UKBouldering.com
technical => photography => Topic started by: everythingConnected on February 18, 2010, 12:26:33 pm
-
What do people reckon are their best lenses at 'realistic' prices?
I bought a Nikon D80 on fleabay and some standard lenses - the 18-55VR and 55-200VR, but later got the 50mm f1.8 which has blown me away in what it can do compared to the other lenses.
I know Lord Rockwell has this list: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/dx-dream-team.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/dx-dream-team.htm) but he doesnt include any non Nikon lenses such as the Sigma 18-50/2.8 or Tokina 16-50/2.8 as alternatives to the Nikon 18-55.
I guess what I am wondering is what dream lens sets would be recommended and have been most used, without going silly and spending thousands on pro lenses.
-
The 50mm 1.8 is a fantastic lens on either DX/FX/film and dirt cheap. The Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 is supposed to be stellar, though it ain't cheap. I've also got a 100mm series-E which cost me fuck all and is excellent. Any nikon 24mm is also great on a film body, shame there's no equivalent on bobby digital.
-
10-20 Tokina is great value and an excellent lens for sub £500 money.
-
The Canon 50mm f1.4 should be in every Canon owner's bag. It's significantly better then the mk1 and mk2 1.8s, and competes with the f1.2 for most uses.
-
The only real bargains nowadays are old primes. New primes are too expensive and, for some reason, enormous. New zooms are mostly pretty boring things - either small compromises or great honking bricks.
-
10-20 Tokina is great value and an excellent lens for sub £500 money.
Tokina don't do a 10-20, baby.
-
10-20 Tokina is great value and an excellent lens for sub £500 money.
Tokina don't do a 10-20, baby.
Sorry, 12-24!
-
The Canon 50mm f1.4 should be in every Canon owner's bag. It's significantly better then the mk1 and mk2 1.8s, and competes with the f1.2 for most uses.
damn, I've got a Mk 2 1.8.... Since buying that I've hardly had my kit lens on the body.
-
they're still good Paul, something to upgrade to in the future for not that much coin.
-
I have to admit when I went in to look at one I was blown away by it compared to the results I was getting with my kit lens. I'd tried taking a few portrait shots of Nat when we were out and about and they were fairly shit. After the purchase they're not quite so shit.
Having said all that glass is damn expensive compared to things like off camera lighting. My recent purchases in that direction cost ~150 and I'm made up with some of the results (JB hasn't replied to my PM of the images so I'm assuming they offended his eyes).
(Whats lens do you find yourself reaching for most of the time Cofe?)
-
50mm or 12-24. Glass is pricier, but that's what makes the photos.
-
No offence Paul, I've just been busy with other stuff. And I don't consider myself at all expert in portrait photography.
I wish I had a 'favourite' lens on my Nikon, but I don't. They're all pretty dull, but they do the job. On my old OM-4, I loved most of them - the 90mm/2, the 21mm/3.5, 28mm/2.8, 50-250mm/5 etc, and on my Mamiya I like using the 80mm/1.9 and the Hartblei 45mmTS. Though not all of those are bargains. I guess the more lenses you use, the better they have to be to impress. Small, sharp, fast primes do it for me but not Nikon it seems.
-
Nikon do a bunch of good primes, its just that you've got to be shooting FX or film to use them. Galen didn't do bad with his 20mm f/4, 24mm f/2.8 and his 85mm f/2. It'd be almost worth selling all my DX shit to pick up a D700 to use with my 24/50/100 combo next time I'm in the market for one, except I'd prefer a D700 guts in a D70 sized body. Would be better than having a compact Dx body crippled with a huge zoom. Or I could just paint an extra zero on the body.
The great thing about primes is that whatever you've got in your hand feels like the best lens you've ever used. You find a shot that fits the lens you have in hand, rather than standing with your feet anchored to the ground racking the zoom ring in and out until you conclude you need to spend another demigrand on a zoom that's a little bit longer/wider/half a shop faster.
-
Nikon did a bunch of great primes, but the last fifteen years has seen them take them in an uninteresting direction. Galen's clutch were from the same era as my OM lenses.
Can't see them making a compact FX body no more than a brilliant DX prime. The 10.5mm was a great start, then what happened?
-
What really puzzled me was with all the gaping holes in the DX lineup (like a 13mm, 16mm, 50-150mm etc) they keep ploughing out shit like the 35mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4 AFS, the 60mm macro and the new 85mm, which are just really rehashed existing lenses for bottom drawer bodies with no focus motors, and generally a step backwards in terms of build and size. Its almost like they want you to drop a couple of kubricks on an FX body or something.......
Its enough to make a homie look at the sony alpha range, except they gave it a queer flash shoe.
-
I think if Nikon did bring out a 50-150 I'd sell up and get a D300.
-
HEAR THAT NIKON?
Throw in some decent DX primes and I'll buy ANOTHER D300.
The 85mm was a massive dissapointment. Like when Oly brought out their 8mm e-fisheye - it showed the designers had totally lost touch with the lines' appeal.
-
I think if Nikon did bring out a 50-150 I'd sell up and get a D300.
Can I have your 50mm 1.4 then please.....?
-
I have an Optimus Prime on my G005.E . It's so sharp you get paper cuts just reading the manual with your eyes!
-
You should try reading it with my eyes yoot.
-
can someone explain something. I saw this set on a Flickr link
http://www.flickr.com/photos/polvero/sets/72157622017435308/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/polvero/sets/72157622017435308/)
(granted they're a bit of a cliche)
Out of interest I googled the lens in question and it costs serious dollar. Is there any reason why you can't get the same out of a 50mm prime? Is the main difference just the way it handles the bokeh?
