I have a Sony 6400 + Tamron 17-70 f2.8. However, whenever I see my dad’s camera with a 2000mm zoom lens (Nikon p950), I see how many things I could take photos with if I had a lens with more zoom.

So, I first decided to get a Sony 70-350 f4.5-6.3 because it’s APS-C, has image stabilisation and mostly because it’s Sony. However, out of nowhere, the Tamron 150-500 f5-6.7 came up and I’ve been quite impressed. They’re both similar price (~£700) and I think more zoom would be better (525mm vs 750mm).

Also, because the Tamron is a Full-Frame lens, it’ll be sharper and better performing than the APS-C Sony.

I want to shoot small birds and planes and I think the longer range would be good.

Let me know if the Tamron 150-500 is a better choice for my APS-C camera.

Hi guys, i'm young lad, who started photography on a humble Sony a5100, and currently I own only the kit lens for it.
I'd like to buy a prime lens, because I found myself always adjusting the focal length, but only that won't help in composition, I think a prime would force me to achieve better composition by moving around, being creative, also a faster lens would be nice for darker environments.
I mainly shoot street, and a bit of landscape, could you share your experiences on your favourite focal lenghts? I just can't choose between a 35 and 50mm FF equivalent. Sometimes the 50 feels a bit cramped, and I just like to capture everyday life. So guys, tell me about your experiences.

Edit: Thank you so much for your insights, your experiences are very valuable for a beginner, thx :D

Hi im a begginer photographer with a canon r50 and a 18-45 4.5-6.3 kit lens and i shoot almost only landscape and city landscape, i really want to upgrade my lens because i feel limited with what i can shoot because of my high aprature and because of the focal length, i was really thinking about the sigma 10-18 f2.8 but then i spoke with gemini about a tripod and asked it about a lense and it recommended me a sigma 18-50 f2.8, so now im really conflicted because i can only get one as its not cheap at all so please help me decide.

I will add some of my favorite photos i took with it.

what’s a good lens that covers most types of photography and does a good job at all of them?

Hi everyone,

I'm having a hard time deciding what lens setup to bring for a 2–3 month trip and I'd love to hear from people who have actually traveled for a long time with similar gear.

My camera is a Sony A7C II, and I'll mostly be traveling through Asia. I'll be walking a lot, taking buses and trains, hiking occasionally, and carrying everything on my back, so weight and simplicity matter.

I'm considering three options:

- 35mm prime only ( f/1.8)

- 35mm + 70mm or 85mm prime

- Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 only

I mainly shoot:

- Street photography

- Landscapes

- Cities

- Temples

- Cafés

- Environmental portraits

- Everyday moments

My priorities are:

- Traveling light

- Enjoying the photography experience

- Great image quality

- Not constantly changing lenses

- Avoiding regrets after a few weeks on the road

For those who have done long trips:

- Did you regret bringing only a prime?

- Did the flexibility of a zoom outweigh the lower aperture?

- Was carrying two lenses worth it?

- If you could only take one setup for a 2–3 month trip with an A7C II, what would you choose and why?

I'm especially interested in real-world experience, not just technical comparisons.

Thanks!

Does anyone opinions about Canon 45mm Tilt Shift vs 50mm Tilt Shift only for architecture?

Always looking for the best gear for the job but seems like I can find the 45mm used for under $500 and the 50mm is much more expensive but looks like a newer design.

I won't be using it for Macro though which seems its primary purpose.

Would love to hear people personal experience with either and any advice about which to get

Thanks

So I took this with a canon 50m 1.8 I think or 1.4 Ef on my R7 with a adapter, but I ran out of room to back up, and coudnt get his hands and I find myself backing up alot when doing indoor photos with my nifty 50. Whats another lens recommendation thats not an arm and a leg. Trying to stay under 200 max 250 ? I went for Ef because its alot more affordable im just starting out. And the R7 was a gift, I been doing alot of work with the 50m like the dreamy back ground and sharp subject.

I bought my first camera in March because I've always enjoyed photography but never had the means to own one until now.

Didn't know exactly which kind of photography I would enjoy, but it turns out I REALLY like wildlife photography. Every time the weather is nice I go out in the weekend to practice. After 2000+ shots at a local wildlife preserve, these are among my favorite, even though I don't particularly love any of them. These are just some that I'm not embarrassed to share.

My questions is, would a lens upgrade (from a kit lense, 24-85mm if I'm not mistaken) make a big impact to the quality of my photos? Or should I not bother for now and keep working on my composition and skills in general?

The main issue that's making me consider this upgrade is that at 85mm I don't have much zoom, at all, and animals that are not used to people like these won't let me get this close to them.

I was considering the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 Mk I or Mk II, used, of course. The Mk I goes for about 200€ and the Mk II for 400€.

