Selecting the correct lens

[bill_carnicelli]

I have a D80 with the Nikon Zoom Super Wide Angle AF 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF

AF-S DX $300 and a 70- 300 inexpensive non ED and non silent motor Nikon len

$150. I also have the SB600. I?d like to buy a Nikon Zoom Super Wide Angle-

Telephoto AF Zoom Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR II $749.00 or the

70-300 Nikkor ED-IF AF-S DX . From what I have read on this board and my

understanding of all the information. I would get less distortion with a lens

that has a lower focal length?? I?m confused as to why some lenses are so

expensive ex: zoom super wide angle 17-55 $1199 but the 55-200 VR is only

$229.95. The 12-24mm is $919.95. I hope someone can make sense of what I don?t

understand. I?m very happy with the D80 and I use many of the manual setting

and I?m having great results most of the time with the 18-70. What I?ve noticed

with the 70-300, I get good shots with in the 100-200 range but I need lots of

light and the lens hunts a lot for the focus. The lens is cheap but in the

right light I get decent shots. I?m wondering if I would find better colors,

tones, contrast, shapeness and consistent focusing with the expensive lens.

The types of shots I take are close up of faces, my kids playing but with the

telephoto I shoot wildlife and trees. Any advise would be great.

 

Thanks.. Bill<div></div>

[vivek iyer]

Avoid the 18-200 expense and treat yourself to a 50/1.8 AF-D.

 

Fast, light, cheap and better quality images than any of the zooms you listed.

[tonybeach]

"I'm confused as to why some lenses are so expensive ex: zoom super wide angle 17-55 $1199 but the 55-200 VR is only $229.95. The 12-24mm is $919.95."

 

Better quality build, faster apertures, and better lens coatings. Generally you get what you pay for; Vivek's suggestion being a welcomed exception to that rule. There are diminishing returns though, marginal improvements in image quality and speed (maximum aperture) become increasingly more costly.

[dcraton]

Anthony is spot on with the "why" question.

 

Next question for you is "what is your budget." That will help determine lens(s) choices.

 

Thanks.

[bruce_margolis]

Bill, the 18-200 is a very versatile lens and would serve you well but I agree with Vivek. Certainly for photographing babies, the trusty 50mm is simply outstanding. Just remember to bounce your flash.

 

Yeah, the more expensive lenses generally may be better at focusing (as well as certain other features) but the other concerns you have, i.e., contrast, sharpening, etc, can all be addressed in processing. Start small, learn some digital software skills, and work into lenses as you need them.

[JDMvW]

On both Canon and Nikon, they have been cranking out some of the same essential design lenses for a loooooong time, for those in the know, these are often priced well below what you'd have to pay for any zoom lens with equivalent image quality. On a reduced size sensor, the 50mm ranges comes in as a short telephoto other wise known as (voila!) a "portrait lens." Don't be too quick to use on the on-camera flash either. A good, fast prime and setting a higher than usual ISO can get you more balanced shots where the background and so on are not black and the foreground burned out. Use the shallow depth of field with a good f/2.0 or faster to blur the background (and of course, almost always focus on the eyes--people will perceive a photo with sharp eyes as 'sharp' for reasons that relate to mind and body, not physics).

[tonybeach]

"On both Canon and Nikon, they have been cranking out some of the same essential design lenses for a loooooong time, for those in the know, these are often priced well below what you'd have to pay for any zoom lens with equivalent image quality."

 

That really depends. Buy three primes to match a pro zoom and the costs start to add up, but the extra speed of the primes can come in handy.

 

"On a reduced size sensor, the 50mm ranges comes in as a short telephoto other wise known as (voila!) a 'portrait lens.' "

 

I would say a not particularly impressive portrait lens though. Ironically, the Nikkor 17-55/2.8 has the best bokeh I've seen at 50mm.

 

"people will perceive a photo with sharp eyes as 'sharp' "

 

Personally, I hate out of focus noses. The reason a 50mm lens doesn't stack up so well against 85mm and longer lenses is precisely because you can get a nice bokeh on the longer lenses and still stop them down enough to keep the subject's entire face in focus.

[tim_knight]

First step is your next lens, as mentioned the Nikon 50/1.8 prime lens. This will become your favorite lens for taking pictures of your child. You will also learn what fast glass can do for you(taking pictures without flash in low light conditions) and better quality pictures for around $120 with shipping. This will be the cheapest professional level lens you will ever get. As far as what you need for a long zoom do some searching and studying concerning long zoom lens (for me the money factor became the deciding factor). For the money the 70-300VR AF-S will serve you well and you will be happy with the AF speed, VR and the colors of your pictures. It will cost you a little under $500. I haven't looked at the other lens brand choices in this zoom range to see if they are offering any image VR. Might be a cheaper choice but might suffer in quality. Maybe some else will have some experiences with the other brands and their thoughts on the quality. As mentioned earlier what is your budget?

[dcraton]

Here we go again. The old 50mm debate. Can I throw in I shot a ton of portraits with the 50mm/1.4 and do very well? No, NO, NO!

