Lenses For Indoor Car Shows

[N99GT]

Hi folks!

im still kinda a newbie in the photography world and im having trouble of picking a good lens.

Right so i have a Sony A57 with the 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 kit lens and a 70-300mm f1.4-5.6 lens which i dont use as often.

I am going to the geneva motor show and ive never been before and would like to get a lens that gives the car in focus and blurs the background to help focus on the car as im assuming there would a "few" people in the background much like the following image :

The lens that i was thinking of getting was a prime 35mm f1.8. Now im not sure if the lens has the f-stop too low, or if the fixed focal length would be right as ive never brought a prime lens and this would be my first, and so far im confused as to what would suit the job?!

Any suggestions or comments or anything that helps to point me in the right direction would be greatly appreciated!

regards
N99GT

 

[F1GTR]

The 35/1.8 would be perfect for shots like that.

 

[TB]

I will second @f1gt's recommendation. 👍

 

[wfooshee]

If the camera is a crop-factor sensor, the 35 may not be wide enough for indoor shooting. Not familiar with the camera.
If it's a full-frame sensor, then 35mm is a moderate wide-angle, but if it's a crop-frame, then the 35 is a "normal" prime, equivalent to a 50mm on a film or full-frame.

f:1.8 will probably be shallower than you want in depth-of-field, but the nice thing about digital is you can look at the image right after you shoot it and check it out. You'll probably end up around f:2.8 or f:4.

 

[MatskiMonk]

A polarising filter might also me useful for bring out the colours of the car more, and killing some of the reflections from all the lights.

 

[N99GT]

If the camera is a crop-factor sensor, the 35 may not be wide enough for indoor shooting. Not familiar with the camera.
If it's a full-frame sensor, then 35mm is a moderate wide-angle, but if it's a crop-frame, then the 35 is a "normal" prime, equivalent to a 50mm on a film or full-frame.

f:1.8 will probably be shallower than you want in depth-of-field, but the nice thing about digital is you can look at the image right after you shoot it and check it out. You'll probably end up around f:2.8 or f:4.

may sound like a bit of a stupid question...but whats crop factor? ive read about it on other camera forums but i dont it?! :s

@MatskiMonk Yup that one is already checked of the list, ive got a cpl filter for my kit lens and would get one for the prime when i make my mind up!

 

[ShortAznGuy]

Any wide angle lens with a fixed aperture at 2.8 or lower will be great. A 1.4 would work great indoors as it allows more light to travel into the camera. I use a 16-35mm F2.8 Canon lens and it works amazingly. I'm currently saving up for a Canon 35mm F1.4 lens.

 

[Azuremen]

The 35/1.8 would be perfect for shots like that.

This.

I'm currently saving up for a Canon 35mm F1.4 lens.

Have you considered the Sigma? Everything I've read makes it out to be sharper than the Canon L and cheaper.

 

[wfooshee]

Crop-sensor is referred to by some as APS-C, Nikon calls it DX. Basically the sensor is not the same size as a 35mm film frame, but about 50% smaller. The effect is if you took a 35mm frame and cropped it smaller, thus the term crop sensor.

My Nikon D7000 has the smaller sensor, while Nikon's D600 has a full-size sensor. Smaller sensors are cheaper, and lenses designed for them are smaller and lighter. Full-size sensors gather more light, though.

The effect with lenses is a multiplying factor of about 1.5. A 200mm lens on a crop-sensor camera gives an image about like a 300mm lens does on a full-frame. That's why a 35mm lens would not be wide enough on a crop camera for indoor work.

I still don't know anything about the Sony camera, so I can't say if it's a full-frame or a crop sensor.

And again, be careful using super-fast lenses wide open. You'll be amazed how much light they let into the camera, especially compared to the kit zooms, but that large aperture comes at the expense of depth of field. You said you wanted blurry backgrounds; well, that's a depth of field effect. If it goes too far, though, much of the car will also be blurry, probably not what you want. Take some shots and look at them carefully on the LCD screen, zoom in and check the focus and how much stays in focus. Don't take a quick glance and think it's OK, then spend the day shooting blurry pictures that you didn't know sucked until you got home and dumped them onto the PC. BTDT.

And leave the polarizing filter out of it. It will cost you some of that light you're getting the fast lens for, and unless you get a very good one ($$$) it will cost you sharpness as well. In my opinion the light will be coming from too many directions for it to be very effective anyway.

 

[35mm]

Just want to add that the EXIF information for that Mercedes shot shows 50mm @ f/2 on full frame.

So, shooting with a 35mm f/1.8 wide-open on your Sony A57 will be the closest you'll get to that shot (although ideally it should be a f/1.4 - and even then I'm not sure you would get a background as blurred as that one).