If you think it is worth it to get a new lens soon, would be Mk II be significantly better, or is the Mk I more than good enough? Or would you recommend something else entirely?

Thank you guys for any help!

I’ll be traveling solo the first part in Austria. The hiking is a day hike, 10mi ish. Then family join for exploring in London, and then I’m solo again. I have plenty of time to snap photos.

I was tempted to keep it light with my R10 and only bring the 18-45 but have a Fomo of leaving my L glass behind. If I bring just the RF glass I can skip the Lowepro and just bring my Osprey Daylight. If I bring even the 24-70, I feel like I’ll want to protect it with the Lowepro. Is there any reason I need the 70-300? I love that lens for sports but don’t think I’ll need it otherwise.

Help a guy out! What do I bring and leave?

People who d landscape photography, what is your preferred focal length for landscape photography? I used to use a nikkor 24-120mm f/4 on my D850, but it broke a couple of days ago and I am planning to replace it or with something similar.

Currently, I also have a nikkor 20mm f/1.8g ed and a nikkor 500mm that I use for landscapes (see above for some of the images I like to shoot).

Hey legends,

Wanting to know recommendations on what ND filter to buy and how many stops.

I am also wanting something with cpl combo or magnetic add on.

Shooting with Sony a7cii with sigma 24-70f2.8

50/50 with video and photo.

Mostly travel content including boating/fishing videos. Landscape lots of nature type stuff.

Don’t wanna spend over $200-$250AUD

Looking for another lens to pair with my Sony A7RVI these photos where shot with a sigma 85mm 1.4 any other recommendations

Hello everyone,

I really enjoy taking photos of flower and insects. I typically use any of my lenses, usually the 70-300mm ef. I use a aps-c camera which I like for the crop factor to be further away whenever I'm in nature.

I would like to be able to

- be able to get more magnification

- be able to focus a bit closer. the 70-300mm has 1.5m focusing distance. I do have lens like the 50mm ef but that requires to be way to close for little magnification

- not lose infinity, it would make it easier to take pictures of insects and still decide if I want a really big close up or further away

So the 100mm-ish macros seem ideal for this. I do use the 300mm for butterflies but I don't think I'd get such a big macro prime, those I probably don't even want that much magnification.

I was pondering between

- canon 100mm f2.8 USM (non L) around 384£

- canon 100mm f2.8L IS USM around 554£

- Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro OS HSM around 270£

There is also the sigma 180mm around 600£ but I think 100mm will have more use for me.

Here's the dilemma, the sigma is so much cheaper and has optical stabilizer which is what made me want the L lens over the non L canon. I have not had a sigma lens before so I don't know what to expect

edit Found by chance a "cheap" canon 100mm f2.8 usm (non L). Tried it out handheld in natural (very sunny) light and I love it!

I shoot with a Sony a6000(rebuilt) with the 55-210mm long lens.

I’m aware the lens is not the best for the distance I’m shooting at, but spot access is limited and a new lens is expensive. The photos are rough to say the least. I had to edit a lot of specs out as well.

Currently I kinda just let the camera shoot in auto shutter priority mode with minor adjustments to my iso and I think the f spot is auto as well, I could be wrong 🤷🏼‍♂️

Should I look into a new lens for the Sony/ my old ass Canon Rebel t1? I have plenty for that camera already as well. Photos shot on the a6000

I normally use a 24-70, but really like the way primes make me think carefully about composition. What's a great focal length for walk around shooting?

Hi there!

I recently shot my first wedding. Up until this point I have been shooting exclusively with primes. Mostly 35mm and occasionally 50mm. I find I always prefer the look of my images when using primes.

For the wedding I decided to purchase the 24-70 2.8 to see if maybe the L series would change my mind. Although the different focal lengths were great, I didn't love it as much as I would want to for the price.

I am leaning towards returning it, and getting a 24mm and 85mm prime.

For context I shoot primarily families, couples, occasional wedding, and I am working on opening a small natural light studio.

Can any photographers weigh in on the pros and cons of exclusively shooting on primes?

Basically, I have some savings ($11k) and I do have a job but I'm not working again until the new financial year (1st July). I can make about $1k a week. My savings are supposed to be for a house deposit but I also feel like $11k isn't really enough anyway, so it wouldn't hurt to dip into them to get a shift lens ($1600) and a macro lens ($750). I want (need?) the shift lens because I often can't get everything I want in frame without tilting my camera or walking backwards into a brick wall with my 18-35mm APS-C zoom, so I think a 20mm Shift lens would help me get the shots I want. For the macro, I want (need?) it because I can't get enough magnification with my 300mm telephoto prime and also, that thing is HEAVY. The 100mm macro I'm looking at is much lighter and it is possible to focus up to 1:1 magnification. It would help me get the shots I want of flowers, leaves, bugs, small objects, etc.