-
Interesting that no obvious lenses stand out from the crowd given that many on this site will really be after similar stuff. ie. decent glass, standard zoom ranges, not too heavy to take out climbing and not silly money. And also interesting how many people rate primes. My 50/1.8 simply blew me away and suddenly made me realise what the camera could do. I guess wanting that sort of result in any kind of a zoom without buying pro lenses is a bit of a tall order...
-
Out of interest I googled the lens in question and it costs serious dollar. Is there any reason why you can't get the same out of a 50mm prime? Is the main difference just the way it handles the bokeh?
In short, yes. The longer the lens, the less the depth of field. The bigger the sensor/ film area, the less the depth of field. The wider the aperture, the less the DoF. On all three counts he's beating your 50mm/ DX combo.
Whether any of those is necessary to get nicely rendered out of focus areas is a totally different question. With your kit, you can stand closer, and have the background further away, to get a similar effect.
If you can get a longer lens, that will make a bigger difference than sensor size or lens speed. The long lens crops a tight field of view, which gives you more control over what background is included. How far away from the subject it is is then the main control on its sharpness.
In short, don't worry about fancy kit, its about 20% of the result. You could have shot those at f2.8 on a much cheaper lens and seen no difference, or used your kit and found a better shot.
-
Interesting that no obvious lenses stand out from the crowd
My 16-85 is an amazing lens for what it can do, it really makes one lens photography very easy and has expanded the possibilities of what I can shoot. But its not especially inspiring to use, whereas fast primes are. I think this is down to two things - first, what Dave said about fitting the shot to the kit, not satnding still zooming in and out. The second is the viewfinder experience. The brighter the viewfinder, and the more you can see of the focus effects, the more you are drawn into composing carefully. If you get to use a medium format or FX body with a nice prime you'll see why so many pros use them and not DX - its all about the view.
-
Oh don't worry I wasn't planning on spending the notes, especially as thats more than my car is worth ;D.
I have been assesing what I've got though, as I've got nothing particular that I feel I need I'm going to (understandbly) wait until that changes.
-
Dream lenses or what i'd class as my favourite lenses are as follows:
14-24mm f2.8 zoom Super sharp and a really awesome uniform distortion which just looks great when you wanna push yourself close-up into a scene, I imagine this makes it pretty good for landscapes
24-70mm f2.8 zoom
Versatile, fast and pin sharp this is my favourite lens for weddings/events, portraiture, fashion, it just looks great no matter what you are doing with it, I like the contrasty yet refined look it gives as well.
70-200m f2.8 zoom (the new recent one)
Everything the 24-70mm has spec and image quality wise in a longer focal length, the previous version was decent but never quite measured up to its baby brother in terms of Image Quality, the new one however is flipping awesome, hired one a month or so ago and I love it.
Its the only lens out of this line-up I don't own at the moment but I like the new version so much I may well purchase one.
-
The longer the lens, the less the depth of field. The bigger the sensor/ film area, the less the depth of field.
To clarify this point (not for JB, he knows this) cos this could be misinterpreted, the above two are the same point really. Bigger formats have less DOF because for the same angle of view you have to use longer lenses. So a 35mm lens on DX has greater DOF than a 50mm on FX, and even more so than an 80mm on 645, but they all give you roughly the same angle of view.
But for the same focal length lens its the same, means that if Paul will get the same DOF with his 50mm lens at f/8 on a DX body or an FX body. The framing and shot will be different, but if you're focussed at say 2m then an object at 1m will be out of focus to the same degree on the sensor on either body.
The only real parameters in DOF are aperture and magnification. So paul can get the same degree of DOF as shots with a 200mm f/2 with his 50mm lens but he'll have to stand 4 times as close to the subject, or use a 12mm lens and insert it up the subject's nose. This is one reason people like that 200mm for portraits if they want or need a lot of working space. Plus it gives that flattened/collapsed perspective look that you can only get from standing back with a long lens. Others like a slightly more intimate approach to portraits, hence why lenses in the 85-135mm range were always popular portrait lenses on 35mm.
-
There is a lot of misinformation on this subject on the net (the DoF article on LL, for example). This isn't the place to get into it, if for no other reason that it is of little practical use, suffice to say both I and Dave have simplified it in different ways that can both be argued to be technically wrong, but usefully right.
(In short, the focal length does have an effect. When you get into macro this becomes obvious)
-
There is a lot of misinformation on this subject on the net (the DoF article on LL, for example).
I recon DOF is one of those subjects.....
(http://www.robertnyman.com/images/0808/wrong-on-the-internet.png)
-
Then we could talk about pin cushion distortion and barrel distortion.
Or maybe we could get into the Nikon vs Canon debate again for the 156 millionth time.......
It never gets old watching Nikon win :thumbsup:
-
I think the key confusion comes from folk getting into depth of field calculations, when what they are actually interested in is background blur and field of view control, which DoF maths doesn't really help you on, but focal lengths certainly do. That's what Paul B is asking about in relation to the 200mm /2 lens, and hence my reply. The old magnification/ aperture line isn't strictly true, nor of much use in the real world..
-
The old magnification/ aperture line isn't strictly true, nor of much use in the real world..
It is entirely true though, and useful to understand. Especially with landscapes etc.
-
I knew this would happen... Its not entirely true, its a myth (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/06/depth-of-field-hellthe-sequel.html).
-
Stop arguing you two, and just buy yourselves a couple of D3s each.
-
I knew this would happen... Its not entirely true, its a myth (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/06/depth-of-field-hellthe-sequel.html).
That's not entirely watertight though - yes the rear sign is vastly less sharp in the long-lens shot but its also at greatly increased magnification.
Clearly you can't take the exact same shot and achieve some same magnification of every aspect of the scene with a 25mm and 300mm lens because of perspective and flattening of the scene with the long lens etc. But if you backed up the 300mm lens so that the overall broad framing of the shot was the same (i.e. same overall magnification, not just of the front test chart) then the DOF would be the same.