 

Actually, your 18-70 is a very good all purpose zoom. A nice prime such as the 50mm/1.8 will do you just fine and as mentioned the new 70-300mm VR is a nice lens for budget.

 

However, if you have bucks and don't mind weighty lenses, your options grow significantly.

 

It still boils down to budget.

[bill_carnicelli]

thanks for all the fast replies. Some of this is over my head but I'll try to explain what I think is correct the best way I can and why I can't apply it to my shots. If looking thought small hole (higher f.stop f22 had focused background) gives a clear

picture and a (lower F.stop 3.5 blury background) not as clear. What is the big draw to lenes with very low f stops? Small hole needs more light but I enjoy having the entire face in focus.

 

To answer the question about my budget. I would perfer not to spend $700 on a lens I not making money with. I do this only as a hobby and I have so much to learn. (as you can tell). I look at the pictures on this site that other have posted and some are so amazing I can't figure out why I can't do that same. As I read more, the D80 is a small sensor camera and maybe my shots are as good as they will get? My guess is, I just don't know enough. When you talk about the 50mm. Is that lens just a 50mm only? Why is this 50mm lens better than my 18-70? How does it give me a better shot?<div></div>

[tonybeach]

"Is that lens just a 50mm only?"

 

Yes.

 

"Why is this 50mm lens better than my 18-70?"

 

Two stops faster, slightly better IQ at f/4 and you simply can't shoot at f/2.8 with the zoom you have.

 

"How does it give me a better shot?"

 

In low light, it will focus faster because more light reaches the AF sensors.

 

That's a very nice shot BTW, it is not likely any lens can significantly improve upon it.

[bruce_margolis]

"As I read more, the D80 is a small sensor camera and maybe my shots are as good as they will get?"

 

As good as they get because of a small sensor? Nonsense. I have been at this over 30 yrs and I still don't think my photography is as good as it gets.

 

"My guess is, I just don't know enough."

 

Yep, it's as simple as that.

 

Bill, there is a big learning curve to all this. Be patient and do some trial and error stuff. Experiment with the camera. You can always take the shot again. Well, not always but you know what I mean.

[tim_knight]

Bill you have the perfect subject that will let you take pictures of her, anytimuse her as your model when trying something different. What I have learned is to study the available light and when you press the shutter down halfway look at what shutter speed you are at, try changing your apperture, ISO, exposure, and combinations of all three, take a test picture. After awhile things start to make sense and that will create more questions.

[michael s.]

There is a lot to learn, Bill. And that includes one important thing that hasn't been emphasized yet: post-processing.

 

You may already be doing quite a bit of it, in which case I may have spoken out of turn.

 

For me, almost nothing comes out of a digital camera, whether dslr or point-and-shoot, looking quite the way I want it to look. I'm dodging and burning, adjusting contrast, adjusting color a bit (especially toning down reds), doing a little sharpening, etc., and in many photos, converting to b & w. That work -- in my case, much trial-and-error ... and heavy on the error -- has become nearly as important to the 'final product' as my original snap.

[bmm]

Ok, first I have to disclose that my entire DSLR experience is one week and about 300 images (I've been testing in a variety of settings) and as such you should not put too much weight on my posting compared to others!!

 

That said, my setup is a D80 and 2 lenses - the first being the 18-200mm VR zoom and the second a 50mm f1.4 prime.

 

Now, the 18-200 is a GREAT general lens, I'm glad I bought it and I would recommend it. Right now I'm hanging it out of my office window and it is giving me the ability to get great wide shots of Sydney harbour, then within an instant - and without changing lenses - zoom in on some detail that has captured my attention. I think for when I'm on the move it will be a great default lens, and will probably end up being responsible for 70% of my shots.

 

But... the real, unexpectedly fun testing has been with the fixed 50mm. It's just that touch sharper than the zoom, and I've never had that kind of low-light ability and depth of field control available to me before.

 

But most of all, the 50mm makes me think. I'm used to having some kind of zoom capability and adjusting to the "yeah thats about right" point. But with the prime I take that little more time thinking about the shot and setting it up. And when that's combined with the lens' optical performance, it really shows.

 

For what its worth I think my next lens at this stage will be a wide-ish (in the 20-35mm range) fast prime.

[juanjo_viagran]

My advice is: sell the cheap 70-300mm and get a 80-200mm 2.8 AFD (2rings), you'll see the difference.

[dcraton]

Yeah, Juanjo. I agree. But: Application determines lens purchases. Per his post, this is a hobby and Bill admits he has much to learn and is on a budget.

 

Bill, I agree to keep within your budget (18-200 VR is not that great) and learn photography before dropping coin; except maybe the fun 70-300mm VR and a 50mm/1.8. Your frog pic is great.

 

It's real easy to spend someone else's money.

[kari v]

Anthony Beach: "Personally, I hate out of focus noses. The reason a 50mm lens doesn't stack up so well against 85mm and longer lenses is precisely because you can get a nice bokeh on the longer lenses and still stop them down enough to keep the subject's entire face in focus."

 

I must say I'm not a big fan of blurry noses either but in this case Bill is mostly going to take pictures of his kids... Last time I checked kids don't have that big noses. ;)

Also, 85mm can be a bit too long inside.