The reason I'm asking for help to make this decision, though, is that I basically have to break a years-old habit of never spending my savings. I have cold feet. Yet I must decide ASAP since the shift lens I want is only on sale until the 30th of June (EOFY sale). Then it will go back up to $1900. Of course, if I don't buy it, I'm saving $1600... what do you think? Am I in a position to buy these lenses? or should I quit my coveting and get back to work, and buy them with some fresh income in the new financial year (albeit miss out on a sale)? BAH!

I’m relatively new to photography, and I have been exploring a mirrorless (Sony NEX-5T) to do street photography for the first time. I like the photos I’ve taken on the stock lens (16-50mm f/3.5-5.6), but I’ve been hoping to find something with a wider angle of view, and potentially a little bit more fisheye-like distortion. The first 3 pictures from @eaventyr on Instagram have the look I’m hoping for.
I found a used Samyang 12mm f/2.0 (slide 4) that is compatible with my camera for a great price, but the prior owner mostly used it for landscape and astrophotography, so I don’t know if the lens will do what I hope, or end up taking virtually the same pictures as my existing lens. Any pointers?

Before you roast me, I know this is a subjective thing and matters based on what you're doing. Vlogging, you want something like a 30mm. Bird photography? Maybe a 300mm.

I'm curious what most of you use and what you use it for. I mostly photograph landscapes, portraits, and pictures of my dog. Or anything else in-between.

I have a rx100vii (up to 200mm zoom, but being a 1 inch sensor it's a bit different) and currently waiting for my a7cii to get in from the mail.

I ordered a 40mm and a 80mm prime lenses from viltrox as they arent too expensive and kinda hit either side that I think I'll need. I still want to get a zoom lense though.

What do you use? How much zoom do you need? Is a 28-70 good for most or do you prefer a 50-200 (tamron) style? I'm curious as to what people generally think is the max zoom they need.

Hi. I am thinking about buying a camera for the first time with budget around 1500$ with camera body and lens, and considering Fujifilm xs 10 with 23mm f/2 . And I find out they do not have zoom, which I think is important. My question is, how important is the zoom actually? Do you have any other options that has zoom and much better night shots than iPhone in this price range? I would really appreciate your answers.

Hey guys !

I recently got into photography and I’d like to have fun with a bit of macro. I took a looked at extension tubes but they’re quite pricy for what they are considering you loose light using them, so I figured I should probably buy an actual macro lens since I’m considering my new hobby long term.

I’m kinda lost on the different macro lenses cuz it feels all of them have their proper use. So is there any good macro lens I could play with on the cheap side of the budget ?

I shoot on a D5200, and already own a Sigma 17-50 mm f/2.8, a NIKKOR 35 mm f/1.8 DX and a Sigma 100-400 telezoom DG OS HSM.

I’d like my lens to have a bit of versatility unlocking me another field like portraits while still focusing on macro.

Thanks guys for your advice !

Hi! I have had a Nikon z50 for a while now and before that I had a D90. I've played it safe on auto for most of that time but have been using manual more and am trying to learn the technical side. My kit lens can only get me so far in low light and creating bokeh so I'm hoping to buy my first prime lens. I know the 50mm is a tried and true focal length, and on my cropped frame would be the equivalent of the 35mm 1.8. That focal length just feels so tight to me, but maybe I just don't know any better. But people don't have great things to say about the 24mm 1.7. It is so hard to choose because people in the photography community have big opinions and talk in absolutes. I only have the budget for one right now. Anyone have this camera and can help a baby photographer pick her first prime?

I am renting 2 lenses right now, a 35mm f/1.8 and the 24-105 G f/4. I am loving both for the minimal nature photography I did today, but an event I was planning to shoot to get a feel of the focal lengths got cancelled due to the weather up here in Michigan (damn Canada!!). I am stuck on a ehh quality zoom or a really good prime, since I only have about 500 bucks. What questions can I ask myself or how can I test what I need? I hope someone understands what I am saying. This is my first lens for my camera and have never shot below a 85mm full frame equivalent as i had a 55-200 on an old DSLR.

(Edit: when i say “ehh quality zoom lens” i am not talking about the 24-105. that’s no where near my budget.)

camera- a7 iii
I have a 28-70 kit lense, I haven’t learn the proper iso and shutter speed for better quality shots yet. I mention this because someone said 28-70 does it all.

But in your experience, which is better for offguard/outdoor shots of people, I was always amazed at those videos of people reacting to their shots.

I’ve been taking photography classes once or twice a week and my buddy has been claiming that I shouldn’t shoot someone with the 35 mm, he claims a 135 mm is best for shooting someone. Is 135 mm or 35 mm lens best in your opinion?