Low-light, wide angle lens for Nikon D5000

<p>Hello there-<br>

I am a long time lurker on the forums but this is my first post----so please be gentle with my 'newbie-ness'. :)<br>

I own a Nikon D5000, the kit lens (18-55mm, f3.5-5.6) and a 35mm, f1.8 that I bought when I got fed up with the poor low light performance of the kit lens. I take photos for my own pleasure and for a blog I write about my family's move to Oxford, England and am finding that while I love the performance of my 35mm in dimly lit cathedrals, I need the range (at least) of the 18-55mm to bring more of these beautiful spaces into my photos.<br>

From my readings (here and elsewhere) it seems that I need an aperture of 2.8 to get the results that I am enjoying with my 35mm on either a wide angle or mid range zoom. The problem is, I can't decide what sort of set up would be best and most cost effective. I have been reading (too much probably) and have become confused over whether I should get a wide angle zoom lens (like a 10-24mm) or just a wide angle prime lens (since I seem to like my 35mm so much) or a mid range zoom like the 17-55mm, f2.8. I doubt that I will be upgrading to FF anytime soon, although I may upgrade my camera to a D7000 at some point (for better high ISO performance and to get autofocus on a Tokina 11-16mm if I went that route). Ah, see--my head is spinning with all of this!<br>

My dream would be to find a cost effective solution that allowed me to travel light (no more than 3 lenses--prefereably 2, as I do now) and survive without a triopod (since I usually have an adorable 2 year old on one hip and a camera in the other!). I am open to any suggestions on lenses I haven't mentioned (even non-Nikon) or even upgraded camera suggestions.<br>

Sorry for the lengthy post and thanks for any advice! And sorry for the 'newbie-ness'!<br>

Sarah</p>

<p>Hi Sarah,<br>

You can start with Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC. This will give you a fast aperture and stabilization for handheld images at dark settings. Obviously an upgrade at D7000 could be very helpful - I found it to be MUCH better at high ISO than D5000 and D300. D7000 will enable you to use AF with Tokina 11-16.<br>

On the other hand... at UWA you do not have to be afraid of manual focus. In the past when I owned a D5000 I used a CV 20/3.5 on it for some work and it was not hard to get it on focus. It would be much harder to use telephoto lenses without AF on your camera.</p>

<p>Sarah -</p>

<p>I'm not sure how much an f/2.8 lens will help you for wide angle. Your 18-70mm has an aperture of f/3.5 @ 18mm and f/4 @ 24mm. f/2.8 will gain you only gain 1/2 a stop at 18mm and one full stop at 24mm. This would be equivalent to increasing your ISO from 400-640 or 800. Unless you're already at your max usable ISO (which I can't remember what I would expect from my limited experience with the D5000), you may just be better off increasing your ISO a bit.</p>

<p>Otherwise, I'd consider looking at an f/1.4 prime. They're pricey, but if you like your 35mm f/1.8, I'd expect you'd like the 24mm f/1.4 albeit at a price more expensive than a new D7000... ... ...</p>

<p>I really can't tell you what's right for you. Personally, (and I know that you wanted to avoid this), a tripod will be the most cost effective solution. You can get a nice tripod with head and quick release plate/L bracket for a few hundred dollars. If you're really worried about weight, you'll have to spend more to get a carbon fiber tripod, but they're worth it.</p>

<p>RS</p>

<p>Mihai: Thanks for your suggestion. I will check out the Tamron, as I don't know anything about that brand.. The 'numbers' look good though. :) And thanks for letting me know your experience with the D7000 vs the D5000--I had been looking at it because of my interest in the Tokina but was happy to read about the ISO performace--so I appreciate you mentioning that too. And good point about focusing the UWA. I'll keep that in mind as I search around. Did you find 20 to be a good/usable focal length? Thanks!!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Richard: To be honest, I really don't know the answer to 'how much a 2.8 will help for wide angle' either! I know that my 18-55mm struggles in low light--especially now that I am used to (and very much like) the 35mm lens--so I assumed I would need a 2.8 at least to avoid that in any new lens I buy. In outdoors or in well lit conditions, the 18-55mm does fine but I don't find it does very well in dimly lit conditions (cathedrals and such). Maybe this is my inexperience or inability to use it to it's full potential but, as I said, I have no trouble with the performance of the 35mm---just need more reach than it provides. I have considered a prime but didn't know what focal length to choose would be best if I had to pick just one (rather than a range, as with the zooms)--so I had no idea they were that pricey! Eek! Hmm, maybe I will have to stick to thinking about a zoom lens of some sort after all...<br>

