Lens for Street Photography on Nikon D200

Hi,

 

I am D200 user from some time & I mostly love to shoot on streets, down towns

& busy markets. Ofcourse my intention is to go more closer to shoot.

 

As I upgraded my instrument from D50n to D200. I gave my kit lens (Nikkor 18-

55mm F/3.0-5.6) & I bought new Nikkor 18-200mm 3.5-5.6VR.

Needless to say the lens itself is "GOOD".

But the way I am shooting in small lens & my hunting for people in back

streets, I am finding difficult to use this "BAZOOKA". Even when I shoot at

night I feel I should have something that will take me couple of F-stop down,

so I can get more firm bright & impressive results.

 

I am planning to replce VR with any cheap simple lens ofcourse worthy.

After checking for couple of weeks, I came across 2 options.

1) Sigma 20mm F1.8 (So I can get 30mm on D200)

2) Nikkor 24mm F2.8 (Around 35-36mm on D200)

 

I love Nikkor Lens for it's strong structure, Good look, Impressive results in

terms of true colors & Sharpness.

But here, I feel Sigma would be better deal as I am gonna get Extra Stop,

always helpful at dark conditions with Tiny lights.

 

Can anybody share some of the thoughts???

Any other option..Ofcourse..I am not intrested in ZOOM!

 

Warm Regards,

-Shailendra

Most of the better street photographers used prime lenses ranging from 20mm to 35mm on a full-frame camera, so either of the two lenses you mention should work.

I would be interested to hear more details from you on how the 18-200 fared for street photography, since I am minded to buy it for people photos, including street.

 

At the wide end, the lens is at its most compact, so were your subjects still reacting to the size of the lens, or was that mostly in your own mind? After all, the size of the DSLR could already be off-putting to some subjects, hence adding a medium-sized lens wouldn't add any more to the discomfort that is already projected by the presence of the large camera.

 

Did you find the 3.5 aperture not fast enough, even with using higher ISO, e.g. ISO 800 ?

 

Would it be true to say that the VR gave good sharpness of the background, but there was still blurring of the people-movement?

You might want to check the 45mm f2.8 Ais 'P' Nikkor lens if you want something small, light, and perhaps leaving folks doubting you have a lens on the camera or not.

Good luck trying to manually focus an AIS lens in dim light. As noted above, most street photographers prefer a wide angle lens. In regard to the Sigma you mentioned: individual reviewers rate it anywhere from great to terrible. This suggests that there is a lot of variation in individual copies of the lens. The Nikkor 20mm AFD is reliable, small and gives good image quality and only one stop slower than the Sigma.

 

Cheers/Mike

If your shooting a lot of people, maybe you should try a Nikon 50mm 1.8 for only $100. It's

very small in size, definitely not a Bazooka. Do you ever shoot from one side of the street to

the other side?

I find the 20mm AFD lens on D200 perfect for "street" photography.<div></div>

Thanks,

 

About VR, Yeah VR works like anything & no need of any additional sharpness in PP.

But at night with F3.5, I am really finding hard to isolate the subject. I do not mind getting motion blur but if most of scene is in darkness No use of such motion blur.

But ofcoure VR help me for not to carry heavy tripod.

 

My Issue is 18-200..(Not 18-55) if I am not going to use it to 200mm, It is waste to have such a lens, though super performer(Mainly in day time)

& more horrible if I go for HIP shot with such Huge Lens..& At times it come out for no reson to 200 Since no Locking.

 

Good Lens but I am not using it fully. I started feeling waste. Now it is already Shinning with very cheap price TAG in Shinjuku, MAP Camera.

:(

"Good luck trying to manually focus an AIS lens in dim light."

 

 

 

 

It is not rocket science, but if you can 'guess' 12 feet away, you can boost the ISO on your digital camera, set the lens at a f-stop that includes 12 feet away as being in focus....and shoot. It will work most of the time: dim light situations included.

Actually, most of the well known street photographers

of yesteryear shot with either a 28, 35 or 50.

Winograd with the 28, Cartier-Bresson with mostly th 50 and others used a mix including the

35. With the D200, the 18-70 is actually a great combo. Dosn't rack out overly long, is

amazingly sharp, but is a little slow. If you have the light its great. All the other lenses you

mentioned, the fixed are great too. Sometimes I use a 24 2.8 AIS lens. It works pretty well.