Just keep in mind that you will have lots of people around and it won't be easy to take clean shots at that focal distance, but with a little time and patience you should grab some nice shots. 👍

 

[homeforsummer]

I'd echo thoughts that 35mm may be a tad too narrow for events like that. This year will be my third Geneva show, and I've found in the past that most of my shots end up being in the 20-25mm range. My camera has a crop factor of 1.5, and like @wfooshee says a 35mm proves a little too narrow most of the time.

My main lens this time will be an old Nikkor 24mm f2.8. Won't quite have the lovely shallow depth of field shown above, but it's still plenty fast enough for indoor lighting (Geneva is pretty good in this respect anyway).

By all means carry a backup with a longer focal length though. When the opportunity arises, and it occasionally does with a bit of patience, it'll give you some good shots.

I took this at Geneva 2012. It's the typical motor show shot, and EXIF data shows this to be 24mm and f5 at 1/100s. There's a polarizing filter on there too which are basically essential.

DSC_0209 by Vitesse Photography, on Flickr​

This shot on the other hand was with my 35mm, 1/50s at f1.8. It looks kinda nice (if a tad overexposed) but I quickly got bored shooting with that lens as I had to stand way back from anything and often in inconvenient places to get the whole car in frame.

dsc_0599 by Vitesse Photography, on Flickr​

And that's on press days. If you're going on a public day it can get really, really boring.

As an aside, I do like shooting at auto shows. It's quite a controlled environment which is great for me since I'm not particularly creative...

There are other perks too:

Fiat Panda TwinAir (& friend) by Vitesse Photography, on Flickr​

 

[MatskiMonk]

@homeforsummer were those shots handheld?

With my 50mm (on a crop sensor) The closest thing I've done to indoor car photography were these. It wasn't even that busy, but lighting was really giving me (noob) some problems. Anyway, I didn't get close to less than F2.8, and there is still quite a lot of DOF blur -- but as you can also see, I gave up trying to get the whole car in!


BMW Art Car, Andy Warhol by mattstokes1, on Flickr


BMW Art Car, Robert Rauschenberg by mattstokes1, on Flickr


BMW Art Car, Alexander Calder by mattstokes1, on Flickr

I WISH I'd taken my Tri/Mono-Pod that day, and polarising filters (and also that my 10-24 wasn't out of alignment whack after taking a whack)

 

[homeforsummer]

All handheld, yeah - a tripod or monopod is just a pain at shows, I find. Geneva is really well-lit, so no issues with blurring aside from the odd user-snafu and the occasional manufacturer stand with gloomy mood lighting.

 

[Moglet]

There are other perks too:

Fiat Panda TwinAir (& friend) by Vitesse Photography, on Flickr​

Yeah, those Pandas are awesome!

 

[N99GT]

haha well I guess that's something to look forward to!
And I've checked the prices of a 24mm lens and unfortunately that is far out of my budget at the moment... now I'm not sure whether to take a risk and go for the 35mm or try and dig out more $$$ for a 24/20mm!

 

[Carlos]

haha well I guess that's something to look forward to!
And I've checked the prices of a 24mm lens and unfortunately that is far out of my budget at the moment... now I'm not sure whether to take a risk and go for the 35mm or try and dig out more $$$ for a 24/20mm!

Maybe there's a store where you can hire a lens you look for? I do this quite often..

 

[35mm]

Carlos, can you give me one or two examples of renting prices (per day), please? Just curious.

 

[N99GT]

Well I was considering that! However I have finally brought a 30mm f2.8.... I would've got the 35mm but as it wasn't designed for a crop sensor meaning I would've got an effective focal length of like a 50mm!

However if anyone is interested there is a photography show happening at the NEC in Birmingham...

http://www.photographyshow.com

Which is happening in March...

 

[wfooshee]

I would've got the 35mm but as it wasn't designed for a crop sensor meaning I would've got an effective focal length of like a 50mm!

Being "designed for a crop sensor" has nothing to do with the focal length, only the size of the image produced. A crop-sensor-specific lens will not fill a full-frame sensor. But 30mm is 30mm either way, and a 30 on a crop sensor is equivalent to 45 on a full-frame, not a wide-angle at all. They don't mean it's equivalent to a 30 full-frame.

 

[AMG.]

The sensor on your A57 is 23.6 x 15.8 mm giving you a crop factor of 1.5. The example given by wfooshee applies in this case. You shooting with the 30mm on your A57 is equivalent to me shooting a 45mm lens on my FF camera.
Crop factor

(Simplified explanation) Great thing of crop factor sensors is that where you get to use a shorter lens e.g. 300mm lens (affordable) to shoot wildlife I need to invest in 500mm lens (expensive) to get the same 'shot', downside is on the wide angle side where you need to go to extreme short focal length and I don't. I can get away with a 20mm lens and you would need to find a 20/1.5 = 13 mm equivalent lens.

