I'm looking for a f2.8 lens for taking photos of the Northern Lights, would this lens provide the sharpness and color needed for perfect shots?
1333592
Probably a 50 mm would work better for the job, but this macro lens works beautiful on both worlds. And it's reasonably economically
1333593
This is primarily a Macro lens, for shooting tiny things. It would work for northern lights, but there are probably better choices out there, depending on your budget and camera type.
1333594
I think you would be very happy with it. Only problem is is what ever you see through the lens is what you get. Meaning you can not make your field of vision larger nor smaller. I think fore something like the sky you would do better with a lens that has a zoom on it. Good luck and have fun. Something I would love to be able to do.
1333595
I have personally been very, very excited about the sharpness and color fidelity with this lens. Couldn't be happier. If you're shooting northern lights, I should mention that the angle of view is rather tight (effective 96mm on a 1.6x crop factor sensor), but I have been absolutely thrilled with the sharpness and color of this lens. The autofocus could be faster. But as a macro lens, it has to be razor sharp, and it has been for me. Before this lens, I tried the 50mm 1.8, and was not happy with the color, or even the sharpness. This lens is a much better performer in my opinion.
1205533
OK it's just a lens and it's fixed at f:8 so unless you're shooting at a very high ISO it's not going to work in low light. Also it's not the clearest lens in the world....
1150052
Yes, it worth it. Have far less chromatic aberrations, more definition across all the frame, and weights far less. This lens is very good starting F1.8, but at the range F4-F8 it shines, even better than Nikkor 105 mm F1.8, which was my previous sharper lens
76727
I used it when I traveled in Alaska and it worked great. i took many pictures with it and they turned out beautiful. I love this lens.
142426
at f2.8 it will be tough, since the DOF is pretty shallow, but you don't want to shoot portraits that wide open as they tend to be soft wide open on most lenses. if you want nice bokeh just increase the distance of your background behind your subject, while closing down the lens a few stops. but this lens should take sharp photos.
1022206
f/2.8 is good enough for well-lit scenes at night using ISO800 to 1600 (on A77, that's the highest usable ISO I would use). It won't be enough if the scene is dominated by darkness. You still may be able to take good pictures at shutter speed 1/15s or less depending if you can hold your camera steady enough.
416862
The primary reason I bought this lens was for aurora and wide field star shooting. Results are amazing. And yes, it focuses to infinity..I usually pull back small titch from infinity for sharp stars but most of the time, it's not really necessary.
84381
For a travel lens, the 16-35mm f/4 might be a better lens. It is lighter and sharper. For travel photography, rarely are you at 2.8. Most times you are stopping down to f/11 to get more things in focus. If I had to buy this lens again, I may have gone for the 14-24mm f/2.8. The only time I had to go down to 2.8 was when I was doing night time star photography.
1601437
Perhaps, with a long exposure using a tripod in a very dark sky. A F3.5 is not the biggest light grabbing lens, but it would be worth a try. This is one of those lenses that I am not afraid to attempt all sorts of shots. Overall, a very good reasonably priced lens.
477811
This lens is very sharp - one of the best 43 lens you can purchase. Useful for portrait if you have room to backup. Remember it is equivalent to 120 mm in 35 mm. It can be useful for nature photography as a medium telephoto. Not typically useful for landscspe. The 12 to 40mm pro f2.8 lens meets your overall needs best. At 40mm it acts close to a macro. Unless you are working at high magnification you don't need the 60mm macro which I own and love. But the 12 to 40mm pro f2.8 zoom which I also own better meets your mentioned needs. BUY from Amazon used..like new. I did and got lens in box with warranty card. This lens is very sharp - one of the best 43 lens you can purchase. Useful for portrait if you have room to backup. Remember it is equivalent to 120 mm in 35 mm. It can be useful for nature photography as a medium telephoto. Not typically useful for landscspe. The 12 to 40mm pro f2.8 lens meets your overall needs best. At 40mm it acts close to a macro. Unless you are working at high magnification you don't need the 60mm macro which I own and love. But the 12 to 40mm pro f2.8 zoom which I also own better meets your mentioned needs. BUY from Amazon used..like new. I did and got lens in box... » Read More This lens is very sharp - one of the best 43 lens you can purchase. Useful for portrait if you have room to backup. Remember it is equivalent to 120 mm in 35 mm. It can be useful for nature photography as a medium telephoto. Not typically useful for landscspe. The 12 to 40mm pro f2.8 lens meets your overall needs best. At 40mm it acts close to a macro. Unless you are working at high magnification you don't need the 60mm macro which I own and love. But the 12 to 40mm pro f2.8 zoom which I also own better meets your mentioned needs. BUY from Amazon used..like new. I did and got lens in box with warranty card. « Show Less
1125760
No, its not "THE" best, but it is one of the best. It is a sharp, quick lens, quite good for low lighting or for a fabulous bokeh. It should be part of your arsenal for sure; I know its part of mine. Cheers
759245
Hi John!If you are doing landscape photography, you don't really need a F2.8 lens. In my opinion, you would want to be between f11-f16 & even f22 for landscape. You will have to use a tripod at night regardless at such small apertures. Having a f2.8 lens won't help you take a sharp picture at night. What you need a good tripod for night photography because of the long exposure :)
967557
If there is some lighting then yes. I use them on the ski slopes as evening falls and they have adequate lighting. I used them sledding a few times but as night fell I could not see as we didn't have lighting in the area. If you are going to use them primary at night I would look for a light yellow lens or even clear. Might consider a set with interchangeable lenses if going to us them in day and night as the vermillion gun lens works well in partly sunny conditions
2004641
hi. Do you plan to shoot more weddings or landscapes...? i think it could be the answer of your question. I think about buying this lens too. i am a wedding photographer, and wedding conditions are always dark light situations. So i need the 2.8 aperture. If you are more a nature photographer, so the 2.8 is not so needed. During wedding the IS can't help too much, because the people that you take are dancing, the low speed will be impossible to use, even with IS on.I hope it will hlep you.
1329593
This is a good quality lens. Yes you can preserve the original f2.8. As regards image quality I don't have a laboratory to measure such things but there certainly isn't the obvious problem with distortion or focus out near the edges that you see with cheaper lenses. I'm sorry I can't be more specific.
907946
Yes this lense works well in low light because of its apature of 2.8. You still will be workin in a higher ISO so make sure your camera can handle that. As for the type of photos you want, for ill body you will want to be in the 7meter range,, and if you want pictures tighter than that you will want to be closer. Those numbers will change if your camera is a crop censor. Hope this helps
1139202
It is very sharp, but the antithesis of a portrait lens. Your best portrait lenses are detailed in a blog on my photo website, and you can read about the uses of this lens on that site as well. www.alantowerphoto.com For portraits I use my 85 mm f/1.2 or my 70 - 200 mm f/2.8. This is a superb landscape lens.