I'm turning in to everything i hate here.
The D3s is in the post.
-
D3s? Or D3ses? I'd need 20Mp minimum to justify such a big camera.
If you're working with a single camera/ format, the following is all you need to know:
Anyway, I figured I might try to do a quick, painless end-around on the subject, and try to tell you what actually matters about DoF. I'm going to ignore the technical explanation: because That Way Lie Dragons; Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter there; etc. I'm doing that on purpose, so please don't write to fill me in.
1. By far—by far—the most important factor in how much DoF you'll get is your distance setting. The farther the distance between the lens and whatever it's focused on, the more you'll get in the DoF.
2. Next most important: the focal length of the lens relative to the size of the film/sensor. Again, on principle, let's forget all the tech-talk about what's "really" going on and the scientific explanations and all that. All you need to remember is that the longer the lens, the less apparent DoF there will be in your shots. And, big jumps matter, little ones not so much; there's not that much difference between an 85mm and a 100mm, or between a 24mm and a 20mm. Very roughly speaking, when there's a 2x or 1/2x difference in focal length, you're going to have noticeably different DoF characteristics to learn.
3. Last: aperture setting. When I was teaching, all my kids had to memorize the following phrase: "The higher the number the smaller the hole the greater the depth of field." Can you see differences? Of course. But again, it takes relatively bigger jumps to really matter all that much. The other two factors matter more.
If you're using multiple formats, (which Paul isn't, though he is comparing his kit to...) all you need add is that:
4. for the same angle of view and aperture, the bigger format will have less depth of field.
(though this will entail a longer lens, so you could just stick with rule 2...)
When I want selective focus effects, ie isolating a subject from the background, I prefer to use a larger format than a longer lens. Mainly because I'm loathe to lose the background, and hence the context, but its also subtler. For a good illustration, compare Alex Messenger's and Al Lee's stuff, as they each tend to use the opposite method.
But if you backed up the 300mm lens so that the overall broad framing of the shot was the same (i.e. same overall magnification, not just of the front test chart) then the DOF would be the same.
No it wouldn't - that's the whole point of the article. Not just the depth of field would change, but also how it falls either side of the point of focus would change (the 25mm would obey the 1/3-2/3 rule, the 300mm 1/2 and 1/2). None of this has huge relevance to actual photogaphy though. Its a shame the myth is so widely circulated as it means at some point you have to relearn everything, not to progress your photography, but just to ensure you aren't wrong.
-
Just do what I do word and don't learn anything at all. And get a babby lense on that D3 quick smart.
-
D3s? Or D3ses? I'd need 20Mp minimum to justify such a big camera.
If you're working with a single camera/ format, the following is all you need to know:
Anyway, I figured I might try to do a quick, painless end-around on the subject, and try to tell you what actually matters about DoF. I'm going to ignore the technical explanation: because That Way Lie Dragons; Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter there; etc. I'm doing that on purpose, so please don't write to fill me in.
1. By far—by far—the most important factor in how much DoF you'll get is your distance setting. The farther the distance between the lens and whatever it's focused on, the more you'll get in the DoF.
2. Next most important: the focal length of the lens relative to the size of the film/sensor. Again, on principle, let's forget all the tech-talk about what's "really" going on and the scientific explanations and all that. All you need to remember is that the longer the lens, the less apparent DoF there will be in your shots. And, big jumps matter, little ones not so much; there's not that much difference between an 85mm and a 100mm, or between a 24mm and a 20mm. Very roughly speaking, when there's a 2x or 1/2x difference in focal length, you're going to have noticeably different DoF characteristics to learn.
3. Last: aperture setting. When I was teaching, all my kids had to memorize the following phrase: "The higher the number the smaller the hole the greater the depth of field." Can you see differences? Of course. But again, it takes relatively bigger jumps to really matter all that much. The other two factors matter more.
If you're using multiple formats, (which Paul isn't, though he is comparing his kit to...) all you need add is that:
4. for the same angle of view and aperture, the bigger format will have less depth of field.
(though this will entail a longer lens, so you could just stick with rule 2...)
When I want selective focus effects, ie isolating a subject from the background, I prefer to use a larger format than a longer lens. Mainly because I'm loathe to lose the background, and hence the context, but its also subtler. For a good illustration, compare Alex Messenger's and Al Lee's stuff, as they each tend to use the opposite method.
But if you backed up the 300mm lens so that the overall broad framing of the shot was the same (i.e. same overall magnification, not just of the front test chart) then the DOF would be the same.
No it wouldn't - that's the whole point of the article. Not just the depth of field would change, but also how it falls either side of the point of focus would change (the 25mm would obey the 1/3-2/3 rule, the 300mm 1/2 and 1/2). None of this has huge relevance to actual photogaphy though. Its a shame the myth is so widely circulated as it means at some point you have to relearn everything, not to progress your photography, but just to ensure you aren't wrong.
D3X then?
That camera is a piece of pure awesomeness, used one for two jobs recently and the files are so clean and so sharp, as good as it gets without going medium format IMO, so much more of a joy to use than a hasselblad etc as well, lighter, faster and so on.
Obviously the quality is still incomparable, but likewise I don't think there is another FF SLR that compares to the D3X out there right now.
-
I'll add this:
5. THERE IS ONLY ONE CRITICAL PLANE OF FOCUS, EVERYTHING ELSE IN DEPTH OF FIELD IS A COMPROMISE RELEGATED TO "USABLE" FOCUS.
But in summary, for the OP that sparked the debate, if you want to isolate the subject - back up and use a longer lens. If the subject magnification and aperture are the same, the dof will be similar, BUT THE BACKGROUND WILL LOOK TOTALLY DIFFERENT. And that's what you're after.
D3X then?
Never guessed you'd say that ;) For now my Mamiya is more affordable.