I know you are probably right about the tripod solution being the most cost effective. I just know that it isn't the most practical for my lifestyle right now. :)</p>

 

<p>Well, 20 is better on DX than 35 but seems to be not enough wide, at least for me. Unfortunately there are not good options for fast primes on UWA. At this time Tokina 11-16/2.8 is the best option from this point of view.<br /> A tripod is also a very good thing... but in my experience most Churches are prohibiting the use of tripods so I do not carry one in such as situations.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My dream would be to find a cost effective solution that allowed me to travel light</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If small size is truly imperative:</p>

<p>http://camerasize.com/compare/#214,34<br /> http://camerasize.com/compare/#214,157<br /> http://camerasize.com/compare/#214,241<br /> http://camerasize.com/compare/#214,149<br /> http://camerasize.com/compare/#214,124</p>

<p>...forget your nikon or any dslr all together</p>

<p>However, if you want to stay with your d5000. As Mihai said, wide angle primes choices is very, very limited for your d5000. The 20mm 2.8 and tokina 11-16mm are great options but they won't auto focus on your d5000. You'll need a d7000. Or you could use the <strong>tokina 12-24 f4 *mark ll* </strong>on your d5000. </p>

<p>I think the best you will do currently is a normal f2.8 zoom unless you need wider than 18mm. Not much to choose from in fast wide AF-S type lenses. A tripod is probably your best solution if allowed. I have some very small and light Gitzo's.</p>

<p>It's not the 18-55 lens itself that doesn't do well in places liike a dark church, but rather, it's that you're using it to do something it was really not designed to do. It starts out with a relatively slow aperture at the wide end, and then it gets worse as you zoom into things. They make these kit zooms good and cheap, with the cheap part being achieved by not having very large glass.</p>

<p>I hate tripods like the plague and I rarely use mine, but there are certain kinds of photographs when you have to use one or else be satisfied with less than stellar results. If you are interested in nice interior shots of cathedrals, you may simply have to bite the bullet and use one... as long as you're not interested in people and their decisive moments. Or, you can often find other ways to support a camera (a cheap bean bag resting on something can work wonders, and so can even a hand on top of a pew, against a wall, etc.</p>

<p>The churches and cathedrals I know are all fairly dark inside, beyond the light that filters in through the side windows. Even a "fast" f/2.8 constant aperture zoom might have some trouble with that when used handheld.</p>

<p>What I'm saying is that buying an expensive new lens might be nice, but it won't necessarily solve your problem. There's a lot of difference in light gathering ability between your relatively cheap f/1.8 prime lens and the most expensive f/2.8 zooms.</p>

<p>P.S. My constant search for camera support opportunities quite often lead me to points of view and angles that others miss. Come to think of it, so does my regrettable insistence on not using a zoom lens unless my life depends on it.</p>

<p>low light/w-a is basically the tokina 11-16. nothing else out there that wide and that fast for DX.</p>

<p>Mihai: Yes, I've been leaning towards the Tokina. The only drawback was the lack of autofocus but maybe that isn't such an issue...</p>

<p>Leslie: Sorry--I think I wasn't clear when I said 'travel light'. I'd like to keep my DSLR--I only wanted to travel light in the lens sense. Taking only two with me at a time if I could help it. Thanks for the camera links though! It is looking more and more like I may end up with a 7000 and the 11-16mm...but I'll take a look at that Tokina 12-24 you mentioned!</p>

<p>Carl: Agreed. I am going to take my 18-55mm out today and see how it does in terms of range. If I find I need wider (as I think I do), I'll keep on the hunt with the Tokina and a newer DSLR. I do have a small tripod, but as Mihai mentioned, they often aren't allowed in churches---and truthfully, I often don't like using it. But, I should try that too (when possible)...</p>

<p>Pierre: Agreed. I can't fault the lens itself--it performs fine in outdoor, well lit conditions as I said--I just need something else for low light. Like you, I am not into the tripod use. Most of my photos are, as you described, "of people and their decisive moments". More like travel/daily life photojournalism. But taking architectural shots is something altogether different and I may have to support the camera in some way (the pew idea is a good one!). Your PS comment made me laugh--I wine annoyingly every time I take my 35mm off (as sometimes I do try to use the 18-55mm). That is why I've considered going the UWA prime route---to prevent future whining. haha!</p>

<p>If you're photographing church architecture you'll want a reasonable depth of field, which a wide open fast lens isn't necessarily going to help with. If you don't want to use a tripod (and I see Manfrotto are advertising a carbon fibre tripod at under £100 at the moment, although I've no idea how good it is), then the good performance at high iso of the D7000 will help; I've certainly been impressed with mine when taking shots of gloomy interiors of churches. I think I'd probably go for the flexibility of a wide zoom if you're thinking of investing in the D7000.<br>

I take a lot of photographs of churches and can think of very few in the UK where I've not been allowed to use a tripod. There are some splendid churches in the Oxford diocese - you'll have a lot of fun exploring them.</p>

<p>Erik: That's pretty much what my readings led me to believe. Thanks for confirming. :)<br>

Jonathan: That's what I had wondered---and where I was getting a little confused. Getting my 35mm really seemed to do the trick with my previous issues with portrait style low light issues--but I wasn't sure if it was needed for this application (wanting more depth of field or more in focus in the picture). I know that when I use my 35mm in these settings, the photos are really crisp and fine in low light--I just can't get enough in the frame--so I assumed I needed that fast aperture again. However some mentioned that with an UWA, the fast aperture isn't as necessary. This is where I go all 'newbie' and get confused. :) To add to the struggle, I mostly take daily life/portrait/travel experience type photos vs. landscape/architecture shots. So I keep going back to the wide zoom (even though my favorite lens is a prime). Any wide zooms you would recommend? Or even a mid range zoom with a wide end? Oh--and YES--there are some amazing churches around here. Hence, my keen desire to capture them all! :) </p>

<p>Thanks everyone for the great responses---they are so helpful! KEep them coming!</p>

 

<p>Why,in the name of all that's holy,do you think that autofocus is important?<br>

You are in a low light environment,can't use a tripod,baby on the hip..and a lens with 1/2 to 2/3F more light gathering ability,if used wide open,will help?<br>

Keep your current lenses,use a tripod.<br>

I am reminded of the old maxim : you can have it good,fast,or cheap. You may choose two.</p>

<p>Ian: Thank you for your kind response. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>low light/w-a is basically the tokina 11-16. nothing else out there that wide and that fast for DX.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Erik: That's pretty much what my readings led me to believe. Thanks for confirming. :)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Tokina 11-16mm/f2.8 lens is reasonably fast, it is very wide, and it is designed for DX (APS-C) type sensors. However, please keep in mind that the Nikon-mount version of that lens has no AF motor inside; neither does the Nikon D5000 body. Therefore, if you use that combination, you will have no auto focus. Whether that is a "fatal" flaw is up to each individual to decide. That problem goes away if you indeed upgrade to a D7000, which has an on-body AF motor.</p>

<p>Another issue with 11-16mm is that it is a fairly limited zoom range. It is not even 2x. If you really like super wides, it can be a good fit. If you don't need that wide, something like a 17-55mm/f2.8 DX lens from Nikon (expensive) or 3rd parties may be a better alternative. Most of such lenses have a built-in AF motor nowadays.</p>

<p>Shun: Thank you for your very helpful response and insight. I think this is part of the question I need to answer--do I really need 'that wide' or will I be better off with a 'better in low light' version of my kit lens (which would be the 17-55mm). I plan to take my kit lens out and see if I am really at the 18mm end most of the time and wishing for more--if so then the Tokina 11-16mm with a D7000 to get the autofocus (or a nikon/tokina 12-24) seems like the answer. If not, then it seems the 17-55 that would be best. Do you have any recommendations for 3rd party lenses? I only have Nikon lenses and have been a little nervous about owning anything else. Although the Tokina has gotten strong reviews (here and elsewhere), the few others I have briefly read about seem like a mixed bag---and quality depends on "getting a good copy". Thanks again for your help!</p>

<p>I love the 11-16, and for the kinds of things you are talking about, it's a great lens for that camera... with a tripod, imho, of course...</p>

<p>Even though you HAVE f2.8, it doesn't mean that shooting all the way wide open is the way to go. However, unlike the other UWA zooms, if you stop down to f5.6, you're at the sweet spot of the lens, whereas you're close to or wide open on the others. </p>

<p>That said, if all your photos are basically being viewed online at screen resolution, you can get away with hand-holding that lens... and AF might not be an issue, since you're in low light anyway, and I like to manually focus that lens in such cases.</p>

<p>btw, with the D5000, if you're getting poor low-light AF, are you using the center AF point? With that camera, as with my D90, ALWAYS use the center point <em><strong>ONLY</strong></em> in real low light.</p>

<p>Peter: WOW! Your last question was a great one. I DON'T always use the center focus point. In fact, a lot of my typical shots (candid photos of people interacting) are used with the focus centered on them (and they may be in the left or right, rather than center of the frame). I love the look that produces--but if the D5000 struggles with that in low light, then I will see how using center focus only works---and I will more seriously consider getting the 7000! Wow. That was such a helpful bit of information. Thank you! And good to hear AF is not such an issue. With the 'cathedral' type shots, I don't think manual focusing would matter to me--I was just imagining if I wanted to take it into other, more dynamic applications (shooting people). But, if the 7000 is in my future, the AF issue isnt' an issue at all...</p>

<p>Thank you all so much--this is all such helpful advice! Keep it coming. I'm so glad I was finally brave enough to post!</p>

<p>Sarah, </p>

<p>The center point is the only "cross type" point on that unit, so it'll focus best in any light. I try to use it exclusively. But the thing about manually focusing with the 11-16... in cases like you're talking about. Rather than focus on a point, I normally try to figure out where my depth of field will be and so I focus BEFORE my far point, to get the full benefit and the maximum in focus.. Check out an online depth of field calculator and experiment at home some time.</p>

<p>>> . I do have a small tripod, but as Mihai mentioned, they often aren't allowed in churches <<</p>

<p>Apart from the "Lens Advices" : when going places where i cannot use a tripod, I can most of the time use a "Walking stick monopod" , mine is called "Leki Sierra" but there are many others too...</p>

<p>Peter: Thank you so much for this info. I'm sure I should have known but I did not know this about the D5000. I will do as you suggest and experiment with the DOF calculations. And look for a 7000. haha!<br>

CPM: Interesting! I'll have a look at that. Thanks for the tip!</p>

<p>The good part of UWA lenses is that they have plenty of DOF even at f2.8. This could be strange but the DOF of 11mm f/2.8 is much bigger that the one of 105mm f/8. Even when I use my 24/1.4 wide open I have enough DOF for most applications, using right the hyperfocal distance.</p>

<p>Sarah, I haven't read this whole post, but I suggest the 14-24mm f2.8 Nikon. If you can't afford it, or just don't want to spend that much, I suggest the 20mm Sigma f1.8. If you would like something wider than your 18-55, then I suggest the 16-85mm VR. With VR switched on, you should be able to shoot good clear images at 1/15 second, with your camera set at ISO 200. You may have to go up to ISO 400 in some situations, but even ISO 400 is acceptable for the Web (Internet) and for prints up to 13x19. The wide-open performance of the 16-85mm VR is reasonably good (much better than the kit lens wide-open). If you want to go higher than ISO 400, you should have a Nikon D700. With one of those amazing cameras, you can shoot at ISO 800, 1600, and even higher (for 8x10 prints or for posting images on Web sites). I know this, because I have a close friend with a D700.<br>

-<br>

I am not saying that you can't shoot at ISO 1600, if you are using a D5000. I had a D5000, and I shot some photos at ISO 1600. I even shot at ISO 3200 with that camera. The photos are fine for posting on Facebook or on a Web site. They aren't any good for making good photos for large prints though. 5x7 prints look fine from the D5000 at ISO 1600 though.<br>

-<br>

To compare lenses, I like to use pixel-peeper dot com and slrgear dot com.<br>

-<br>

Just so you know, I don't profess to know everything there is to know about lenses or cameras. I have some experience with Nikons (since I had one myself and have used others). I have some experience with Nikon lenses too (my brother has a couple and some expensive Nikon lenses, including the 14-24mm f2.8). Right now I am shooting with a Sigma SD14 and a Canon T1i. I am planning to get a Sony A33, A55, A65, or A77 (I'll probably just get the A33, because it is the least expensive, and the image quality is about as good as the others at ISO 400 and above, where I plan to use it, when not shooting with my Sigma). I have done a lot of research about lenses over the past few years. It is difficult to know what to buy. Primes have their advantages and disadvantages. Nobody knows everything, and what is right for them is not necessarily right for you, so take everything everyone says with a few grains of salt.<br>

-<br>

Good luck Sarah!</p>