a230 DSLR, it was a Christmas present a few years back and I don't really have the money to upgrade yet. hat I'm wondering is what are the best value lenses I can get for it? Mainly wide angle and telephoto? I've looked at a few Tamron and Minolta lenses, but they have quite a few mixed reviews.

Bonus question, what would be the best gear for shooting at night? I'm not terribly impressed with the standard flash.


----------



## Foxbat (Sep 30, 2013)

I'm using a Canon 700D and a Sigma 10-20mm lens. It's a bit pricey (around £300)but worth the money.

As for night shots - depends on what you're after. I usually just use a tripod and very long exposures. If you want to use a flash, it might be worth thinking about one in conjunction with a reflector to control the light a bit more (or even an off-camera light source).


----------



## Mouse (Sep 30, 2013)

I have that exact camera, Mith. I have this lens Sigma 70-300mm: Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 Macro DG Lens For Sony Digital: Amazon.co.uk: Camera & Photo
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000B8T6DI/ref=oh_details_o09_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1


----------



## Foxbat (Sep 30, 2013)

That's a very nice price for that lens. Very good reviews too.
If you're looking for value, you won't get much better than that.


----------



## Mith (Sep 30, 2013)

Thanks for the responses you two 

I do have a pack of reflectors I bought just recently, fairly cheap ones off Amazon, not had chance to use yet though. My main problem with shooting at night is getting light trails off street lamps or car headlights. I have no idea if that's just down to the basic Sony lens provided though, hmm.

That could just be what I'm looking for, cheers Mouse 

Some of those top end lens prices are frightening though, it's going to be a long time before I'm forking out over a grand for lens!


----------



## Foxbat (Sep 30, 2013)

Mith said:


> Thanks for the responses you two
> 
> I do have a pack of reflectors I bought just recently, fairly cheap ones off Amazon, not had chance to use yet though. My main problem with shooting at night is getting light trails off street lamps or car headlights. I have no idea if that's just down to the basic Sony lens provided though, hmm.


I wouldn't think the lens is to blame. 

Not sure if you want  light trails or to get rid of them. If you want them, long exposure (I wouldn't use flash) on a tripod. If you don't want them, shorter exposure with flash and use a tripod (or pan as you shoot if it's a moving object). 

If using a tripod for longer shots, even activating the shutter can cause some shake so I would invest in a remote for your camera (mine only cost me £13 from Amazon). This will help immeasurably.


----------



## Mouse (Sep 30, 2013)

Mith said:


> That could just be what I'm looking for, cheers Mouse



It's a very nice lens. 

This is a pic I took with it on full whack, so you can see the quality.





I've not used it for a while, you've made me want to go and hunt out some squirrels!


----------



## The Ace (Sep 30, 2013)

The Luddite in me still cringes at electronic releases - I still remember the days when your shutter release was triggered by a simple cable that screwed in and was activated by a plunger.

Most Sony owners would trade their left  .....er......arm (yes, arm, honest!) for the Minolta 70-210mm, 'Beer Can,' but Sigma and Tamron have been in the business for a long time, and can generally be counted on.

I've never been happy with 18-200mm lenses or thereabouts - the weight and optical compromises of such lenses leave me cold.  Of course, I was a prime exponent of the,'Unholy Trinity,' 28, 50 and 135mm, probably before you were born.


----------



## Mirannan (Sep 30, 2013)

One way of eliminating light trails is to use a shorter exposure. It is possible that to do that, you may need to dial up the ASA rating; the tradeoff for that is more noise.

Another possibility for a static subject is to use multiple exposures of the same scene; I believe there is software that can add together several exposures to get something on the screen you can actually see.

You might and probably will get faint ghost images of the cars and lights responsible - but that kind of shot can actually be quite interesting.


----------



## Mith (Oct 1, 2013)

Mouse that's a great pic, I love all the detail on that  A good advertisement for that lens 

Thanks everyone for your advice, you've given me a few tips to consider


----------



## Mouse (Oct 1, 2013)

Cheers. You're welcome!


----------



## Overread (Oct 1, 2013)

Another consideration along with a lens is flash - whilst flash can seem scary a speedlite design flash can really give you a lot more freedom and a lot more versatility. If you get an affordable set of radio wireless triggers you can even get the flash off the camera and give you even more options to position and control the lighting. 

I've had good experiences with the Sigma lens Mouse linked to - and if you get the newer edition of it with the APO coatings (costs a bit more) then you'll get a slightly sharper shot - something you want at the 300mm end as all zooms weaken at their longest end and cheaper zooms more so. It's macro mode is really close up, but combined with the long focal length its actually very good for subjects like flowers and produces a great result.


----------



## Vertigo (Oct 1, 2013)

On the flash, it depends on what you are looking for; particularly what sort of range. Cheap flashes will typically only usefully reach 7-10m if you need more then you might be looking at something expensive like a Mecablitz (some of the best portable flashguns around - used to be standard kit for wedding photographers). Also if you are getting an external flash, seriously consider getting a side mount for it. Screws onto the base of the camera (like a tripod) and holds the flash to one side. Gives much better results than an over the top flash which is far more likely to give red eye. And whilst red eye is relatively easy to remove it's always best to not have it in the first place


----------