-
D3s? Or D3ses? I'd need 20Mp minimum to justify such a big camera.
If you're working with a single camera/ format, the following is all you need to know:
Anyway, I figured I might try to do a quick, painless end-around on the subject, and try to tell you what actually matters about DoF. I'm going to ignore the technical explanation: because That Way Lie Dragons; Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter there; etc. I'm doing that on purpose, so please don't write to fill me in.
1. By far—by far—the most important factor in how much DoF you'll get is your distance setting. The farther the distance between the lens and whatever it's focused on, the more you'll get in the DoF.
2. Next most important: the focal length of the lens relative to the size of the film/sensor. Again, on principle, let's forget all the tech-talk about what's "really" going on and the scientific explanations and all that. All you need to remember is that the longer the lens, the less apparent DoF there will be in your shots. And, big jumps matter, little ones not so much; there's not that much difference between an 85mm and a 100mm, or between a 24mm and a 20mm. Very roughly speaking, when there's a 2x or 1/2x difference in focal length, you're going to have noticeably different DoF characteristics to learn.
3. Last: aperture setting. When I was teaching, all my kids had to memorize the following phrase: "The higher the number the smaller the hole the greater the depth of field." Can you see differences? Of course. But again, it takes relatively bigger jumps to really matter all that much. The other two factors matter more.
If you're using multiple formats, (which Paul isn't, though he is comparing his kit to...) all you need add is that:
4. for the same angle of view and aperture, the bigger format will have less depth of field.
(though this will entail a longer lens, so you could just stick with rule 2...)
When I want selective focus effects, ie isolating a subject from the background, I prefer to use a larger format than a longer lens. Mainly because I'm loathe to lose the background, and hence the context, but its also subtler. For a good illustration, compare Alex Messenger's and Al Lee's stuff, as they each tend to use the opposite method.
But if you backed up the 300mm lens so that the overall broad framing of the shot was the same (i.e. same overall magnification, not just of the front test chart) then the DOF would be the same.
No it wouldn't - that's the whole point of the article. Not just the depth of field would change, but also how it falls either side of the point of focus would change (the 25mm would obey the 1/3-2/3 rule, the 300mm 1/2 and 1/2). None of this has huge relevance to actual photogaphy though. Its a shame the myth is so widely circulated as it means at some point you have to relearn everything, not to progress your photography, but just to ensure you aren't wrong.
D3X then?
That camera is a piece of pure awesomeness, used one for two jobs recently and the files are so clean and so sharp, as good as it gets without going medium format IMO, so much more of a joy to use than a hasselblad etc as well, lighter, faster and so on.
Obviously the quality is still incomparable, but likewise I don't think there is another FF SLR that compares to the D3X out there right now.
Are you on commission?
-
JamesD, your secret is out. (http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/21/enthusiastic-shutterbug-immortalizes-nikon-on-his-forearm/#continued)
-
JamesD, your secret is out. (http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/21/enthusiastic-shutterbug-immortalizes-nikon-on-his-forearm/#continued)
How do you zoom in and out with that? "Go, go gadget arms"?
-
I bet you're all glad I asked :thumbsup:
-
Found a bit of an issue with the prime over the weekend, not that it wasn't there before: Zooming with your feet is all very well and good until the point at which you want to stand doesn't exist. I was at St.Bees and I either couldn't get far enough away to get the desired framing without running into a block or a chasm or something else.
I'm guessing this is where the 1.6x crop factor becomes a bit more of a ball ache? and I'm guessing that wider primes cost $$$?
(I also tried to battle the sun with my speedlights but soon realised it was a) futile and b) unecessary).
-
Fighting the sun with your flashes is indeed futile. Putting a little into the shadows might not be, though digital has a lot more latitude than slide.
I not sure what the crop factor has to do with anything. You didn't have the lens you 'needed' - a wider prime mgith have worked, as might a faster zoom. Or any zoom. Photography is all about compromise. What have you got, a fiddy? Haven't you got a kit zoom that covers the 35-50 range?
-
stand somewhere else. there's hardly ever just one shot 'on'.
or just buy a D3.
-
It's all about the D3s these days.
-
Found a bit of an issue with the prime over the weekend, not that it wasn't there before: Zooming with your feet is all very well and good until the point at which you want to stand doesn't exist. I was at St.Bees and I either couldn't get far enough away to get the desired framing without running into a block or a chasm or something else.
I'm guessing this is where the 1.6x crop factor becomes a bit more of a ball ache? and I'm guessing that wider primes cost $$$?
(I also tried to battle the sun with my speedlights but soon realised it was a) futile and b) unecessary).
Fighting the sun with flash is futile unless you have enough juice to overpower direct sunlight, (think around 400ws upwards), you can come close to doing it with hotshoe flashes if you stack 2-3 together with one of these:
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-Lastolite-TriFlash-Bracket-with-Locking-Shoe-Mount/p1518679?cm_mmc=GoogleBase-_-Flashguns-_-Flashgun-Accessories-_-Lastolite-TriFlash-Bracket-with-Locking-Shoe-Mount_1518679 (http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-Lastolite-TriFlash-Bracket-with-Locking-Shoe-Mount/p1518679?cm_mmc=GoogleBase-_-Flashguns-_-Flashgun-Accessories-_-Lastolite-TriFlash-Bracket-with-Locking-Shoe-Mount_1518679)
I have one and I have done it before at a wedding, with two sb800's firing into a big 90cm reflective umbrella, and outdoors at close range on a very sunny day it did the trick, however I used HV battery packs, and you need to get a lot closer to your subject than you would if you had a big boys flash to play with though (like a quadra/ranger etc), 3 sb800's work out to around 180-200ws at full power I think?
