Low-light prime lens?

[Skywalker23]

I'm just a general hobbyist photographer and like having a camera with me to record interesting events/things I experience/see every day.

I do a lot of shooting at night, and some indoors too. I don't bring a tripod with me often, and usually don't have time to use a tripod anyways.

I'm currently looking at DSLRs. I've decided on either the Sony A330 or Pentax K-x because of the built-in image stabilization.

My main question is this: For general photography, would a 50mm lens on a digital camera (so 75mm field of view) be too telephoto? In other words, would 75mm be too narrow for most of the pictures you would usually want to take? I like nighttime landscape pictures, and take pictures of concerts/sports events.

Take Sony for example, my choices are either Sony's 50mm f/1.4 lens or Sigma's 28mm f/1.8 lens at almost the same price. the sony prime would be faster, but the field of view might be limiting. which would you go with?

[Screenclutter]

My opinion only, for landscape, you'd be better with the Sigma while for concerts/sports where you want to focus more on the subject, the Sony would be better. Doesn't help you one bit though...maybe get both?

I wouldn't limit your choice of camera body just due to in-body stabilization, for low-light, you'd want the camera with best ISO performance.

In-body stabilazation (or the same equivalent for a lens) also won't help take photos of moving targets.

[Csae]

if i had to leave 1 lens on my camera, it'd be a 50mm.

So with a cropped sensor, thatd be something like 30ish'mm for you. Not sure what crop those cameras have.

But thats me and my general style, if you want to zoom in, 50 is a bit short for a concert, and its not wide enough for general landscapes. Its just like in-between.

[jcon]

A 50mm prime for general photography... interesting, i've never heard of that one before. For everyday walk around photos you would be much better off getting a medium range zoom like a 17,18-50,75mm. If you really need a low light capable lens, these mid zooms also can come with a constant 2.8. Limiting yourself to just one focal length for everyday use is just asking for frustrations.

Consider getting a flash too.

[Jose El Maton]

My main question is this: For general photography, would a 50mm lens on a digital camera (so 75mm field of view) be too telephoto? In other words, would 75mm be too narrow for most of the pictures you would usually want to take? I like nighttime landscape pictures, and take pictures of concerts/sports events.

Take Sony for example, my choices are either Sony's 50mm f/1.4 lens or Sigma's 28mm f/1.8 lens at almost the same price. the sony prime would be faster, but the field of view might be limiting. which would you go with?

Okay, this is my first post, so bear with me if I screwed up this reply.

I have the same concerns as StarKiller (Em, Skywalker...) because I just bought my first used DSLR. I've been looking for a decent concert lens, too. For what it's worth, I'm saving up for a Sigma 20mm/f1.8 for concerts (assuming you're talking club and bar venues when you can get right up front,) AND a 50mm 1.8 'cuz it's cheap (1.5 crop factor.) Altogether, it's still over my budget, (like I said, I just got my first DSLR,) but I think it's a good range. Low light capabilities are a must, but any feedback would be appreciated, and I think it's relevent to this topic. Thank you all, goodbye!

[mattdm]

I'm currently looking at DSLRs. I've decided on either the Sony A330 or Pentax K-x because of the built-in image stabilization.


I think 50mm (27° horizontal field of view) is a bit constraining for general-purpose photography.

I use my Pentax DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited on my K-7 90% of the time. It's a beautiful little lens with high optical quality at a great price, and since it's sharp wide-open works well for low-light photography (I imagine even more so with the K-x's amazing high-ISO performance.) This gives a 33° field of view, which is a little tighter than the traditional normal (40°) and considerably more so than the more-technically-correct 45° — but I find it completely flexible enough for using it for pretty much everything.

If I were to start over, though, I might get the DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro Limited. A little bit wider, and the close-focusing capability is a nice bonus. Also great optical quality, but the trade-off is focusing speed.

How close are you at the concerts you're shooting?

[raven15]

Okay, this is my first post, so bear with me if I screwed up this reply.

I have the same concerns as StarKiller (Em, Skywalker...) because I just bought my first used DSLR. I've been looking for a decent concert lens, too. For what it's worth, I'm saving up for a Sigma 20mm/f1.8 for concerts (assuming you're talking club and bar venues when you can get right up front,) AND a 50mm 1.8 'cuz it's cheap (1.5 crop factor.) Altogether, it's still over my budget, (like I said, I just got my first DSLR,) but I think it's a good range. Low light capabilities are a must, but any feedback would be appreciated, and I think it's relevent to this topic. Thank you all, goodbye!

Sounds like ideal focal lengths to me. I wouldn't want prime lenses closer than 2x focal length apart either.

[Razr]

A tripod makes every lens "fast", unless you don't want to carry 5-7 pounds of "extra" equipment.