Photoclubalpha

I was thinking on getting one good prime lens. What would be a good one to save up for? I currently have the Sony 16-50mm 2.8, a late 1990's version on the Tamron 90mm macro, Sony 35mm 1.8, and a Sony 55-200. All will be used on my A65.

Thanks for any input.

Ken, the question is too broad. Would you be more specific? What kind of shots do you have in mind?

Good question I guess I am not sure. I love the macro pictures I have done. But would like to do more portrait and landscape. So I kind of mix it all up. Sometimes with the family with 3 kids it is hard to get to take more than a few dozen pictures a week. But it is a life long passion that started when I was 12 with my first 35mm camera the Minolta XGA and just a 50mm lens and that is all I had for years and I did a lot with it. I do love what love what you do with the Zeiss 2/24 ZA Dr. Harout. I got the 35mm 1.8 just before I purchased the A65 and was staring to go back to basics with my a100. I seem to have lost my way with the hobby and am looking to get back to my passion more.

How about getting the Sony 85/2.8 SAM? It's a nice lens. Or if you prefer to do it manually, then consider the Samyang/Rokinon 85/1.4 manual lens.

85mm f/2.8 seconded - best fit to your outfit, unless you are meaning something exceptional like a 135mm f/1.8 CZ.

David

Thanks for the ideas. I think I am having a case of lens envy. So many great photographers on the forums and awesome pictures with the great high end CZ primes. Hoping someday I can sell a photo or two to help pay for the glass upgrades but the Sony 85mm f2.8 would be a good start for me.

I can't see the point of an 85mm f2.8 if you have a Tamron 90mm f2.8
Not that it's a bad lens the Sony..but the 2 are so close focal length wise it seems a bit pointless to me.

The Tamron is a stunning lens for portrait/candid work..superb OOF rendition, and it's a fine macro lens too.
I'll be honest I think the Sony lens is a redundant purchase with the Tamron. I would however at times find 90mm a tad long for some portrait work. That is where a 50mm prime lens can come into it's own. So I vote for 50mm myself rather than duplicate focal lengths.

If the Sony were f2 it might have a case for consideration. Also I intensely dislike plastic mounts with a passion. But the Sony is quite cheap so that's a plus point for it.

I enjoy the 85/2.8 very much. The only regret I have associated with it is that it makes it harder to rationalize the purchase of an 85/1.4.

Can't agree with David and David any more. The best thing I had last year is the 35/1.8....

I bet if they had an 85mm f1.8 that would be a good seller for Sony, that's the only real issue I have with some of their lens range..plastic mount primes yuck, 85mm f2.8 not as fast as one would want.
I hate the Canon 50mm f1.8 too I declare war on cheapie plastic mount primes!

You may be able to pick up a secondhand Minolta 50mm f1.4. They are said to be better than the f1.7. I have an f1.7 and my example at least is pretty soft wide open.
50mm on apsc is a great focal length for portraits.

Dig around there are good copies of the 50mm f1.7 mines decent wide open (subject to the AF getting it on target) way better than the dismal photo-zone review makes out.

johnstra wrote:You may be able to pick up a secondhand Minolta 50mm f1.4. They are said to be better than the f1.7. I have an f1.7 and my example at least is pretty soft wide open.
50mm on apsc is a great focal length for portraits.

I do not understand the reason why my soft 50/1.7 produces excellent images on my Nex5 via adapter 1.

You have the 35 f1.8 which is a great value prime...
As others have stated, the plastic 85mm f2.8 is also a fab lens but somewhat close to the Tamron...
The Sony 50mm f1.8 is good, as is the 30mm f2.8 macro (but a bit limited as a maro lens - you need very good light if you need to get a couple of cm from your subject)...

Can you stretch to a Sigma 50mm f1.4? Its expensive for a 50mm but my copy is superb wide open - I used to have the Sony f1.4 but its wide open performance left something to be desired. One caveat, if buying second hand, it may need to be chipped for A65 compatability. My copy was new from the shop and had a55 compatability sticker on the box but had to go to Sigma a month later when I bought the a77.

Scott

You have the 35 f1.8 which is a great value prime...
As others have stated, the plastic 85mm f2.8 is also a fab lens but somewhat close to the Tamron...
The Sony 50mm f1.8 is good, as is the 30mm f2.8 macro (but a bit limited as a macro lens - you need very good light if you need to get a couple of cm from your subject)...

Can you stretch to a Sigma 50mm f1.4? Its expensive for a 50mm but my copy is superb wide open - I used to have the Sony f1.4 but its wide open performance left something to be desired. One caveat, if buying second hand, it may need to be chipped for A65 compatability. My copy was new from the shop and had a55 compatability sticker on the box but had to go to Sigma a month later when I bought the a77.

Scott