I also used the same set-up with 3 flashes, (the non HV'ed one set to half power) to throw light from around 50 ft away in a giant balcony to properly light the marriage ceremony, my assistant was on the far left and I was in the middle shooting (triggered with Pocketwizards) with a 70-200.
It is possible, but it is a hassle, I only use hotshoe flashes for these situations, because they are ultra portable and light, and if you want to get your hotshoe flash firing anything close to its highest power output for more than 2-3 flashes then you want to get yourself some HV packs, its quite a difference in performance.
When all is said and done though, its worth looking into Elinchrom Quadra's or the new breed of lightweight high power portable flashes that will be coming through the ranks in the next 6 months, 400ws out of a head that is smaller than an sb800 is pretty damn impressive....and no doubt they will be around to hire in a similar timeframe I would say, alternatively its quite easy to find profoto kits to hire, I think their portable small kit is called the Acute B, and you can hire 1 pack + Head for around 30-40 quid a day, at 600ws it is ample juice to overpower sunlight if thats what you want to do, for modifiers I would recommend a reflective dish, beauty dish, or reflective umbrella, you want the minimum amount of light loss so you also want minimal diffusion.
My two pence.
-
Or you could just get a camera with an electronic shutter and blast away at 1/8000th with a single bog standard flash on a cord. Try that with a D3.
-
(I also tried to battle the sun with my speedlights but soon realised it was a) futile and b) unecessary).
i think paul has worked the actual answer out for himself.
-
Found a bit of an issue with the prime over the weekend, not that it wasn't there before: Zooming with your feet is all very well and good until the point at which you want to stand doesn't exist. I was at St.Bees and I either couldn't get far enough away to get the desired framing without running into a block or a chasm or something else.
I'm guessing this is where the 1.6x crop factor becomes a bit more of a ball ache? and I'm guessing that wider primes cost $$$?
(I also tried to battle the sun with my speedlights but soon realised it was a) futile and b) unecessary).
Yeah, the forecast didn't suggest it was going to be as nice as it was, hence why I brought the flashes. Soon realised they would have been better in the van.
I've got the 18-55mm, which I'd left at home which I won't be doing again. Someone put idealistic notions in my head.
Wider primes are more $$$, yes?
JamesD: I'd really love to see you carting that lot up and down the Fishermans steps at St.Bees. Pad and boots was enough for me.
-
Someone put idealistic notions in my head.
Chances are the real limiting factor wasn't the prime lens but your eye/brain - like cofe says, there's rarely only one option, you just didn't see it.
Wider primes are more $$$, yes?
They're all dearer than the fiddy cos its the cheapest thing they do. A 35mm will cost you £150ish used. A 24mm similar or a bit more. After that there's the 20mm for a bit more money, and thats its, there are no useful wide primes for DX unless you go right down to the 10.5mm fisheye. This is the gaping hole in the DX lineup that I keep moaning about. All you've got left is the huge 14mm that doesn't take filters and will cost you a grand, or a 16mm fisheye which'll cost you £400 and be fuck all use on a DX.
Its enough to make a guy reach for a D3.
(just written all that assuming you're using Nikon, but basically you'll be in a similar boat with canon, only without the fisheye.)
-
No doubt, I did end up with something (or should I say nat did):
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2756/4472312149_e053412f3b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/39660023@N03/4472312149/)
but its not great.
I'd seen (and wanted) this:
http://www.alexmessenger.co.uk/ (http://www.alexmessenger.co.uk/) - the one of Katy that was up in the works for a while. 2nd row RHS. With the 'fiddy' you're just backed up by a boulder with nowhere to go. Similarily with the shot pictured you can't get any closer as there's nowhere to stand. More of an angle and you lose any points of contact with the rock. Feel free to rip the photo to bits.
-
alex's shot is with a longer lens than a 50mm equiv on a DX sensor. he must have been stood further away?
-
That'll teach me then. Enguage brain and move all over.
-
with climbing try to visualise the moves someone will be doing, which way they'll be facing and where their arms and legs will be at certain points, what's in the background from different angles, where the light source (if any)... then think about the kind of shot which would work, rather than forcing a specific focal length shot or toasting it with flashes.
-
as it looks like i'll be selling the 1000d with the 18-55mm IS lens I was wondering if anyone had any input whether or not I should buy the 550d body only / with the same kit lens / with some different. I don't want to spend a butt load of extra cash mind you.
-
Best move would be to trade in for Nikon, then get a D3x.
-
Best move would be to trade in for Nikon, then get a D3x.
I've got a stack of those alreasy from your prior rec's.
-
Hi All
This could be quite a long post, so thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to read and reply.
Have just recently bought a Nikon D5000 with kit lens (after much trawling through threads on this forum and others). Camera is great and really like it but was thinking about getting another lens to go with it. So again after a fair amount of investigation and reading through this thread I have decided to buy a prime. The main reasons being that they seem to be relatively cheap for the quality of glass and photos that you get (please feel free to correct me on this).
I guess I should also say what kind of things I want to photograph or am interested in: Generally wanting to take shots of people bouldering or roped climbing but also am interested in landscape photography. Not sure if one lens can do all of that?
From what I have read here and a few other places there are a few choices within my price range (cheap ish)
1. Nikon 50mm f1.8
2. Nikon 50mm f1.4
3. Nikon 35mm f1.8
Would be great if anyone had any advice/opinions about the 3 lenses above.
My take on the above lenses is as follows (but I could very well be wrong!)
1. Nikon 50mm f1.8: Very good price (95 quid or less currently), gets great reviews and has been recommended here. With the crop factor this will work out at about 75-80mm (35mm film equivalent). I will have to use manual focus as my D5000 requires the motor to be in the lens. I am a bit worried that this will be a bit too much of a zoom for what I want to do with it (take climbing shots mostly). Also a bit worried about the manual focus thing and how much of a pain this will be? Possibly it isn't an isssue...?