 

Bill, you may find this DoF calculator useful:

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

[tonybeach]

Kari, a lens to take pictures of kids running around and a "portrait lens" are two different lenses. Ironically, when kids are moving a zoom is a better choice than any prime because framing becomes impossible when the subject isn't cooperating. So while Nikon's 50mm primes are good lens, they are not ideal lenses for either application.

 

My point about out of focus noses does not depend on the size of the face, since you will likely frame tighter on a smaller face than on a larger one, the nose (even a proportionally small nose) will be comparably out of focus on either shot if you shoot too wide open.

[JDMvW]

Anthony-I could not disagree with you more, and I certainly wasn't suggesting that anyone should only shoot with primes, just that the relatively inexpensive prime lenses in the 28-50mm range are bargains and have high image quality notwithstanding their relatively low cost.

[bill_carnicelli]

Thank you everyone for all your advise... it's nice to know that others have had the same problems and are willing to lend a hand. I'm going to get a Nikon 50mm. I noticed they make a 1.4D and 1.8D.. Which one do you guys like?

 

Bill

 

PS.. the frog pic was taken with the cheap 70-300.. funny one of my better pics.

[eric_arnold]

bill,

dont think you need a 1.4 aperture so save your money and get the 1.8. use the money you save to get a good tripod, which will substantially improve your 70-300 pics at the long end.

[tonybeach]

"28-50mm range are bargains and have high image quality notwithstanding their relatively low cost."

 

Not sure what it is you are disagreeing with me about, since I am not arguing with this statement -- I own a few of them (but no longer use them since they are manual focus and don't equal my Nikkor 17-35/2.8). My son and I have considered primes for midrange focal lengths, but when you consider that a Nikkor 24-70/2.8 replaces 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 70mm (oops, there is no 70mm) prime lenses, then the lower price of the primes has to be weighed against the added convenience and often better optics of the admittedly pricey zoom. We decided to save up for a Nikkor 24-70/2.8 and use the 50/1.8 to cover the gap between the wide angle zooms and the Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VR we currently have.

[calarrick]

To the OP... try not to be so hung up on the equipment specs per se (it is your cut and paste of the sentence-long full name of the 18-70 kit lens that gives me pause...)

 

The f2.8 "constant-aperture" zooms (like the 17-55 you mention) are quite expensive because they are optically excellent, fast (wide max. aperture), and built to stand up to the sort of knocks they'd take in a photojournalists bag. It is expensive to build fast lenses, especially zooms or very long or very short primes, if only because the size of the individual glass lenses that must be manufactured increases. You don't need them and, as an amateur, can't afford them unless you are both fairly affluent and willing to devote extensive resources to the hobby. The 12-24 you mention is not constant-aperture, but is relatively fast at fairly extreme (and hard/expensive to design for) focal-length ranges.

 

The 18-70 kit lens you have is reputedly a very good one. You don't say which exact "cheap 70-300" you have, but I suspect you have a decent lens there too, but a slow one (probably the f4-5.6 AF?). From what I've heard about the 18-200VR, and what I can surmise about the sacrifices to design such an extreme zoom range, that lens is likely optically much poorer than the 70-300 you already have (and no faster for the equivalent focal lengths). The "ED-IF AFS" version of the 70-300 you mention is, I think, just the newer version. It adds some features of value (including VR) but they are features for convenience, etc., not essentials. It is no faster - still a f4-f5.6 variable aperture zoom.

 

(In other words, I think you should keep and use the 70-300)

 

A comparatively affordable way to get into fast lenses, should you want to do that, might be to get a prime or two. The 50mmf1.8 is famously inexpensive. Depending on your tastes, also consider (and consider used) the 24mmf2.8, the 28mmf2.8, 35mmf2, or 85mmf1.8. These all let a lot more light in than any of the zooms.

 

The faster maximum apertures are desireable because, by letting in more light, you can keep the ISO lower while having shutter-speed flexibility. And, perhaps more importantly, the wider apertures allow more control over depth-of-field and selective focus. This latter is less important with your 70-300, because for most things you'll do at that focal length, f5.6 is wide enough to give you selective focus. So, if you are able to work from a tripod and are not shooting subjects that move quickly across your field of view, it is probably a fine way to cover that range.

 

Basically -- a decent tripod and head might actually be the best next investment to get better use out of the 70-300.

[calarrick]

Oh... one more point/possible misconception.

 

You state: "If looking thought small hole (higher f.stop f22 had focused background) gives a clear picture and a (lower F.stop 3.5 blury background) not as clear."

 

It is a common misconception that very narrow apertures like f16 or f22 are sharper. They are not. In fact, the sharpness of the in-focus subject is generally going to be much lower than it would be at f5.6 or f8 (or likely even f2.8 or f4). The amount of 'depth' in front or behind the plane of focus in which subjects are approximately in focus will be wider, however. In other words, moderately wide apertures will have blurry foregrounds or backgrounds, but more well-focused subjects.

 

Lenses vary in terms of what f-stop is actually sharpest... but it is very commonly around f8.