| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/22/2005 08:40:42 AM · #1 |
Hi, i just wanted to see if i could find out a little bit more about the new nikon digital lenses, and see what people's opinions of them are. Currently i have two lenses, a tamron 75-300mm f4-5.6, and the original nikon lens, a 18-70 f3.5-4.5 DX lens, and i am finding that generally i am in quite low light conditions, and that i am running out of aperture, and thus getting slower and not so sharp images (previously i have used the camera a lot by hand) I have just bought a tripod, which has improved my recent photos a great deal, however i still would like to have the advantage of being able to free-shoot (i'm generally not a fan of flash photography, and would prefer to not use one, however i find the -3 flash especially useful).
So i have had a look at the Nikon website, and it seems that there are a couple of options that i can see. Firstly i was looking at the new 17-55 f2.8 dx lens that has only recetly come out, i had a quick look at a store, and it seems that it would fix my problems but is that what i should go for? one of the other options is to take it one step further and look at the fixed zoom lenses, there seems to be a couple that will do f1.4-1.8, now i imagine this would be quite good, if i was in a studio situation, but i usually find having a zoom is very useful when on the run
If anyone had some experinece with the 17-55 lens i would love to hear how you feel about it!
Now i'm pretty much a newbie to the slr digital world, so excuse me if i have said something foolish or have missed something, but some advice would be handy.
Ps. i would be looking to use the final solution at a friend's wedding, so i would be thinging quite low light, and a minimum of flash work... i don't really want it to look like some cheap photos from a basic camera... ah tis a big learning curve :-)
Message edited by author 2005-02-22 08:45:17. |
|
|
|
02/22/2005 08:45:47 AM · #2 |
The first thing to do is to get a 50mm 1.8 prime (fixed zoom), these are very good value for money and are exceptional in low light. Don't worry too much about the loss of zoom - just get used to being more mobile :)
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 09:02:23 AM · #3 |
The recommendation for a 50mm prime is right on. For wedding work especially, faster glass is a huge benefit. You may not be allowed to use flash during the service itself, and even if it's allowed, you don't want any fill flash used to overpower the ambient light. You need at the very least f/2.8.
A longer, fast lens is also desirable. Since the 50/1.8 is so inexpensive, you may want to consider a mid-range f/2.8 zoom. I'm not completely familiar with Nikon's offerings, but I know Tamron makes a very well-respected 28-75mm f/2.8 lens, which you may want to look at. Alternatively, rent a Nikon lens in this range for the event. If you are in a major market, you should be able to rent for about $30 per day.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 09:13:46 AM · #4 |
| Would using a VR lens (such as the 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor) be a good option? Nikon says it is equivalent to 3 stops faster. |
|
|
|
02/22/2005 09:17:58 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by dunamis:
Would using a VR lens (such as the 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor) be a good option? Nikon says it is equivalent to 3 stops faster. |
VR can help but it is not a substitute for a big aperture. Half the problem is subject motion, and VR won't help that. The real benefit of VR is with longer focal lengths in low light, like shooting at 200mm, 1/50 handheld. The 1/50 shutter is fast enough to minimize gentle subject motion, and slow enough to yield good results in relatively low light when combined with an f/2.8 aperture and moderate ISO, e.g. 400. A slower lens will require too slow a shutter speed and/or a very high ISO, with resulting quality problems.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 09:20:44 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by dunamis:
Would using a VR lens (such as the 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor) be a good option? Nikon says it is equivalent to 3 stops faster. |
One thing to bear in mind with VR/IS solutions is that they only allow the photographer to have more control with slower shutter speeds, if the subject is moving it's no substitute for having a wide aperture.
....yeah, as kirbic said :)
edit: slow fingers
Message edited by author 2005-02-22 09:21:39.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 09:24:09 AM · #7 |
I've done some of my very best street work with my 50mm 1.8. If you are new to SLR photography I can't reccomend that lens enough. It forces you to really think about what you are seeing, and makes you move to get into position to get the shot. It's a great learning tool. My 50mm is practically glued to my camera.
The 17-55 DX is looking like a solid piece of glass based on the reviews I've seen. Check that you have a 30 day return policy on the lens with no restocking fee. If the distributer you are purchasing from will do that, get the lens and try it out.