2. Nikon 50mm f1.4: Twice the price of the above with generally all the same stuff. Was wondering if you get twice as good a lens for your money?
3. Nikon 35mm f1.8: About 170 quid. With the crop factor works out at roughly 52mm ish... 50mm focal length is apparently fairly close to the naked eye or something like that. Seems a bit wider and could be better for climbing photography?? Will be able to use autofocus as the motor is in the lens. Not sure if this is as good a lens as the others, not really found any reviews, so was hoping that someone here might have used one.
Okay, would be great to hear any advice or help or thought anyone has to offer. If there are any technical mistakes above feel free t correct them, I am pretty much a complete newbie when it comes to photography and would welcome any help. Also if there any better lenses (reasonably priced ones!) for my needs then that would be great as well.
Cheers Dave
-
my 50mm 1.8 was about £60, I find it generally too wide for bouldering photography, however it is a very good bit of glass for the money
-
I'd be wary of spendng ££ on a lens that won't do autofocus on your body. The viewfinders on cheap bodies really aren't up to critical MF with fast lenses. Which basically leaves you with the 35/1.8, which is a good choice. I use an older 35/2 a lot on my D300.
I expect at some point Nikon will come out with a ~60mm AF-S portrait option for DX users. In the meantime, if you're still keen on a portrait lens, save £££ by buying an old MF 50/1.8 for peanuts.
-
What Johnny said.
1. Nikon 50mm f1.8: ..... I am a bit worried that this will be a bit too much of a zoom for what I want to do with it (take climbing shots mostly). Also a bit worried about the manual focus thing and how much of a pain this will be? Possibly it isn't an isssue...?
Its not a zoom. Its great for climbing shots that suit a short telephoto. Manual focus might be a ballach depending how usable and accurate your camera focus confirmation is. Forget about focussing by eye through D5000 viewfinder though. Basically you'll be very limited to not using it either wide open or close up, which is kinda the point of owning a fast prime. The main ballache with the focus confirmation lights on the Nikon cameras is its way off to the corner of the viewfinder, so if you're looking at that you're lot actually looking at your shot, and your focus point could be drifting off what you're intending to focus on.
2. Nikon 50mm f1.4: Twice the price of the above with generally all the same stuff. Was wondering if you get twice as good a lens for your money?
Won't be twice as good, but there is a new version with focus motor that will work fine with your D5000000.
3. Nikon 35mm f1.8: About 170 quid. With the crop factor works out at roughly 52mm ish... 50mm focal length is apparently fairly close to the naked eye or something like that. Seems a bit wider and could be better for climbing photography?? Will be able to use autofocus as the motor is in the lens. Not sure if this is as good a lens as the others, not really found any reviews, so was hoping that someone here might have used one.
Would be a good allround lens but its too expensive for what you get, and for some reason is huge, despite the fact it should be the cheapest and most compact lens they make.
-
(http://www.bythom.com/Images/35mm-side-by-side.jpg)
I've come to the conclusion including an AF-S motor must make a lens unavoidably bigger. The 50/1.4 is a similar size. If you're spending those kind of beans consider worth looking at either of the Nikon 60/2.8 macros (newer one for a D50000), or the Tamron 60/2 macro - all giving a slightly tighter field of view with a lot of extra close-focus capability thrown in.
-
Yeah the motor makes em bigger but what I don't get is that the AF-S 50mm 1.4 is still smaller than the AF-S 35mm 1.8. How can a lens thats 50% longer and 2/3rds of a stop faster be about 3/4s of the size? its crazy. When I saw them on the shelf next to each other in harrisons I couldn't believe my mince pies.
The thing that really annoys is that they bring out these potentially handy tiny bodies but then you have to use huge AF-S lenses on them. As if any of these lenses actually need AF-S anyway, they all focus fast as fuck on any decent focusing body anyway. It seems we're just going backwards, every new lens and camera they bring out is bigger and heavier than the last. Rant over.
-
Thanks for the replies, really helpful and have given me a bit more to think about.
Jim, think the price of the 50mm Nikon lenses has gone up recently due to the exchange rate (read that somewhere). The cheapest I could find using camerapricebuster and google was 95 quid from amazon.
Dave and Johnny: I think you have both confirmed what I originally thought that although the 50mm f1.4 might be better it probably isn't worth twice the cash of the older 1.8.
Johnny I have very briefly had a look at the two micro lenses that you mentioned but I think that currently they are out of my price range, although they do look great.
Dave: Just tried to use the manual focus on my kit lens and have found the focus confirmation light. Kind of see what you mean about where it is placed. Manual focusing was actually okay and I guess with practice would become more instinctive and quicker? Kind of don't quite understand your point about not being able to focus through the viewfinder. I guess you mean that it is hard to tell if it is perfectly in focus and it is necessary to rely on the focus confirmation light??
So that kind of leaves me with the very cheap but manual focus 50mm 1.8 or the more expensive (and bigger) but autofocusing 35mm1.8.
Hmmm... will have to have a think!
Cheers Dave
-
Kind of don't quite understand your point about not being able to focus through the viewfinder. I guess you mean that it is hard to tell if it is perfectly in focus and it is necessary to rely on the focus confirmation light??
yeah, basically unless you're at a small aperture then its hard with a small viewfinder to just do it by looking at the image to be in focus, sometimes you'll get it, sometimes you won't. One option if you were hell bent on manual focus would be to replace the focussing screen. Most of the nikons you can do it fairly easily even if they're not intended to be user-interchangeable. I think some third parties sell replacement screens, but really it'll probably cost more than just buying a different lens.
If you're looking at a 50mm look at second hand prices too, that's where you'll find them for £50-60.
-
£84 from hong kong on ebay
-
What Dave said: second hand. I own about twenty lenses, but I can count the ones I bought new on my thumbs.
