“New 50mm Lens for My Sony Alpha A100”

Remember the new camera I bought when Lauren was born? I bought the Sony because it was the only modern DSLR that would work with my old lenses from my Minolta. It's not the greatest camera in the world, but thousands of shots later I'm still pretty happy with it.

My biggest problem with this camera has been related to shooting portraits. Most of my pictures are of people (especialy Lauren, but not exclusively), which was certainly not the case when I bought my lenses in the 90's. I have three zoom lenses: one wide angle, and two telephoto; all three are Tamron zooms.

• The brightest and fastest is a ƒ2.7 @ 20mm to ƒ3.5 @ 40mm. I could live with the ƒ2.7, but 20mm is too wide for portrait work. ƒ3.5 @ 40mm was the best I could do with this one. However, the lens is in pretty good shape (not great, but pretty good), and it certainly wasn't designed for portrait work. If I'm going to sell any of my lenses, it'll be this one.

• At the other end of the spectrum, there's my gigantic bazooka of a lens. It's a ƒ5.6 that ranges from 200mm to 400mm. It's a beast, and is designed solely for outdoor wildlife shots in bright sunlight. It's not in great shape, either. I'll probably sell this one for less than $200. Useless for portraits.

• My workhorse lens, and the one I used for most everything this year, is a 28-200mm, ƒ3.8-ƒ5.6. Can't really use it indoors without a flash, but I have a big Minolta 3500xi which is bright enough to tan an albino. But that means that most of my pictures have to use the flash, and part of the "art" of photography is capturing the light as you see it, not what things look like in harsh glare of a small sun attached to your camera.

I made do. My primary subject is totally adorable, so this wasn't difficult. A great subject can make up for a lot of other "issues."

Still, I am and always have been interested in photography itself. All along I've known that a better lens, designed for portraits, would only make for better pictures. Having never taken any classes (nor really read any books), I didn't really know what "better" meant other than lower ƒ-stops (faster).

Earlier this year, John Gruber talked (on his site, and in Twitter) a lot about 50mm lenses. He linked to some articles written by pros. The lessons I pulled from them were that to learn better photography you should start with a 50mm (or thereabouts) lens, ƒ1.4 or ƒ1.7. No zooming, and preferably no flash. Learn to work with the most basic elements of photography first, then go back to your zooms and flashes.

Sony's 50mm lens is expensive, and we don't have the money for it. So I looked on eBay for something that would work. I found one, and made the ridiculously low bid of $26. A few days later, I'd won. Surprise!

With shipping it was only about $33, and a couple days later it was in my hands. But not on my camera. It was the wrong mount. I knew that Minolta lenses worked on the Sony, but I didn't know that Minolta had an older mount that was incompatible. Oops.

The seller was more than helpful. We talked things over, and I told him the story (the whole thing!) of the old camera, Mike and Shannon, Lauren, the smashing of the Nikon, the new camera, all of it. He pointed out that the lens I need is much more expensive than the one he sold me. (I knew that, which is why I was so surprised that he sold it to me for so little… but I was confused.)

He surprised me by giving me the lens I need in trade for his original lens. So I now have a 50mm Minolta AF ƒ1.7 lens, for $26 (plus two shipping fees).

"He" is V. John Paloulian and totally deserves a link. If you're in the market for some used camera equipment and want a very knowledgeable and friendly seller, please check out his goods first. (He didn't say, but I'm guessing that he runs some sort of a camera shop, based on his list of products.)

I've only had the lens for a day, so I don't have a lot to show for it yet. All the pictures I took yesterday of my new niece Lydia (and actually one of my Dad, which happens to be one of my favorite pictures ever) used that lens. I'm delighted with it so far, but I'm still learning. There's a huge difference in the field depth between ƒ4 and ƒ1.7, and some of those pictures of Lydia show that I'm still, uh, "experimenting."