Lens image stabilisation benefits for a compact APS-C
Discussion
Hello All,
I bought my daughter a Canon G3x for her Duke of Edinburgh as she was doing bird photography, the massive zoom was a godsend for that and showed up the inadequacies of my 5+ year old Canon sureshot SX220 of course. She keeps beating me up for when I pinch it and change the settings and forget to put it back to AUTO.....
So I have decided to get a new camera. Don't need the big zoom and needs to be pocketable/small camera bag as will be taken on dog walks. So a mirror-less APS-C is the ticket, the ubiquitous 24MPixel sensor type. So I start looking on the Internet, and having a Canon decided to buy the new EOS M6 as it sounds just what I need, is new and I am used to Canon.
However.
You know when you start reading about it, to make sure it is right, then days later you are still looking at things and pondering? Well that happened to me, I was reading on my tablet at 3am this morning and I'm not even a dedicated photographer! To cut it short I didn't like the kit lenses the M6 came with to keep it cheap. With the lens I wanted, a compact prime, it was getting up to £1k. Hmmm.
So hours later I have decided to go back in time to 2013/2014 and get a Sony 5100 body instead; it's nice and small and the sensor/processor/focusing seems still ok for what I will be using it for. Job sorted. Or maybe not because I have now got bogged down in lenses, which is interesting as there are not that many small lenses to choose from!
I'm stumped between
Sony 35mm F1.8 with image stabilisation = £300 plus
Sigma 30mm F2.8 without stabilisation = £150 plus
As well as landscapes I take food photography indoors and so my big question is, finally getting to it, is the extra money spent on image stabilisation for the Sony worth it do you think? What's your general view from experience?
I bought my daughter a Canon G3x for her Duke of Edinburgh as she was doing bird photography, the massive zoom was a godsend for that and showed up the inadequacies of my 5+ year old Canon sureshot SX220 of course. She keeps beating me up for when I pinch it and change the settings and forget to put it back to AUTO.....
So I have decided to get a new camera. Don't need the big zoom and needs to be pocketable/small camera bag as will be taken on dog walks. So a mirror-less APS-C is the ticket, the ubiquitous 24MPixel sensor type. So I start looking on the Internet, and having a Canon decided to buy the new EOS M6 as it sounds just what I need, is new and I am used to Canon.
However.
You know when you start reading about it, to make sure it is right, then days later you are still looking at things and pondering? Well that happened to me, I was reading on my tablet at 3am this morning and I'm not even a dedicated photographer! To cut it short I didn't like the kit lenses the M6 came with to keep it cheap. With the lens I wanted, a compact prime, it was getting up to £1k. Hmmm.
So hours later I have decided to go back in time to 2013/2014 and get a Sony 5100 body instead; it's nice and small and the sensor/processor/focusing seems still ok for what I will be using it for. Job sorted. Or maybe not because I have now got bogged down in lenses, which is interesting as there are not that many small lenses to choose from!
I'm stumped between
Sony 35mm F1.8 with image stabilisation = £300 plus
Sigma 30mm F2.8 without stabilisation = £150 plus
As well as landscapes I take food photography indoors and so my big question is, finally getting to it, is the extra money spent on image stabilisation for the Sony worth it do you think? What's your general view from experience?
Simpo Two said:
If you can't handhold a 35mm lens or find a way to adjust settings/light so you can, find another career/hobby!
Wise words... 35mm on crop is 1/50th to avoid hand shake.
Anything slower with people involved is likely to introduce significant subject movement anyhow, so IS would be useless unless you are doing panning etc ( none of the short IS stuff has mode 2 I think..?)
Much better off with a faster lens or a flash.
An f1.8 lens is a whole other game to a f2.8 prime.
Thanks for all your replies, they sort of summarised thoughts I'd been going through for the last few days, as a novice, trying to buy a lens that will do 2 very different things well, outside landscapes and indoor food photography in non optional light conditions.
Taking points in turn
"If you can't handhold a 35mm lens or find a way to adjust settings/light so you can, find another career/hobby!"
After reading this I thought a very good point - then extrapolated that I can simply get a tripod for food cooking if need be.
"On a crop APS-C 30/35mm might seem a little tight on the field of view for landscapes, something around the 20-23mm mark might be better as a general all purpose lens to do both landscape and food."
This was a concern to me too. However the Sony 5100 does panorama shots which I hope would help me out with my first lens whilst learning until getting a wide angle later.
"Does it have to be a compact - the Sony DSLRs have image stabilization built into the body rather than the lens, so you get the benefits with all lenses."
Sadly ££.
I'm rather bottom feeding as you can tell. The Sony 6500 body seems ideal, but the price....
"Can you not see that you are paying mainly for the difference between f/1.8 and f/2.8 which is great, not for added IS? Especially for indoors food photography..."
and
"An f1.8 lens is a whole other game to a f2.8 prime. "
Actually I don't think I am paying here for the F1.8 rather than f2.8. To get the the quality of the image up to match the F2.8 on the F1.8 you have to increase to F2.8+ anyway it seems from the reviews I have read. So the low F1.8 on this low cost "kit" lens seems more like a gimmick. I can imagine on an expensive lens this is a big decider but here it seems I am paying for Sony and IS.