-
Is there anyway to tell whether a lens is just plain soft or if its me and I can't use it at all.
I've been playing around with the old Praktica primes that I had kicking about, especially the 135mm. Now they're fine for video but I chanced using them on some still stuff just to see what the different focal lengths offered and all of my photos seemed very soft.
The adapter ring has AF confirm on it so you just depress the shutter a half and then focus until it bleeps, maybe thats off?
Comedy (http://bighugelabs.com/onblack.php?id=4568570263&size=large&posted=1) - its had a fair bit of post sharpening in lightroom.
Grimer (http://bighugelabs.com/onblack.php?id=4569201660&size=large&posted=1) - again a fair bit of post sharpening.
I'll upload the un-tampered with images if they're needed.
Should I be scowering the foreground to see if any of that is sharper i.e. indicating the focal point was off? I couldn't see it in the picture of comedy, maybe the foreground in the grimer shot is a little sharper?
-
they both look out of focus to me. grass in front of grimer is in focus, and i'd say the rock top left of the ross pic is nearer focus - the actual focus point might be out of frame for that one. what f-stop are they at?
-
they both look out of focus to me. grass in front of grimer is in focus, and i'd say the rock top left of the ross pic is nearer focus - the actual focus point might be out of frame for that one. what f-stop are they at?
I'd be guessing as it doesn't record it on the lenses but
4
and
2.8
respectively I think.
-
Yeah, both those shots are out of focus - there are sharper areas in the flowers in front of Grimer and in the top right (left Cofe?) corner of the Comedy pic. Whether its a super sharp lens I can't tell at that file size, but it should be comparable with a modern budget kit zoom at least (though expect soft corners at f2.8 ).
This goes back to what we've discussed above with manual focus on consumer DX bodies - its hard. And using a long lens wide open it needs to be cock-on. Autofocus isn't 100% reliable with a state of the art lens, the focus confirm light (which uses the same sensor) definitely won't be with an old manual lens.
As you've front focussed both times it may be giving erroneous results. Have you got live-view? Stick it on a tripod, zoom in on live, and get it as well focussed as you can. Note the focus distance on the lens. Switch off the live-view, and compare the the light in the finder. Some cameras allow you to then adjust the back or front focus for that lens in the menus. As its an old lens you'll need to program it into the memory, and remember to select it when in use. I can do that on mine anyway...
-
As you've front focussed both times it may be giving erroneous results. Have you got live-view? Stick it on a tripod, zoom in on live, and get it as well focussed as you can. Note the focus distance on the lens. Switch off the live-view, and compare the the light in the finder. Some cameras allow you to then adjust the back or front focus for that lens in the menus. As its an old lens you'll need to program it into the memory, and remember to select it when in use.
I wonder if the adapter thickness comes into play making the error systematic?
I think I've got liveview (550d?), I'll give it a go and see whats what.
-
sorry, i meant top right. testing it with live view is a good idea for sure.
-
The camera won't know if there's an adaptor fitted. If its the wrong thickness (too thick), it may be preventing you achieving infinity focus completely though, which would create results like your shots.
Again, fire up liveview, zoom in and try to focus on the horizon (or anything >100yds away). A lens of that length will probably focus slightly beyond infinity, so it should be obvious if it can or not.
If you can, its more likely the focus confirmation is either out or too vague.
-
ah I think that'll be it then as from what I've read the ring is 0.6mm thickness so it doesn't bend and it needs to be 0.4mm to achieve infinity focus. How the hell would it still be fine on video stuff though?
-
I doubt 0.2mm would create the error in those shots by itself.
If its right on the video, either you're not as critical due to the lower resolution, or you're getting the focus right for some reason.
I'm guessing for still you use the viewfinder, but for video the playback screen? I'd guess correct focus is easier due to the pixel scintillation acting as a focus aid.
As I said, have a play in liveview before drawing any conclusions.
-
If you can get infinity focus as marked on the lens then the adaptor thickness is right.
Video is lower resm which could hide a lot of sins.
-
shall do boss. Might even need the manual to figure out how on this one.
If you can get infinity focus as marked on the lens then the adaptor thickness is right.
I can't get infinity focus, the manufacturer is honest about that.
-
Mentioning that at the start might have been an idea, or is this some kind of test?
I'd still test it yourself though - 0.2mm is fuck all, quite literally.
On old manual, metal built lenses most of these things can be adjusted with somewhere. Infinity focus is set in the factory when the external focus ring is coupled to the actual moving elements. The will be some grub screws somewhere, possibly under the rubber grip. Or you might need to take the back off. I'd be very surprised if it wasn't manufactured with the ability to adjust ~1 mm of focus throw either way.
-
Mentioning that at the start might have been an idea, or is this some kind of test?
thought you might be having a boring day thats all, or I just forgot.
-
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4005/4578943834_3410311eb7_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/39660023@N03/4578943834/)
Not too exciting but there you have it. Infinity focus problem.
The video work was all done very close to me ~1-2m, I'd say I was about 5-10m away for the two shots above and of course the above shot is at 'infinity'. I'm taking it this matters and its nothing to do with the AF or me being a dimwit.
There are 3 grub screws around the focussing ring. I'm thinking of tethering it to my rather large monitor sticking it on a tripod and repeating the last shot until its correct, this should solve the infinity problem but will that in turn fix the front focussing issues?
-
To be honest, the infinity being unacheivable shouldn't make any odds to your focus confirmation light, or your ability to focus on anything closer than infinity, it just means where you are focussed and the distance scale won't correlate. Its just like using a 0.2mm extension tube, shouldn't stop you getting sharp shots.
-
What Dave said. I don't think you have a front focussing issue at all - due to the extension caused by the adaptor you just can't focus beyond a certain point - looks to be somewhere between 5 & 10m. Grimer and Ross were beyond that limit, whereas your video stuff wasn't.
