Sony A200

[highwayman]

I have a Sony A200. It is my first DSLR. Wondering if anyone else out there is using or have used the sony brand? The lens that came with the camera is a 18-70mm zoom. A question I have for the professionals out there is what would be the next accessory to get that would help expand the ability to take quality pictures. I go to alot of sporting events to watch the nephews play ball, so I suppose a bigger zoom would help there. All comments are appreciated.

[LuisV]

I see nobody has answered this. While I am not a Sony shooter there are some things I could recommend.

Like any other manufacturer, Sony offers options. They make a 70-300mm range telephoto that I hear is pretty mice and is decently priced. It is a f/3.5 to f/4.5 max aperture lens. While not a pro f/2.8 lens it does work quite nicely in most situations. It runs about $250 which is cheaper than some other lenses in that range. The 300mm will probably be long enough for most kid's sporting events. Should be right what you need.

[SNAPaPHOTO]

I will agree with the previous post. I have students all the time come in with Sony. They are a decent consumer cameras. To shoot the sports you are going to want the longest zoom and the largest aperture.

I would try http://www.alphalensrental.com/lens.php and rent a lens or two and go to some games and try them. This way you can try before you buy.

I typically rent a lens before spending thousands on a lens to make sure it will do what I want it to. If you had a Canon or Nikon you have more len options but try the above site.

[highwayman]

Thanks for the advice. Still need to study up on the technical specs. I know the f number affects apateur and depth of field. Just not up to speed what f number range is considered a good quality lens.

[SNAPaPHOTO]

Ideally if you could get a zoom with 2.8 that would help tremendously in low light sports.
However with a high ISO (might get some grain in the pictures) a relatively fast shutter 1/250 (you will get some blur) you can get by with a higher f number (f4 or f5.6)

[LuisV]

Ok .... I think there is some explaining needed.

Lens specs and designations. A lens is defined by two things when you are looking at the description. One is the focal length or focal length range in the case of zoom lenses. The second part is the maximum (physically the largest aperture). As you know the wider the aperture the faster the shutter speed will be for a given exposure at a given ISO.

For example...I will use a pair of Nikon lenses as examples. The same will apply to Sony or another manufacturer.

70-300mm f/3.5-4.5 - this lens has a focal length range of 70mm to 300mm. It ALSO has a aperture range of f/3.5 to f/4.5. What this means is that at 70mm the max aperture is f/3.5 and it gets smaller as you zoom to 300mm. At 300mm the max aperture is f/4.5. These types of lensese typically telescope out as you zoom in and are also typically much less expensive for a number of reasons I'll mention later.

70-200mm f/2.8 - this is also a zoom lens but it has a fixed maximum aperture of f/2.8 regardless of where it is zoomed in its range. These lenses are typically much expensive. The main reasons are the optics used. The glass is better. The coatings ate more high end. The amount of glass is typically better. (think both in diameter and number of elements) Also since the glass is higher end the build is also typically better. For example, the lenses are more sturdy, smoother and more precise in its controls, bigger focus rings, etc,etc. In Nikon's case the f2.8 zoom is over $1600 compared to $250 to $300 for a "D" version made previously of the 70-300 mentioned above.

85mm f/1.4 - this is a fixed focal length lens, also known as a prime. This is also a "fast" lens in the the maximum aperture is quite large at f/1.4.

In general, as you get faster lenses the prices rise quickly. It's not just because of the faster aperture. As mentioned, these lenses are typically better built, have better optics, have complex proven designs and typically offer better sharpness and detail. Howerever, all this comes with a price. It depends on you whether or not you need that better quality.

[SNAPaPHOTO]

Luis, I agree with your comments, I still think renting is a great option to try before you buy. Some of my glass was in the thousands and trying it before buy it was a great way to know if it was worth the money.

When highwayman mentioned he had body x and lens y I merely trying to give an example of what you can shoot with. and what you can expect. I could go into the triangle (ISO, shutter, aperture) and how all three sides effect the other. It is a give and take.

[LuisV]

Snap.... I am not arguing your points..... I am just answering the comment/question highwayman was asking.

Sure he could rent. It may not be as cost effective for a $300 lens b/c the rental fee could run up quickly and you may not find many renting a lower end lens. I would guess that he is not looking to purchase a $2000 lens for a $600 camera. I don't know the budget and it's speculation on my part, but I think it would be a fair guess.

Again, it's a good idea. I've rented from time to time as well.

[highwayman]

Thanks for the run down on the f numbers. If I do add another lens it will be at the lower end of the price range. I like the way you presented the information it gives me a better understanding of what the lens is capable of when I get the opportunity to buy another one.

[Fibonacci]

When I was in school most of us had pretty poor equipment. The only requirement was a camera with controls for focus, aperture and shutter speed. One semester a guy joined us who had all the latest Nikon equipment including a 300mm lens that came in it's own suitcase. We all drooled over his setup and longed to have what he did. He didn't last the semester. Why? Because photography, like any other skill takes patience and discipline. Real photography is about learning to see, not equipment. Now this does not mean that great equipment in the hands of someone who knows how to use it is not important...it is. It just means that mastering what you have is a great place to start. If it takes you a while to gather the money to buy a great lens then you will be just that much better when you finally do get one. Just don't let equipment get in the way.

One of the most difficult challenges in sports photography is getting the timing down right. Being able to capture an image at the peak of drama is a skill that takes years to perfect. Learning this now will help you adjust to a long lens where things can get complicated in a hurry. You end up having to use both eyes since the lens gives you such a narrow field of view. There is a great danger of missing something where the lens is not pointed unless you master the two-eye technique. You might also want to study the work of some masters. Walter Iooss was always one of my favorites for sports photography.

In the meantime, I have some suggestions that are a lot less expensive than a new lens. Every photographer should have a good tripod. It won't help with sports shots, but it will help with lots of others. You also need some filters. Camera stores love to sell UV filters that do absolutely nothing...except protect your lens. They are well worth the investment. You should also have a polarizing filter and learn how to use it. You can also get diopters, like magnifying glasses for the front of your lens, that will allow you into the world of macro for a fraction of the price of a macro lens. Lastly, a good flash is a great investment. Nothing beats a flash for stopping action and it can be great for for fill-light in sunny situations, not to mention baby pictures and birthday parties.