I finally plumped for the Sigma. IS for a static subject such as a non-moving bacon butty can be done via cheaper ways. To be frank I am going from a SX220 sureshot of 5 years vintage to a Sony APS C which has lenses that if I am not happy with I can change. So why worry too much. I am sure it will knock my socks off
I will send a picture of a pork chop cooked to perfection on top of the Matterhorn in due course so you can see if my choice panned out, pardon the pun
Taking points in turn
"If you can't handhold a 35mm lens or find a way to adjust settings/light so you can, find another career/hobby!"
After reading this I thought a very good point - then extrapolated that I can simply get a tripod for food cooking if need be.
"On a crop APS-C 30/35mm might seem a little tight on the field of view for landscapes, something around the 20-23mm mark might be better as a general all purpose lens to do both landscape and food."
This was a concern to me too. However the Sony 5100 does panorama shots which I hope would help me out with my first lens whilst learning until getting a wide angle later.
"Does it have to be a compact - the Sony DSLRs have image stabilization built into the body rather than the lens, so you get the benefits with all lenses."
Sadly ££.
I'm rather bottom feeding as you can tell. The Sony 6500 body seems ideal, but the price...."Can you not see that you are paying mainly for the difference between f/1.8 and f/2.8 which is great, not for added IS? Especially for indoors food photography..."
and
"An f1.8 lens is a whole other game to a f2.8 prime. "
Actually I don't think I am paying here for the F1.8 rather than f2.8. To get the the quality of the image up to match the F2.8 on the F1.8 you have to increase to F2.8+ anyway it seems from the reviews I have read. So the low F1.8 on this low cost "kit" lens seems more like a gimmick. I can imagine on an expensive lens this is a big decider but here it seems I am paying for Sony and IS.
I finally plumped for the Sigma. IS for a static subject such as a non-moving bacon butty can be done via cheaper ways. To be frank I am going from a SX220 sureshot of 5 years vintage to a Sony APS C which has lenses that if I am not happy with I can change. So why worry too much. I am sure it will knock my socks off
I will send a picture of a pork chop cooked to perfection on top of the Matterhorn in due course so you can see if my choice panned out, pardon the pun
Edited by Gandahar on Thursday 16th March 19:39
RobDickinson said:
dont you love it when people ask for advice and never listen.
Rob, I did listen and added it into the wealth of comments I've read so far. I probably didn't explain myself enough. Can you say why for food photography a more expensive lens with better maximum aperture or IS or flash is better than just using a cheap tripod?
You said
"Anything slower with people involved is likely to introduce significant subject movement anyhow, so IS would be useless unless you are doing panning etc ( none of the short IS stuff has mode 2 I think..?)"
What's that got to do with shooting my back garden or a plate of baked beans?
Edited by Gandahar on Thursday 16th March 19:54
Gandahar said:
"If you can't handhold a 35mm lens or find a way to adjust settings/light so you can, find another career/hobby!"
After reading this I thought a very good point - then extrapolated that I can simply get a tripod for food cooking if need be.
Yes indeed. There's a time for tripods - and exacting studio work is one of them. You get exactly the same angle/field of view every time, and both hands free to do other stuff. (You also have a tripod leg to trip over but that's a small price to pay).After reading this I thought a very good point - then extrapolated that I can simply get a tripod for food cooking if need be.
Gandahar said:
Can you say why for food photography a more expensive lens with better maximum aperture or IS or flash is better than just using a cheap tripod?
If you take your studio work seriously you'll use lights anyway, whether flash or continuous. A photograph is made by light - so the light is kinda essential to the result.On the subject of 'more expensive lens with better maximum aperture' there are two points. One is that the more you pay for a lens, then all else being equal it's likely to give better image quality (IQ) - eg resolution, distortion, aberration. The other is that a wider aperture gives you the choice not just of more light, but a shallower depth of field if that floats your boat. Of course it may be that the lens you have gives you an IQ and DOF you're happy with, in which case you're right
The great gotcha of photography is that kit combinations are infinite, that what one bloke likes another may dislike, and that as long as you get results that please you (assuming hobby not pro) then you've achieved your goal.
Simpo Two said:
Gandahar said:
"If you can't handhold a 35mm lens or find a way to adjust settings/light so you can, find another career/hobby!"
After reading this I thought a very good point - then extrapolated that I can simply get a tripod for food cooking if need be.
Yes indeed. There's a time for tripods - and exacting studio work is one of them. You get exactly the same angle/field of view every time, and both hands free to do other stuff. (You also have a tripod leg to trip over but that's a small price to pay).After reading this I thought a very good point - then extrapolated that I can simply get a tripod for food cooking if need be.
Gandahar said:
Can you say why for food photography a more expensive lens with better maximum aperture or IS or flash is better than just using a cheap tripod?