-
have you tried it on a D3?
-
What Dave said. I don't think you have a front focussing issue at all - due to the extension caused by the adaptor you just can't focus beyond a certain point - looks to be somewhere between 5 & 10m. Grimer and Ross were beyond that limit, whereas your video stuff wasn't.
d'ya reckon some grub screw action could fix this? or am I f*cked.
-
Its worth a try. If its really only 0.2mm I'd be surprised if you can't. What is it, a Practica 135mm? It won't be worth any less if you fuck it up.
-
Its a Praktica 135mm F/2.8. and the thickness error is certainly 0.2mm. Some people have dremmel'd them down but warn they flex a little too much for comfort.
I've got the mother of all liveview setups with the Canon EOS utility and a tether to my PC.
-
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4036/4569214826_2be3a3d732_o.jpg (http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4036/4569214826_2be3a3d732_o.jpg)
before I get going with the screwdriver, is this one the same or much better? No post.
-
That looks to be pretty much in focus, though you've got a bit of movement blur softening things. But then he's not very far away.
-
That looks to be pretty much in focus, though you've got a bit of movement blur softening things. But then he's not very far away.
yeh but Grimer ain't much further?
-
No, not much, which is why the flowers in fornt of him are sharp. What's your point?
-
No, not much, which is why the flowers in fornt of him are sharp. What's your point?
Just that if its going to get worse with distance then i'd expect dan and G to both be about the same level of shittness which they clearly aren't.
-
You've lost me. What are you driving at?
Did you measure the distance to them at the time? Is it possible they were not exactly the same distance away? Did you check the focus scale to see where the lens was focussed? These could all cause the same results.
Without any of this information, all you can go on is the evidence in your photos - that there are sharp areas, but not beyond a certain distance - which matches perfectly with the hypothesis so far. I thought you were a scientist?
-
i'd say the lens is massively overgraded, 'soft' if you will.
-
All my work is iterative, I go round in circles daily. ;D
Are you saying that due to infinity focus not being achievable there is a limit (distance) at which I just can't get anything in focus and below that I'm fine?
I was thinking it was more of a gradual thing as it tended towards infinity. Hence not being certain of the two distances that give very different results.
Cheers cofe.
-
Are you saying that due to infinity focus not being achievable there is a limit (distance) at which I just can't get anything in focus and below that I'm fine?
(http://www.casinosonline.co.uk/images/bingo-pic.gif)
-
glad to be of help.
-
I guess I was just getting a bit confused because at that limit its 'nearly' ok and then gets progressively worse as you tend towards infinity. Oh well... I guess I can try tweaking it and see where it gets me. Was worth a play given the cost of the EOS equivalent.
-
at that limit its 'nearly' ok
At the limit it looks fine - at least for a shaky hand on a dull day with an old lens. Dan's left leg is showing impressive resolution considering the lighting, the inherent low contrast of an old lens wide open, and the movement blurring. The flowers in front of Grimer equally look fine.
and then gets progressively worse as you tend towards infinity
This is the phenomenon we discussed earlier, known as 'depth of field'. Depending on the parameters you decide, some of that may be acceptable, some not, but the lens is actually focussed only at the point of maximum sharpness. The longer the lens, and the larger the sensor, the more quickly you will see acceptable sharpness drop off as you move in front/ beyond the focussed distance.
-
so by stopping down a bit I can use the lense nearer the focussing limit because of the increased 'acceptable' level of focus.
-
Yes - but a 135mm on a Dx sensor will never give a huge amount.
eg, at f16:
Subject distance 10 m
Depth of field
Near limit 8.59 m
Far limit 12 m
Total 3.38 m
In front of subject 1.41 m (42%)
Behind subject 1.97 m (58%)
Hyperfocal distance 60.1 m
Circle of confusion 0.019 mm
Problem is, at f16 on a dull day at Kilnsey you'll need a tripod and 1/4 sec to get the lens steady, but your climber will still be blurred.
Get busy with those grub screws.
-
crazy solution: use it on a praktika body?
-
its f*cked. It was more like I had this stuff kicking about in a cupboard so for 12 quids worth of adapter it seemed worth a punt.
I'll get on those grub screws when I can find a 'driver small enough. I take it its likely to be the three on the focussing ring and not any others?`
-
They'd be the ones I'd try first. You should find the ring comes loose and you can set it so you have more movement in the direction you want.
If that doesn't work, take the mount end off the lens and see if there's a screw/lug which limits the movement, and if you can adjust it.
-
I'll get on those grub screws when I can find a 'driver small enough
You can get a set of watch screwdrivers for about a fiver. Worth it if you are going to be fiddling around with lenses and stuff.
-
crazy solution: use it on a praktika body?
That's just crazy talk.
His adaptor is for Canon EF
-
Nikon Fisheye anyone? (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&Item=350347707478&Category=3323&_trkparms=algo%3DLVI%26its%3DI%26otn%3D2)
-
Is that the ones made for taking 220degree circular fisheye shots with the lens pointing directly up into the sky? I read somewhere they were designed for polar expeds, basically stand the camera on the floor and you get a full horizon in all directions. Monster.
-
Hadn't really used the MF lenses since JB tweaked them for me but the results seem somewhat improved, behold: Uncle Tradbury.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4094/4897984280_68e5eb269d.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/39660023@N03/4897984280/)
Uncle TRADbury by travelswithmyt4, on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/39660023@N03/4897984280/#)
-
This (http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10082616canon8mm15mm.asp) gave me a pretty epic boner this morning. Not been able to find what it locks at for APS-C sensor cameras mind. I'd hope no more than 10-11mm.
-
I also need these lenses ........Thanks to share information about it .
:-\ Another :spam: ?