Thanks again. Does the weather sealed Sony 1650 require an A77 to function as weather sealed *lens*? One thing I now know is that I do not shy away from taking my SLT on hikes, exposing my gear to moisture (run, waterfall splash etc.). For that reason (and the dual-dial, now that I shoot in full-manual more often than AP/SP), I am tempted by the A77 with 1650 "Kit". On the other hand, the A77 is almost two years old, making me wonder if an update might be out sooner than later. In which case I'd be tempted to buy the 1650 and stick with the A65 for a while longer. But I wonder if an unsealed body can compromise a sealed lens.
You might want to try Dyxum.com for an answer to that. They are full of people who are into the "next generation" of SONY cameras.
Originally Posted by TooNice
I've decided to stick with the A65 although I will definitely look into a weather sealed body when the time comes to replace this body. The 1650 on the other hand is serving me very, very well and has now become my main lens, followed by the Sigma 8-16mm. The Tamron 18-270mm and Sony 50mm 1.4 aren't seeing a lot of action lately. The Tamron because I don't often find myself needing *that* much zoom and it's door I need to crank the ISO up to make up for the smaller max aperture. And the 50mm because I find that for groups, I have to stand too far back to capture everyone (not always possible indoor). I still use them once in a while, but not often.
I find that the 1650 allows me to capture pretty much everything (note that I don't do macro nor wildlife), and as long as I can move close to my subject, I can do portrait head shots that are okay to my untrained eyes. The problem is when I *can not* move closer to the subjects. With a 50mm I need to be within a metre of the subject. What focal length would I need if I want to do head shots when I am anything between 1.5-5m (or is that too much flexibility to ask?).
I am in no hurry but I am looking at both the Sigma 50-150mm 2.8 and the Sony 70-200mm 2.8 (just noticed that a new one has been released - though the price is brutal). How much difference does those 20mm make in terms of distance from the subject for a full face shot (am I dealing with a small step back or a lot more)?
Could I get a decent result combining the 50mm prime with teleconverters, or is that a stupid idea?
Using a prime lens with a teleconverter reduces the focus clarity of the shot. It also takes away one f/stop of light, making 1.8 shoot like a f/2.8 lens... or an f/4 shoot like an f/5.6.
A teleconverter is a cheap solution and the results you get are ones that you would need to do comparative shooting to truly appreciate.
Now, when you talk about the difference of a 50mm to a 70mm portrait shot... the 70mm-shot will provide a narrower look to your subject. Experience has shown that most female subjects prefer the difference. 85mm... better yet.
Words of warning... do not use a 35mm lens for portraits. You may get punched. :p