@DiabolicalMask
lens rental NL

@N99GT re-reading your OP. the 18-55 would most likely have been enough to shoot the show too. I would strongly suggest you get some tutelage on how camera's work so you understand how Apertures work how it affects shutter speed and DoF (Depth of Field).

If you have a smartphone I'd suggest looking for an app similar to DOF Master. This app can be useful on occasion to see what the DoF will be given certain parameters you set on you camera.

Once you understand the technical parts you can make a more informed decision on any additional equipment you need. A portrait (of a person) can be shot with a prime 85mm, a 70-200mm, hell even with a 800mm lens but you need to understand what things do first. Please understand I'm not criticising, merely trying to help. Investing in some lessons is a wise thing to do.

 

[Blitz187]

@N99GT

I have a Sony A55 and if you want lenses you can try looking at old school Minolta lenses. I have a few in my collection of glass and they work great! They are also widely available on eBay for really decent prices. They're mostly in good condition too, atleast the ones i've bought were all in good condition being around 20 years old. I used this site to do research on the Minolta lenses I bought... Might come in handy 👍 http://kurtmunger.com/lens_reviews_id21.html

Good luck!

 

[Carlos]

Carlos, can you give me one or two examples of renting prices (per day), please? Just curious.

Sorry for the late replay but yes I can! I hired a 300-800mm from Sigma. First day €50,- and then €25,- a day. I think those prices are the same for every body or lens. The store I always go is shown by @AMG , another website that does have one; click here. It's in Dutch but I'm sure you'll understand.

 

[Pupik]

The 35/1.8 would be perfect for shots like that.

Just don't shoot everything at f/1.8...it makes everything look like a half-blurry toy.

 

[Grayfox]

Avoid taking pictures of the Metal Halide lights, or you will get that purple fringing

 

[Azuremen]

Avoid taking pictures of the Metal Halide lights, or you will get that purple fringing

Purple fringing is more an issue of chromatic aberration on lenses and the aperture they are being shot at, along with strong contrast lines. The materials used in the lens construction, along with quality controls, design, and focal length also matter. Also, Metal Halide lights are common in lighting situations, so yeah...

Honestly, can you please stop trying to have input on everything always? You don't know everything, stahp it.

 

[Grayfox]

Purple fringing is more an issue of chromatic aberration on lenses and the aperture they are being shot at, along with strong contrast lines. The materials used in the lens construction, along with quality controls, design, and focal length also matter. Also, Metal Halide lights are common in lighting situations, so yeah...

Honestly, can you please stop trying to have input on everything always? You don't know everything, stahp it.

I use to have a mid range camera a while back and I also went to the Syndey motor show, when I avoided having those lights in the pics I got less of that purple fringing crap.

I never said I know eveything.

So in your words stahp assuming things.

 

[Azuremen]

I use to have a mid range camera a while back and I also went to the Syndey motor show, when I avoided having those lights in the pics I got less of that purple fringing crap.

And most of that fringing is the result of cheap optics, as the kits lenses with mid (this means almost nothing) range cameras are junk. Actually, the kit lenses on everything besides pro-grade bodies are generally complete junk in terms of optics. It is generally resolved by purchasing decent optics and not shooting at the widest aperture.

The reason you are seeing less of it under different lights is likely the result of contrast variances because of stronger/harsher light rather than the materials used in the light fixture. The bigger issue with light sources is typically color casting as a result of different temperatures, eg Flourscent lights versus LED lighting.

I never said I know eveything.

No, you just have a tendency to contribute less meaningful information than 5 seconds on Google would yield, and you do it with some frequency.

In this case, you came to use an anecdote to give absolute advice on what to avoid, when the reality is the metal halide light sources are not the issue but rather the optics.

It is comparable to me telling someone that they should avoid wet roads because they'll hydroplane, when you should be saying they shouldn't drive on bald tires.

So in your words stahp assuming things.

I'll stop assuming things when I feel your posts aren't inane attempts to contribute.

 

[F1GTR]

Just don't shoot everything at f/1.8...it makes everything look like a half-blurry toy.

What, you mean that gratuitously shallow depth of field isn't always the best way of taking photos?!

 

[35mm]

...gratuitously shallow depth of field...

Sorry, there's no such thing.

 

[N99GT]

Thanks for all the advice fellas! It's greatly appreciated!

Well I've been Playing with the lens and although it's it's not really relevant to what I originally intended it's a cracking macro lens!! Let's you get ridiculously close to the subject!

I also got another lens is a old minolta 28-100mm f3.6-5.6. Which I haven't got the chance to play with.

And I've also signed up to a photography course online thanks to Groupon which I'm hoping will give me a greater insight to the confusing world of photography.

But hey its the first it gives me more time to save up for another lens!