Also a 50 1.4 AF Nikkor, though now its a short tele, actually works fine in the street and its

very fast. Ultimately, it aint the lens.

Depends on how you see, of course, but many street photographers have found a 28 or 35

(on film) is an optimal combination of angle of view and depth of focus for catching rapidly

changing street scenes. I use a 24/2.8 AIS on my D200 (about same as 35 on film). I

prefocus for the distance things are likely to appear, touch up the focus if there's time, but

usually it's fine. For low light, the focus-confirmation rangefinder in the D200 works fine if I

have trouble focusing by eye. You really need an instant reaction, point-and-shoot strategy

for street photography.

I tend to use a 28/2.8 in either the AIS or AF configurations with a D200. As someone above noted, the 18-70 is a great lens as well and pretty compact. Any of these, as well as the 24mm variant of the AIS or AF primes works well, and all of them can be bought second hand cheaper than the Sigma. I doubt if the extra stop on the Sigma is really worth anything if you're street shooting.

I'm thinking of getting the 18-200 for street and people photography.

 

If one likes the 18-70 range, then if you use the 18-200 mainly in this 18-70 range, is it true that the overall length is not excessive in this range? i.e. it's not a bazooka if you mostly use it in the 18-70 range.

 

If so, then this VR lens gives the benefits of the 18-70, with the added advantage of VR for low light. Plus the widest aperture in this range is pretty similar for both the 18-70 and 18-200.

 

What does everyone think?

VR only work with static subjects so not really helpful in street photography.

I'm not anti-Sigma, I have the 30mm f1.4, and love it to pieces...

 

But I've tried the Sigma 20mm f1.8 before, and found it soft, to the point where a Nikon 20mm f2.8 wide open at f2.8 outperformed the Sigma stopped down to f2.8. And the Nikon is smaller and lighter.

 

Personally, I prefer a 24mm f2.8 for street. Even if you give it a more aggressive lens hood, it's still a small, inoffensive lens.

Sigma 10-20 is an amazing lens. I have used it in very close quarters on cramped streets in Manhattan and found it to be razor sharp. I am in love with it.

Hi, since coming with photography, 50mm f1.4 is on my camera most of the time, not lens kit as most of others. However, I'm looking for a 24mm f2.8 when I found the photo frame in 50mm is not wide enough in some cases ie on the bus or in crowded people in town. I love to get close and take picture better than from far.<div></div>

Hai Duong Tien

I am about to buy a Nikon D80. i love street photgraphy and the world on digital SLR is new to me - previoulsy using an old Pentax P30. What is an IDEAL LENS for street photography? I don't want a massive lens that is obvious and glaring at people. What is the above picture shot with? Can anyone help? I'd be very grateful. Would the kit lens - 18-55 be ideal?

Since this post started, another interesting lens to arrive on the scene is the 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 VR. It has a

3.5 maximum aperture. If you want faster, you're going to have to spend much more for the 17-55mm f/2.8 or use

fixed focal-length prime lenses.

 

I bought the 16-85 because I like the wider angle.

 

For street photography, in my personal opinion, it's good to get in close, rather than hide from afar using a

telephoto -- which can be the gutless approach to street photography. If you scan the photos of magazines such as

TIME magazine, or National Geographic, ask yourself whether most of the people-photos, in the photojournalistic

style, use wideangles or long teles? Getting in close, in my view, gives the views of your photos a sense of

"being there" and can create more of a sense of intimacy or involvement with the subject. Whereas, street photos,

made with telephotos have a feel of a peeping-tom taken from afar. That's why I like the wider angled lenses.

 

I started off with the 12-24 for street photography, and I loved it. When using a 12-24 for street photography,

you take photos of people standing just a few meters away from them. I love street photos that are made that

close up.

 

However, I found the 12-24 to be too wide for those instances when I wanted to do portrait-style photos. Hence, I

thought the 16-85 was a good compromise -- it gave the wide-ish 16mm for up-close street photography, while the

85 was sufficient for portraits.

 

Some people argue that the 18-200 VR is a great walk-around lens. But for my style of shooting, where I like to

get in close, hence, the extra 16mm was what I preferred. Ken Rockwell argues that there's not much difference

between 16mm and 18mm, but, for me, the extra 16mm gives that extra wide-angle atmosphere that I love.

 

Your choice has to come down to personal preference for street photography. Do you like the wide-end, or do you

prefer the long tele's?