Manufactures own lenses thoughts

[Lord Vile]

Not asking for advice but as I’m fairly new to cameras and I went with Fuji where you can only really get their own lenses. 
 

I was wondering if you were starting off as a newbie and only bought a company’s own lenses no 3rd party (so canon lenses on a canon body for example) what brand would be best to buy for if you have £/$1000 for both a prime and tele lens. 1st in terms of quality and second in terms of value buying new.
 

Just looking for opinions curious what people think. 

[Bartholomew]

11 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

a prime and tele lens.

Tele does not relate to prime. A prime lens can be a tele. You likely mean prime (fixed focal length) vs zoom (variable focal length).

 

Grocely generalizing, zoom equals bad (think corner softness, vignetting, chromatic abberations, narrow apperture at longest focal point, slow zoom, hood can only be good for the wides angle - does nothing at lowest angle etc. Etc.). Below $1000 its hard to find good zooms that dl justice to modern sensors. Additionally, tele zooms tend to wind up being used at their max zoom position 99% of the time.

 

So that leaves primes, and it depends on what subjects you shoot. Landscape wide angle requires different than high speed sports.

 

In general, (assuming 35mm fullframe), 24 - 50 - 80mm - 135mm are easy to use and usually sharp lenses at relatively little cost. Good to learn operarion,framing, etc. etc. Above that 200m and up, things become more expensive quickly for good ones (any brand) and require more technique and skill for good results (tracking subjects, steady hands - or stabilisation but that again costs more depending on the system).

 

More important than focal length alone is max aperture. Do yourself a favor and get 2.8f stuff from the start (youll thank me later, because if you get slower glass then after 6 to 12 months youll want 2.8 anyway) it not only allows for shooting with less light (which is more often than you think) but also tremendously helps AF sensors speed and accuracy as well (so just compensating with higher iso for slow glass doesnt help there). These cost a bit more but usually are by far the better lenses as well.

 

Dont get coffeegrinder noise motored lenses, but stuff with HSM (which is canons thing, but other brands have comparable stuff) as they will take a decade to focus and annoy both you and you subjects.

 

As for brands, just like with pcs, most have both good and bad stuff. Exceptions are 50mm lenses, where even the cheapest are usually very sharp (but slow to focus).

 

Im on Canon and use L series only. Has survived 15 years of african safari (heat, dust, harsh roads and had takena beating, on the 300mm 2.8 most paint is gone, just to paint a picture), never failed me except for 1 time a shutterbutton replacement.

 

But more important than any brand if how its systems body feels in your hands and if the controls are where you like them. If someone likes the feel or controls of nikon or brand xyz better, thats the better way to go for him/her.

 

 Good pictures rely on the person behind the camera, not on the brand label on the equipment

 

[Lord Vile]

9 minutes ago, Bartholomew said:

Tele does not relate to prime. A prime lens can be a tele. You likely mean prime (fixed focal length) vs zoom (variable focal length).

 

Grocely generalizing, zoom equals bad (think corner softness, vignetting, chromatic abberations, narrow apperture at longest focal point, slow zoom, hood can only be good for the wides angle - does nothing at lowest angle etc. Etc.). Below $1000 its hard to find good zooms that dl justice to modern sensors. Additionally, tele zooms tend to wind up being used at their max zoom position 99% of the time.

 

So that leaves primes, and it depends on what subjects you shoot. Landscape wide angle requires different than high speed sports.

 

In general, (assuming 35mm fullframe), 24 - 50 - 80mm - 135mm are easy to use and usually sharp lenses at relatively little cost. Good to learn operarion,framing, etc. etc. Above that 200m and up, things become more expensive quickly for good ones (any brand) and require more technique and skill for good results (tracking subjects, steady hands - or stabilisation but that again costs more depending on the system).

 

More important than focal length alone is max aperture. Do yourself a favor and get 2.8f stuff from the start (youll thank me later, because if you get slower glass then after 6 to 12 months youll want 2.8 anyway) it not only allows for shooting with less light (which is more often than you think) but also tremendously helps AF sensors speed and accuracy as well (so just compensating with higher iso for slow glass doesnt help there). These cost a bit more but usually are by far the better lenses as well.

 

Dont get coffeegrinder noise motored lenses, but stuff with HSM (which is canons thing, but other brands have comparable stuff) as they will take a decade to focus and annoy both you and you subjects.

 

As for brands, just like with pcs, most have both good and bad stuff. Exceptions are 50mm lenses, where even the cheapest are usually very sharp (but slow to focus).

 

Im on Canon and use L series only. Has survived 15 years of african safari (heat, dust, harsh roads and had takena beating, on the 300mm 2.8 most paint is gone, just to paint a picture), never failed me except for 1 time a shutterbutton replacement.

 

But more important than any brand if how its systems body feels in your hands and if the controls are where you like them. If someone likes the feel or controls of nikon or brand xyz better, thats the better way to go for him/her.

 

 Good pictures rely on the person behind the camera, not on the brand label on the equipment

 

£1000 for both a prime and a tele as in buying 2 lenses for under £1000 combined

 

Not asking for myself was just wondering how a companies own lenses compare to each other and what would be the best value and best overall lens’ if you’re not spending a bomb or shopping for 3rd party options. So if you went and bought a prime and a tele for under £1000 on Nikon how would that compare to Sony for example. 
 