If you take your studio work seriously you'll use lights anyway, whether flash or continuous. A photograph is made by light - so the light is kinda essential to the result On the subject of 'more expensive lens with better maximum aperture' there are two points. One is that the more you pay for a lens, then all else being equal it's likely to give better image quality (IQ) - eg resolution, distortion, aberration. The other is that a wider aperture gives you the choice not just of more light, but a shallower depth of field if that floats your boat. Of course it may be that the lens you have gives you an IQ and DOF you're happy with, in which case you're right
The great gotcha of photography is that kit combinations are infinite, that what one bloke likes another may dislike, and that as long as you get results that please you (assuming hobby not pro) then you've achieved your goal.
Food photography does seem to revolve about the lighting to make it truly great. I'm not up to that point of course so just trying to work out cheap and easy ways. I'm just starting out so it's best to work up cost wise and simply gain experience. With my landscapes and food.
Some of the expensive wide aperture lens must be be truly stunning, but at the £300 level I just didn't get the feeling it was worth the money to get that wider aperture compared to a lens that didn't have the "low number". I sort of classed it into the same bucket as a camera that would do some large ISO value cheaply. I could be wrong on this of course. As pointed out.
It's arriving tomorrow, from Holland ( I saved £50 ) so no doubt I will be spending the next few days just complaining about the Sony menu system.
Thanks once again for the comprehensive reply, appreciated.
Gandahar said:
Thanks once again for the comprehensive reply, appreciated.
No problem. I came this way in about 2005; bought cheap stuff because it was all I needed wasn't it - then inside a year realised it was crap, sold it and bought proper stuff. And exploded a bucket of white paint in my spare bedroom to make a studio c/w infinity coves.I think amateur togs get a bit too hung up on price - maybe £1K+ lenses aren't sensible but the odd £50 here and there is only a decent dinner for two, and you get nicer, better kit to use and enjoy.
Simpo Two said:
Gandahar said:
Thanks once again for the comprehensive reply, appreciated.
No problem. I came this way in about 2005; bought cheap stuff because it was all I needed wasn't it - then inside a year realised it was crap, sold it and bought proper stuff. And exploded a bucket of white paint in my spare bedroom to make a studio c/w infinity coves.I think amateur togs get a bit too hung up on price - maybe £1K+ lenses aren't sensible but the odd £50 here and there is only a decent dinner for two, and you get nicer, better kit to use and enjoy.
Photography is a bit different to the above though because you are trying to capture that moment in time. So it more depends on a third party than other technical pursuits and it also depends more on an artistic bent. I was trying to do a lot of legwork to provide the base to give me a good start.
I'll post some more in a minute but I must apologise to RobDickinson for being rather short with him in hindsight. Sorry Rob.
Summary of my 24 hours with my new, but old Sony A5100 and new but old Sigma 30mm F2.8 lens.
Firstly I new this would be a steep learning curve, I came from a 5 year old Canon Sureshot SX220, so knew the images would be far better. The Canon is pretty beaten up, see image. The amazing thing is the Sony is not much bigger. It can fit easily into a small camera bag around my waist or some large short pockets.
I've been busy all day just taking lots of test photo's of varying such as white balance, ISO and focal length etc to see if the reviews matched up. They did, but so many things to take into account, I have just scratched the surface.
Considering I take photo's of food and dog walks two shots from this first day :-
I can see the problems with both but just needs more experience I think. Quite pleased with the light balance on the food one. Also the Sony menu system is not as good as the Canon one and no dial on top for the program settings between PASM so that took some learning.
A setup I used to test focal length results.
Amazing you can get something like that out of something so small. I remember the first 640x320/480 cameras when I worked in PC support.
Onwards and upwards. Sorry for the long post, enthusiastic amateur and all that.
Firstly I new this would be a steep learning curve, I came from a 5 year old Canon Sureshot SX220, so knew the images would be far better. The Canon is pretty beaten up, see image. The amazing thing is the Sony is not much bigger. It can fit easily into a small camera bag around my waist or some large short pockets.
I've been busy all day just taking lots of test photo's of varying such as white balance, ISO and focal length etc to see if the reviews matched up. They did, but so many things to take into account, I have just scratched the surface.
Considering I take photo's of food and dog walks two shots from this first day :-
I can see the problems with both but just needs more experience I think. Quite pleased with the light balance on the food one. Also the Sony menu system is not as good as the Canon one and no dial on top for the program settings between PASM so that took some learning.
A setup I used to test focal length results.
Amazing you can get something like that out of something so small. I remember the first 640x320/480 cameras when I worked in PC support.
Onwards and upwards. Sorry for the long post, enthusiastic amateur and all that.
Edited by Gandahar on Saturday 18th March 22:23
Simpo Two said:
Lucas CAV said:
Maybe it's this phone but those look underexposed to me.
The food one is under and with questionable WB but the rest are near enough IMHO.At 6,000 x 4,000px good job nobody's on dialup!
The chips look rank though!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff