Too poor for FX. Advice for a DX Solution. Flash and Lenses

<p>Hi all,<br>

I thought I would turn to you for some advice with regards to acquiring some new equipment. I currently have a Nikon D5100 and I must say I love it, I do aspire to FX and a D800 but right now I dont think I can justify the jump, both due to my experience but also due to the financials. <br>

Im still very new to photography really, and just when I think I have found an area that is "what I do" I'm captivated by another facet of the hobby and want to explore it. I was initially drawn to photography for Landscapes, and although I want to continue shooting them, I also want to explore a few other things. I love reading The Strobist, and am keen to explore some creative portraiture and street photography, but also being a Pilot by trade, Im really keen to start trying to capture some good Aviation shots. Tied into this I've also had a crack at some Automotive stuff which I really enjoy. As you can see I'm keen to have a go at everything.<br>

What I would like to ask is for some advice on buying a lens or two and a flash for my D5200. Originally I wanted a to buy a D800, thought about a used D3X and also a used D3S for some low light stuff. In the end I have decided to get more use out of what I have as I essentially came to the conclusion I just want a new body because I like wanted to get the FX crossover done early.<br>

Anyway I digress, currently I have a nice tripod, remote, D5100, Kit 18-55 and a 50mm 1.4. I got the 50mm as I wanted to try some shallow depth of field stuff and I very much like it, the crop factor however is a little bit of a pain, particularly as I've tried it for some flying shots and could do with something wider, so was thinking about the 35mm DX. The 18-55mm is good too but much prefer the faster 50mm's aperture range, apart from for landscape work.<br>

Any advice kindly appreciated, currently im considering a 10.5mm for flying and landscape work, 35dx for street and a flash unit, but Im very open to suggestions. Cheers everybody and Happy New Year!</p>

<p> This is my flickr link if it helps to see what I've been up to. I dont attach it for any critique just to give some extra info into what I like to shoot, there isnt much on there but it might be useful.<br>

Regards.</p>

<p>Based off your Flickr portfolio, it seems you are into landscapes, cars, and you mention you like the shallow depth of field. Have you looked at the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8?</p>

<p>If you plan to go to FX <i>eventually</i> (and maybe there's no reason to), I'd be wary of adding more DX lenses to your collection, since you'll not be able to make the best of your FX camera without replacing them. Of course, that makes getting good, wide lenses quite expensive, so it may be advice that you choose to ignore.<br />

<br />

Thinking outside the box a bit, if you want to play with landscape and depth of field, I'd suggest a quick look into tilt-shift lenses. Unfortunately, the Nikkor versions are silly money and the off-brand ones are mostly not optically so brilliant. (I have a Kiev 35mm and a Hartblei 65; I ought to use them more, but I've not been as happy with the results as I'd hoped.) Still, it may be worth hunting on ebay. The cheap solution would be to look into Lensbaby.<br />

<br />

For aviation, you seem to be talking either about landscapes shot from an aircraft (cool if you can do it) or close-ups of aircraft on the ground. I'm a little surprised you don't seem to be mentioning shots of aircraft in flight, which would tend to need something longer (cheap: 55-300, moderate: 70-300, fairly expensive: 300 f/4, silly money: 500 f/4, possibly AI-P to save cash). I don't know whether that's anything you care about.<br />

<br />

Out of interest, where are you based? I'm guessing the UK, unless your images were taken on holiday. If visiting Bracknell is easy for you and you'd like to play with my selection of Nikkors to see what might appeal, drop me a line (though you may do just as well visiting Park Camera's HQ).</p>

<p>Since you mentioned low light stuff as well you shouldn't really buy anything slower than f/2.8.</p>

<p>Tokina 11-16/2.8 is a no brainer - one of a kind actually. Then you'd probably be happy with a midrange f/2.8 zoom like Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS HSM or Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC. I would skip the 10.5 fisheye - fun but not much use in real life.</p>

<p>With a f/2.8 midrange zoom the need for the 35mm and 50mm/1.8 is not as high. They are still useful of course but I think a 85/1.8G would be better as a it would provide some tele for you that a 17-50 zoom can't cover.</p>

<p>If you are on a budget buy used instead of new. But my advice would be to start with the Tokina 11-16mm and then get a stabilized f/2.8 midrange zoom. And number three would be a 85/1.8 or a 70-200/2.8 zoom of some kind. Number four would be the 35/1.8G if you still feel you like that focal length and need more light (since you by now have had some experience with the f/2.8 zoom). </p>

<p> </p>

<p>First of all, do not underestimate your D5100. It is a really nice camera. A D800 or D3 will not make you a better photographer all of a sudden, don't be lured into the idea that the camera body is that big a decisive factor in good images. The thing with FX is: it's quite a bit of extra money for some specific advantages, and some disadvantages. It's not a better system by definition, it's a <em>different</em> system. Before going there, define for yourself whether the FX advantages actually really bring something to your photography. For quite a lot of people, it doesn't.<br>

Second, get what you need today. Thinking ahead to a possible-maybe-who-knows FX camera, and compromising your lens choices today because of it - no use in that. For example, the 14-24 f/2.8 is great for FX, but insanely large and expensive for DX where it's just not wide enough compared to a lens as the Tokina 11-16 mentioned above. The 35mm DX is a nice 200 euros, the 35 f/2D (optically quite a lot less impressive) €350. DX lenses can be the completely right choice. Sell them later on, if needed - the good ones keep value.</p>

<p>The 35 f/1.8 DX is a lovely lens, great value. If budget isn't too strict, get it. It's a bit a no-brainer. For flash, I would recommend getting started with a SB700 - good performer and quite easy to use, and if you continue with reading Strobist - it can command other flashes as well ;-)</p>

<p>Now landscapes... on DX, despite having a 12-24, my favourite landscape lens was the 16-85VR by far. The range was just about perfect. Wide-angle landscapes shots go boring easily, and really need very solid compositions to work well. I think 24 to 35 mm on DX was about where I shot most of the landscape shots. The 18-55 is not a bad choice for this kind of work, actually. So, I'd recommend to check for yourself whether you feel frequently restricted by the 18mm end, or not. If not, or not very often, then a wide-angle is a bit a waste of money. Likewise for the 55mm end. Check your own actually usage of the 18-55, and which lens to save up for next becomes obvious.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>currently im considering a 10.5mm for flying and landscape work</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I find that focal length much too wide for landscapes on a DX. I am not sure what you mean by flying. If you mean photos of aircrafts, I wouldn't have used it for that. Wide angles can easily give you distortions on the aircrafts, the aircraft can get too small and there will not be much dept of field to isolate the aircraft.</p>

<p>I would have bought a zoom lens for this kind of work. The 16-85mm lens is good for many things, but it isn't a f/2.8. I am not sure you would need that though. If you are shooting things that are standing still you would not be needing a faster lens than the 16-85mm. I am sure your camera is quite good at higher ISO's, so you can use that when you want higher shutter speeds.</p>

<p>If you are going to shoot airplanes taking off or landing, you would need a longer focal length, and also in that case I would go for a zoom. If you would be standing fairly close to the runways, a cheap 70-300mm Nikon can actually get you a long way. Preferably in good light.</p>

<p>By the way, there is banding (?) in your photo of the Sea Kings on the line. I haven't checked if it is present in your other photos.</p>

 

<p>The D5100 is really quite good. You can't get <em>that</em> much better without spending a lot. Now, lenses:</p>

<p>I'm going to agree with Ann - since you don't want to spend a lot, stay clear of the 16-85 lens. It's not going to help at all with the needs you mentioned. </p>

<p>The other thing I'm going to recommend is buying used DX lenses. That way if you eventually switch to an FX camera you can sell the DX lenses and not lose much or any money, and for now you can have the lenses that suit your camera. Do look at the Tokina 11-16mm. Only the newer version has AF on a D5100, but focusing a lens that wide in manual isn't hard and you'll probably want to be using manual and hyperfocal distances on a tripod anyway, so you might get a previous version one used. Also the third party 17-50mm f/2.8 lenses are a good idea, as is the 35mm f/1.8 - you really can't go wrong with either of those on a D5100.</p>

<p>If you want to get into Strobist type stuff, you might go for a remote trigger system like PocketWizards plus some used flashes like good old reliable Vivitar 283s. Check the PW docs for camera and flash compatibility. Consider the older PW models that aren't TTL, and you can just set up whatever flashes you want on manual.</p>

<p>The only other consideration is telephoto, which is where I don't think what I said about buying DX lenses applies. If shooting airplanes means you want a heck of a lot of magnification, it's difficult to go over 300mm without spending a lot. The 70-300mm lenses can be good, particularly in good light. Consider the Tamron one with VC - it's a bit sharper on the tele end than the Nikon VR. It's also cheap enough that it makes the DX tele zooms not compelling options. If you think a 70-200 would suit you, consider the new Nikon f/4 model. It's got excellent image quality, weighs and costs a lot less than the f/2.8, and would transition well to an FX camera.</p>

<p>Andy, have you ever owned the 16-85mm lens? This lens is selling like hot cakes and you keep advicing against it. I have owned it for years, and I am very happy with it.</p>

<p>if i were you, i'd get a wide-angle (or two) first. that will likely make the most immediate difference in your photography. on a budget? i'd maybe think about a manual focus fisheye like <a href="http://www.adorama.com/RKAE8MN.html?gclid=CNfWpc3I4bQCFSOnPAodIG8AZw">this Rokinon</a> for inside-plane shots. you don't really need AF for that type of shooting. fisheyes are also good for panoramic landscapes, but the effect will get tired soon, unless you want to use software to de-fish. for landscapes, a used sigma 10-20 would offer lots of bang for the buck. the tokina 11-16 has better IQ at wider apertures, but by f/8, which is where you want to be for landscapes, it wont matter much. i also wouldnt count on getting good bokeh out of a wide-angle lens, even at 2.8. it might be a good idea to rent a lens first before purchasing, to make sure that's what you want. but in general i agree with wouter that buying lenses based on an eventual move to FX isn't a great idea, particularly with wide-angle lenses.</p>

D5100 is great, I use them for various medium duty assignments without a glitch. Anything else I can rent rather than own

if necessary. If I were you I would add a wide like 10-24 or something, Sigma is good, I've used my friends it's very nice.

35 f1.8 and 85 f1.8 are nice to have at a good price too. Then a good f2.8 longer zoom or 180mm.

<p>I applaud your decision to keep with your 5100. It is a fine camera and used properly will take just about any photo that one could imagine taking. </p>

<p>Starting with what you have...</p>

<p>Your 18-55 actually performs very well indeed. You have the 50 F/1.4 which you have enjoyed. I wonder how much difference you will see between it and the 35 f/1.8. You have the range covered with the 18-55 so unless you want the shallower depth of field the F/1.8 and at that specific focal length I think you can get by without it. </p>

<p>Here is what I would do. I would buy the Tokina 11-16 F2.8 or if you prefer to stay with Nikon the 12-24 (used). (I vote for the Tokina.) That will take you as wide as you will probably go with any frequency. <br>

Then I would consider one of two other lenses. I am a huge fan of the 80-200 F/2.8 Nikkor. (two step not the push pull.) It is fast, tack sharp and built like a tank. Used you can get one for not a huge amount and new they are about $1K in the US. If you want to save some money you could consider the 70-300 AFS VR. It is a nice lens and not too much money. So with those lenses you could potentially go from (35mm speak) 18 to 450 mm. Your total investment would be something like $1000 if you consider used to $1500.00 new. </p>

<p>After you have used this kit for a year you may want to add something. Now to the flash. PLEASE buy at least one SB-700/800/900 before you do anything else. You are right to be reading strobist. It is a wonderful site and will help you take your photography to a whole new level. Especially when you start lighting the inside of aircraft and shooting from outside and cool stuff like that. </p>

<p>I think you are on the wise track. It would be easy to run out and spend a fortune on a new body but it won't make you a better photographer at all. Doing exactly what you have been doing will. Joy!</p>

<p>Ann, I don't own it - I don't have a DX camera anymore - but my father does and I've spent plenty of quality time with it. Much of that, trying to identify why it better (optically) than other DX kit zooms, back when I had a D7000, so I could talk myself into buying one, and basically failing. It has only very slight optical advantages over some lenses that cost half as much - all it has is better build quality. Which is why I find it odd that people recommend it to literally every DX camera owner who asks any question about what lens to buy, whether or not a kit type zoom even makes sense in the context of the question.</p>

<p>Here we have a poster who wants an upgrade in certain areas and doesn't want to spend a lot. I doubt the 16-85 would provide any advantage over the 18-55 he has.</p>

<p>Though, now that I think about it - I did say that it made sense to buy used DX lenses, so they're already depreciated and can be sold without a penalty in case of a later FX upgrade. And I don't think I've looked at used prices for the 16-85 lens before, but now that I do it looks like it's pretty easy to find them for $450 and they can be sniped on eBay for $350 if you're lucky. I think those prices more accurately the value of the lens, so, as a used lens, I can get behind it. Unless it's for use in low light, because unless you have a D300 you can't get the thing to AF. (The next time I see somebody tell some poster who has a $500 budget for camera and lens who wants to take low light action shots of cats, or something like that, that they need to save up for a 16-85 lens, that person is getting flamed.)</p>

<p>Hi everyone, <br>

Thankyou so much for all your advice, its really appreciated. I have checked out some of the results on Pixel Peeper of the Tokina 11-16 and it looks like this will do the job nicely for what I had in mind for it, as Pete and Anne alluded to the 10.5mm might be a one trick pony. The Tokina seems that it will be good for the wider end of the Landscapes as well as some of the aviation. <br>

Andrew - I have thought a lot about TS Lenses, I like them because you have to know what you are doing with them and they seem to produce some great results. As an aside its was the aspiration to one day incorporate them into my photography that had me interested in the D3X over the D800. You ask what type of aviation stuff I want to do and its varied, not so much landscapes from the cockpit but more internal cockpit stuff, general shots of aircraft etc.<br>

I very much like this chap's work http://500px.com/ChristopherBuff so it looks like the telephoto could be the choice. Thanks very much for the offer to try out your lenses, its very kind. I am UK based but way down in Cornwall unfortunately!<br>

Wouter - everything you said is useful and reassuring thanks!<br>

Anne - thanks for pointing out the banding, any tips to stop it in the future? Thats a stack of a few photos badly layered in photoshop by the way, I was playing with light painting.<br>

Andy - I'll get reading on the pocket wizard set up you mention, sounds interesting and I agree with the advice of buying used. I actually can get VAT free cameras which is a saving, but still find used ones to be cheaper and depreciate less. I have looked at the 70-200 which seems to be part of the "holy trinity" but not the F/4 so I'll check it out.<br>

Rick - Thanks for the back up! I do really like my D5100 and just dont feel I've outgrown it, plus I know its not a pro camera but it still wasnt cheap and anything bigger and I start to loose portability in the cockpit. You suggest the 80-200 which I've checked out and looks good, any reason you suggest this one over the more favoured 70-200 F2.8? Cheers.<br>

Thanks again everyone, I've been battling with this for a while and you've all made it a lot clearer. <br>

Regards.</p>

 

<p>A slow zoom like the 16-85 makes no sense what so ever.</p>

<p>For portraiture you want large apertures to that you can throw the background out of focus when desired. For low light you also want large apertures to keep the shutter speed up. Being wide open at f/5.6 just doesn't cut it.</p>

<p>The OP's photographic needs are varied and he should really only look at f/2.8 zooms and faster primes because that will give him the most option and versatility.</p>

 

<p>If you're into taking cockpit shots, I'd get the UWA Sigma 8-16mm. I know it's a slow lens, but at the short range you'll be using it, using balanced fill-flash, 8mm should look pretty wild! The 'long' end of 16mm is modestly wide, EQ FOV to a 24mm on 35mm/FX.</p>

<p>To the OP, I took a quick look at your portfolio and see quite typical beginner images there. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that; each one of us was/is a beginner at some point.</p>

<p>Staying with the D5100 is a good idea. I would suggest get a total of 3 to 5 lenses, including the ones you already have, to get started. There is no need to get something too exotic and unusual at this point, e.g. a fisheye. You are better off spending your effort to improve your photo skills rather than on which lens is a tiny bit better.</p>

You ask about the 70-200 AF-s VR...The only reason I mentioned the 80-200 F/2.8 was the issue of price. I have both the 80-200 F/2.8D and the 70-200 AF-s VR and of course use the later almost exclusively. It does focus somewhat faster and of course there is the VR. Before this lens was available though the 80-200 F/2.8 was the lens of choice for professionals and just about anyone looking for a fast zoom.

 

Hitchhiking on what Shun said. Training seminars and workshops can be worth their weight in gold. Even those of us who have been photographers for a lifetime still take them and derive great benefit from them.

<p>I actually have both version 1 and version 2 of the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR. I would get that lens if you shoot:</p>

<ul>

<li>Weddings and parties, usually indoors under dim light. VR is very handy indoors at venues where tripods are either not allowed or not practical since you need to move around a lot. Even though you don't actually capture at f2.8, having it is going to help AF speed and accuracy.</li>

<li>Sports, especially indoor or night sports</li>

</ul>

<p>If you are interested in shooting air shows, etc., a 70-300mm/f4.5-5.6 either from Nikon or Tamron, etc. is good. So is the f4 version of the 70-200mm AF-S VR. Unfortunately, Nikon's new 70-200mm/f4 is not that affordable, although it is excellent optically.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A slow zoom like the 16-85 makes no sense what so ever.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pete, too me it does. Maybe not to you. The lens will be fine for shooting aircrafts both from the inside and the outside. Regarding shooting portraits, that is not what I shoot, but aren't many photographers using f/8 for portraits? The lens has f/8 :-)</p>

<p>As for fast primes and zooms: With newer cameras and good high ISO that is actually not that important. And with still subjects you would normally use low ISO and longer shutter speeds when photographing in low light situations. Regarding isolating the subject, I don't get the impression that that is an important feature for the OP at present.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Who wants to take low light action shots of cats....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Andy, who said anything about low light action shots? Very few consumer cameras and lenses are capable of that, as far as I know.<br /> <br /> As for lighting, I would use the TTL speedlight system, or get some recommended, new basic eBay radio triggers to go with older flashes in manual mode.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>PLEASE buy at least one SB-700/800/900 before you do anything else.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I second that, Rick. I would probably go for the SB-700's today. Just bare in mind that there has to be free line of sight when using the TTL system.</p>

<p>For landscape and airplane shots from the outside, as well as airplane cockpits, a wide angle zoom would extend your standard zoom nicely. E.g. 10-24 or 12-24/4 Nikkor would work on DX; 14-24 or 16-35 for FX; 14-24 has a suitable range for both formats and has the highest quality of the lot but it is expensive and does not permit the use of reasonably sized ND graduated filters that some still use for landscape photography to balance the exposure of the sky and the ground or sea.</p>

<p>Are you going to shoot flying aircraft from the ground, or from another aircraft? For air-to-air shots you probably do not need a long lens, but from the ground you do. A lens that would give decent image quality and works both on FX and DX is the VR 70-300. For <em>really good</em> image quality, the 300/4 AF-S Nikkor would be a good choice, again it works on both FX and DX.</p>

<p>For low light, and shallow depth of field in bright or low light, fast primes work well. The 28/1.8, 35/1.8 and 85/1.8 are affordable, fast primes that would work well on your current camera; however the 35/1.8 is a DX lens so if you plan on moving to FX, the 28 and 85 would work well on that format as well. All three are reasonably priced and high quality. The f/1.4 primes apart from the 50mm are very expensive and may not give enough additional oomph to your images to justify the cost, unless you already know that it is needed.</p>

<p>FX is intrinsically better suited for low light images and shallow depth of field (the quality difference is more obvious in these situations than others that you mention). For long-range shots of aircraft, however, FX would require considerable investment in a long lens, unless you're positioned really well (being a pilot, you may have access to good locations that let you use shorter lenses e.g. 70-200/4), or at an airshow, you may need a longer than 300mm lens for FX to fill the frame in many cases. I think a lot of people who shoot planes from the ground use 400mm and longer lenses, or teleconverters that let you get to those focal lengths. Personally I would get the 300/4 as your longest lens for those shots; it is optically a great lens and gives enough reach for many things, and it's priced fairly. The 70-300 VR is affordable but it is not quite as good as the 70-200 in the 70-200 range and much less good than the 300/4 at 300mm. But since you may want to do air-to-air shots that non-pilots may not be able to get, for this you don't need a 300mm; a close shot will usually look better than far-away shots if you're fine with another aircraft being in your immediate proximity :-)</p>

<p>Format choice: the only area mentioned where FX has a marked edge is the low-light and shallow DOF stuff, especially if you want to do it with wide angles. There are simply no really good fast wide angle options for DX that give you the shallow DOF effect and high image quality. The 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 as well as the less expensive 28/1.8 would do this on FX, but they're not that wide on DX. But if you don't need this kind of combination of features right now, i.e. low light wide angle & shallow DOF in a wide angle, you can put off the FX purchase for quite some time or even indefinitely. For landscape photography, aviation, portraits, cars etc. DX can do a splendid job. Landscape photos can benefit from the D800 for sure, especially for wide angle shots, and tilt/shift stuff, but there is a considerable additional cost to that choice and in practical use it isn't <em>that </em>different in quality from 16MP or higher DX. In studio or otherwise lit portraits (you mention strobist) DX works great. For aviation and car racing DX mean reduced costs and less weight for the same reach. </p>

<p>Flash choice: I really like the SB-700 as an on-camera flash that can do off camera also within some circumstances and you can bounce it in flexible ways. The SB-700 is more portable than the SB-910 and balances better on your camera than the SB-910. For portraiture and other stuff (if you want to light airplanes or cars) you may need additional lights but you should get to know the one flash and learn to maximize its potential first. In a lot of situations one flash (possibly bounced or with modifiers such as umbrella or soft box) combined with ambient light is the way to go, and it lets you move about quickly without lugging a lot of gear with you such as the lighting gurus do ...</p>

<p>Ann, that was just an extreme example of silly recommendations of that lens. E.g., I've seen people recommend that somebody with an FX camera buy that lens, and use their camera in DX mode. I've also seen it recommended as a sports lens and as a portrait lens. I don't get the fascination with it. In the case of this thread I don't think it's a sensible recommendation.</p>

<p>But for low lighting action shots of cats, with a D5100, I'd probably choose either a 17-50 2.8 lens or an 85 1.8G, depending on the size of the cat and subject distance - a 70-200 2.8 would be idea but probably out of budget. :)</p>

<p>Andy, I too like the 16-85. If I was shooting outdoors and only allowed one lens, that would be the one. Granted, it's terrible at wide apertures ... but on your average 'outdoor' settings it's just as good as any other zoom lens is, including those that cost much more. Actually for general photography, I would strongly recommend that as a 'regular' lens, and then a couple of appropriate primes, rather than a 17-50 or somesuch. But I tend to only shoot really 'serious' stuff or snapshots, and there's very little in between for me. Most people will not be working that way.</p>

<p>Jamie, welcome to your new hobby - and with any luck, your new lifestyle :) This will eat up a lot of your time, so use it well :)</p>

<p>At your current level, there's absolutely no reason to upgrade your camera. You will at some point, even if you only shoot still subjects off a tripod and with manual focus. Those smaller-bodied Nikons are a little more likely to clip highlight and shadow detail than some of the larger ones; you'll probably never notice it with regular use, but it does mean that there are a couple tricks that can be used with a larger camera that the D5100 won't do so well. But I'd save that for another time.</p>

<p>The 35mm f/1.8 is a good lens, but you will notice a loss of quality between that and your 50mm f/1.4, particularly in contrasty or low-light scenes. I've noticed that the 35mm lens is more contrasty, especially in the shadows, which results in some loss of detail. If you want more contrast you can always add it, but if it starts that way then you can't reduce it very much.</p>

<p>If it were me, going by the lenses that I use the most, and knowing what you're shooting, I would get as much use out of that 50mm as possible. Use that as a walking-around lens for now. The fact that it has a single focal length means that you have to consider your shots much more carefully, which will help you learn. It also means that you'll have a greater understanding of what lenses can and cannot do, which will be extremely helpful next time you want to buy a new one. Lastly, being that it is the widest aperture AF lens available for Nikon, is reasonably sharp wide open, has no VR, and focuses accurately (although perhaps not quickly), that means that if you're not happy with the photos, it is absolutely not the lens' fault. That will help you understand why a certain image or setting did or did not work, and you'll find yourself improving much more rapidly.</p>

<p>If an image from that lens is soft or slightly blurry, it means that your shutter speed was too low, or the image was slightly out of focus. If an image from a 16-85, or 18-55 is soft or slightly blurry, it will take a lot of testing to figure out if it was the shutter speed, the lens' ability, or the fact that VR slightly degrades image quality.</p>

<p>I teach some undergraduate photography classes, and I always encourage my students to use a plain old 50mm lens if they have one, for exactly those reasons. It's not as sexy as a big zoom lens, but it's an infinitely better learning tool.</p>

<p>Good luck, and welcome to the club!</p>

<p>If I were shooting shots like the ones you have on Flickr, I wouldn't care what format it was. You're not letting the gear get in the way, which is as it should be.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't get the fascination with it. - Andy.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly, I think that is the main problem, not the lens :-) And I would not like people to miss out on this lens just because you don't get the fascination with it. Maybe you had a bad copy?</p>

<p><a href=" is what I think a good portrait with the lens. You can get better isolation from the background if you want that. But there should be nothing wrong with the quality of the lens for most consumers. (Right click on the photo to choose other sizes).</p>