Ordered a new f2.8 fixed aperture lens. What should I expect?

sduk

sduk

Messages
1,005
Name
Sammy
Edit My Images
Yes
As a self taught photographer (with only this forum and the internet for help really) a few years ago I made my first purchase the 50mm f1.8 lens. I absolutely love it but for social and personal shots I felt limited by the fixed focal length.

My other utility lens was the 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 lens. Very handy but limited with regards to speed and I craved the lower light performance.

So I have just gone and ordered a 16-50mm f2.8 lens. It will be my first zoom fixed aperture lens.

Should I see much improvement?

Will it be worth the extra money I have spent?

Hoping I can get some good shallow DOF with the f2.8 and the extra stop should hopefully benefit me greatly with indoor shooting, shouldn't it?

Hope I have done the right thing and you guys can give me some examples of why that is, so I can explain to the wife why I spent hundreds of pounds on a new lens haha

thanks as always,

Sammy
 
on the sony 16-50 i think the colours are much nicer than the kit lens, but just having that 2.8 is nice :)
 
Did you research the lens before you bought it to see if it would suit your needs?
 
If the aperture of you previous lens was limiting you then yes, you have made a good purchase. You can expect a constant f/2.8 aperture :)
 
sduk said:
As a self taught photographer (with only this forum and the internet for help really) a few years ago I made my first purchase the 50mm f1.8 lens. I absolutely love it but for social and personal shots I felt limited by the fixed focal length.

My other utility lens was the 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 lens. Very handy but limited with regards to speed and I craved the lower light performance.

So I have just gone and ordered a 16-50mm f2.8 lens. It will be my first zoom fixed aperture lens.

Should I see much improvement?

Will it be worth the extra money I have spent?

Hoping I can get some good shallow DOF with the f2.8 and the extra stop should hopefully benefit me greatly with indoor shooting, shouldn't it?

Hope I have done the right thing and you guys can give me some examples of why that is, so I can explain to the wife why I spent hundreds of pounds on a new lens haha

thanks as always,

Sammy
Click to expand...
You will not get partically shallow dof at f2.8 so don't be to disappointed.
 
Put your 50mm at f/ 2.8 and you'll see exactly what it will be like. At 50mm anyway.
 
If nothing else, constant f/2.8 is a load off your mind as exposure doesn't change.

Despite all this neutral talk, I think you'll be very happy with the purchase :)

F/2.8 on a crop body is as open as you will need in most situations, for anything else you have the prime :)
 
sduk said:
Should I see much improvement?

Will it be worth the extra money I have spent?
Click to expand...

Constant aperture lenses are generally/often better than variable aperture lenses although some variable aperture lenses are very good. Anyway... lenses are very often at their best when stopped down a bit from wide open so your f2.8 will very possibly be better at f3.5 and 5.6 than your variable aperture zoom. That's good :D and yes, the depth of field at 50mm and f2.8 will be shallower than at 50mm and f5.6 and I'm pretty sure that you'll see light gathering advantages too as shooting at f2.8 and f5.6 in less good light should yield different shutter speeds/ISO settings :D
 
sduk said:
can you explain what is "nice" about the 2.8? is it just the extra light getting in and the low light shooting ability?
Click to expand...

dof, lower iso, nicer rendering, constant aperture, being 1 up on kit lens
 
If this is the Sony A-mount 16-50mm it's also weatherproofed (to match the A77), and its completely quiet focus motor means you can use AF in video without picking up focusing noise. But since you actually have the lens, you shouldn't have to explain to your wife why it was worth the expense! You should be able to show her the improved photographs!

I'm trying to think what area of its improved performance would have been most visible to my non-photographic friends. As the chap with the big camera and stuff I'm sometimes asked to bring my camera along to social events to do the usual kind of party candids, quickly taken "say cheese" shots of groups of friends, shots of party tricks and performances, etc.. These are often indoors in the evening & poorly lit. It's very good at that, both stills and video.

I recall one midnight event in city streets, just lit by street lights, which was attended by dozens of local photographers. It started to rain heavily, with such a gusty wind that using the umbrellas many of us had brought was impossible. That soon chased away most of the photographers. I'm not sure if it was themselves getting wet or their cameras getting wet which chased them away, but I just kept shooting both stills and video in the rain, using my hat to keep (most of) the rain off the front of the lens.
 
You'll wonder how you ever coped with f/5.6 at the long end of the lens, that's for sure! 16mm on a crop is a nice focal length too for nicely wide shots that aren't verging on the ridiculousness of a UWA.
 
pingu666 said:
on the sony 16-50 i think the colours are much nicer than the kit lens, but just having that 2.8 is nice :)
Click to expand...

I don't have the kit lens for comparison, but didn't notice any colour differences compared to my other lenses. But maybe I was soaking up the differences with WB without realising it. Have you any comparative shots which show this colour difference?
 
no, not really, i think the kit lens is just abit "grayer" and didnt pick up the colours as well, its not something as strong as say the leica look/colour
it could be down to being sharper as the image wont have as much smudging going on

i forgot about the ssm and weatherproofing, they are really nice too :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top