Clara
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 10:13:57 AM · #8 |
How does the 85mm 1.8 compare to the 50mm 1.8? I've looked through MANY pics online, and although the 50mm pics are awesome, the 85mm pics have really been the ones that have blown me away! Technically there shouldn't be any difference though right....I mean, so you have to move closer to your subject with a 50mm. Right?
Chris |
|
|
|
02/22/2005 09:40:47 PM · #9 |
|
|
|
02/22/2005 11:46:36 PM · #10 |
I am not familiar with the Nikon 85/1.8, but in general that tends to be a relatively easy focal length to get good performance in. At the same aperture setting (e.g. f/1.8) the 85mm will have narrower depth of field. That will give subjects more separation from their backgrounds, which may be why they have such impact for you.
The 85mm will likely be at least as sharp as the 50mm, but again, not sure of that.
Take a look through the sites I referenced above, you may find answers to the sharpness question.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2005 07:02:02 AM · #11 |
Thanks for all your help.. i may go to a photo shop and compare the 50mm f1.4 and the dx one, i suppose that would give me an idea of the difference... i had a look at the lenses on a website, and the 1.4 wasn't that much more expensive... I don't think i really want to go as large as 85mm it seems a little bit extra leg work, for the same kind of photo.. to give you an idea of pricing(in aus$),
the 55 1.8 is around $250
the 55 1.4 is around $600
the 85 1.8 is around $1000 and
the 85 1.4 is around $2000
so value for money i think for a fixed focal length the 55 1.4 is prolly best... i might still have to compare it to the zoom lens that i was looking at though... Thanks again! i'll post back when i get something :-) |
|
|
|
02/23/2005 07:13:37 AM · #12 |
Im in exactly the same situation as Bluefuzz. I have the D70 Body, an 18-70mm DX and a 70-300 ED f4-5.6 Nikkor
I am also interested in an 1.8 lens, but I was worried that a 50mm fixed length would 'convert' to too much zoom on the D70. 50mm is equiv to 75mm, which I find too far-a-zoom indoors for weddings and functions etc.
Would a 1.8 28mm be more appropriate for wedding shots? Or even a F1.8 36mm? |
|
|
|
02/23/2005 07:27:21 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by bluefuzz:
Thanks for all your help.. i may go to a photo shop and compare the 50mm f1.4 and the dx one, i suppose that would give me an idea of the difference... i had a look at the lenses on a website, and the 1.4 wasn't that much more expensive... I don't think i really want to go as large as 85mm it seems a little bit extra leg work, for the same kind of photo.. to give you an idea of pricing(in aus$),
the 55 1.8 is around $250
the 55 1.4 is around $600
the 85 1.8 is around $1000 and
the 85 1.4 is around $2000
so value for money i think for a fixed focal length the 55 1.4 is prolly best... i might still have to compare it to the zoom lens that i was looking at though... Thanks again! i'll post back when i get something :-) |
The f1.4 has very poor reviews for the price I would recommend that you do some searches for reviews before buying.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2005 08:24:10 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
...You need at the very least f/2.8.
A longer, fast lens is also desirable. Since the 50/1.8 is so inexpensive, you may want to consider a mid-range f/2.8 zoom. I'm not completely familiar with Nikon's offerings, but I know Tamron makes a very well-respected 28-75mm f/2.8 lens, which you may want to look at. ... |
I have to say this has been by far the best lens investment that I have made yet. The quality of the lens is superb. The reviews are phenominal. You can get this online for $350(US) or less.
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di
|
|
|
|
02/24/2005 08:19:15 AM · #15 |
iiieeee.. it seems like its a personal preference type of thing... like everything else. I only have one problem with tamron, that is that the 75-300 lens i got seems to give really bad focal blur. I'll explain further.. Whenever i have a subject quite close, and use the tamron, it seems that i get rings in the photo and sometimes cross-haches... heowever with the nikon lens i don't get that at all... perhaps this is just a problem with cheap 300mm lenses (probably) but it doens't reflect well on the brand to me... However after saying that, i use the 75-300 a lot to take macro shots, which is one of the reasons why i got it instead of the nikkon.
I think i'll have to go and visit a photo shop and spend an afternoon... lol and really piss off the dudes in the shop :-)
Honestly i'm not too worried about spending up to $1000 (aus, roughly $700 american) but i would really need a good lens to spend the $2300 that the 2.8 nikon.. *sigh* well i suppose i'll hae to have a look.. i'll definatly look at the fixed focal length lenses though :-) thanks dp ppl! :-) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/27/2025 04:51:41 PM EDT.