Guessing it would be more APSC at the price range vs full frame just due to full frame body’s costing more and I wouldnt think a beginner would drop £2K on a A7iii

[bowrilla]

2 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

Not asking for advice but as I’m fairly new to cameras and I went with Fuji where you can only really get their own lenses. 
 

I was wondering if you were starting off as a newbie and only bought a company’s own lenses no 3rd party (so canon lenses on a canon body for example) what brand would be best to buy for if you have £/$1000 for both a prime and tele lens. 1st in terms of quality and second in terms of value buying new.
 

Just looking for opinions curious what people think. 

1st, there are 3rd party lenses for Fuji and a few even with AF (Viltrox, Zeiss, Tokina). Tokina is just joining the club though and all of them have only limited options at this point, but Fuji opened their mount. If you're okay with manual focus there are even more options. 

 

1k only for lenses or also the body? 1k isn't that much unfortunately. That's one good to great lens (depending on the system and sensor format they were intended for). I wouldn't split 1k actually. Most manufacturers are similarly expensive and most 3rd party lenses are available for all major mounts (though RF and Z need an adaptor mostly). Sigma for Nikon F is about as expensive as Sigma for Canon EF or Sony E.

 

I'd say get a standard zoom and add maybe (!) add a prime (either 35, 50 or 85mm equivalent) for most people, unless you know you want to to birding, then probably replace that standard zoom with a tele zoom. If you can't get both, just get the standard zoom ( or tele zoom for the birding folk).

[Lord Vile]

7 minutes ago, bowrilla said:

1st, there are 3rd party lenses for Fuji and a few even with AF (Viltrox, Zeiss, Tokina). Tokina is just joining the club though and all of them have only limited options at this point, but Fuji opened their mount. If you're okay with manual focus there are even more options. 

 

1k only for lenses or also the body? 1k isn't that much unfortunately. That's one good to great lens (depending on the system and sensor format they were intended for). I wouldn't split 1k actually. Most manufacturers are similarly expensive and most 3rd party lenses are available for all major mounts (though RF and Z need an adaptor mostly). Sigma for Nikon F is about as expensive as Sigma for Canon EF or Sony E.

 

I'd say get a standard zoom and add maybe (!) add a prime (either 35, 50 or 85mm equivalent) for most people, unless you know you want to to birding, then probably replace that standard zoom with a tele zoom. If you can't get both, just get the standard zoom ( or tele zoom for the birding folk).

I know there are but they’re not widespread. 
 

Just for lenses not the body too. And we’re talking beginner here not like a 400mm tele and a 1.2F prime 

[Bartholomew]

1 hour ago, Bartholomew said:

2 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

a prime and tele lens.

Tele does not relate to prime. A prime lens can be a tele. You likely mean prime (fixed focal length) vs zoom (variable focal length).

 

1 hour ago, Lord Vile said:

£1000 for both a prime and a tele as in buying 2 lenses for under £1000 combined

 

1 hour ago, Lord Vile said:

So if you went and bought a prime and a tele for under £1000 

 

Right...... Id get something like a 300mm 2.8 then. Thats is BOTH a prime and a tele, so you only need 1(not 2)  to fullfill those requirements

 

Sony, canon, nikon, at that pricepoint lenses are very good.

 

But wide or tele, prime or zoom, all brands systems have pretty much equal lineups:

 

1. Decent cheap primes (fixed focal length)  24-135mm rusually pretty decent optics, but lack build quality or focus speed

 

2. "Kit lenses", cheap zooms (variable focal length) in ranges between 24-300, always with variable max aperture depending on zoom lenses., these are proverbial coke bottles, bad optics, slow zoom etc. These are for the idiots first buying a system body  "because you can change lenses", then decide lugging around glass is a drag and a single lens is convinient (would be better off with a decent compact).

 

3. "Pro"versions of (1), with build quality you can hammer nails with, fast focus, and wider selection of focal length (up to 1200mm), usually one or two stops faster.

 

4. "Pro" versions of (2) also good build, fast zoom, actual optics instead of junk, constant max aperture over zoom range. Zoom ranges more sensible.

 

At comparable pricepoints, expect comparable performance (there can be exceptions but not so much to pick one brand over another).

 

 

But for a beginner?

 

A beginner portrait photographer: 80mm 1.8 or so and & 135mm 2.8

A beginner landscape photographer: 12mm, 24mm (willl be stoped down so aperture less important)

A beginner wildlife photographer: 200mm f4 in a pinch, 300mm 2.8 if possible

A begining birder: 300mm 2.8 with a 2x extender (and for birding even thats the bare minimum)

 

An allround beginner: 24mm, 50mm and 135mm, whatever the choice, NOT a kit zoom, since no shallow DOF possible (negative for learning about dof, aperture etc), and zooms dknt encourage giving thought about framing vs focal length (just "zooming until it fits" isnt the same thing as focal length changes perspective).

 

For a allround beginner who doesnt care about any of the above: a compact cam on "auto", much lighter, cheaper, and on facebook or web or small prints no one will tell the difference in the zoo shots or babies first steps.