Lenses for my D300

[nikki_banik]

I just ordered my Nikon D300 tonight as well as a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lens.

 

I already have a Nikon D40 and two very basic lenses: 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 and 70-

300mm f4-5.6 lenses. I rarely used the 70-300mm lens. This set was purchased

when I started out a few years ago so I could get comfortable with a digital

SLR camera. Im a big believer in taking baby steps. I dont want to be

overwhelmed.

 

I know this question has been asked alot, but I would appreciate some

feedback. I do alot of outdoor photo sessions and small weddings and I am

looking to add a few more lenses to my collection. I do not care for using

flash unless I absolutely have to (I really prefer a natural look), so I need

lenses that work well with the D300 in low light settings.

 

I would love to buy a wide angle lens, and am wondering if anyone has used 18-

55mm wide angle f/3.5-4.5 on the D300 and what your results were. What

suggestions do you have for a wide angle lens on the D300?

 

Is a fisheye lens worth the investment? I think a wide angle lens would

satisfy my desire for the rounded look in images, but I have never used either.

 

I think i'll leave it at this as not to overload my brain :)

 

Nikki

[david_garcia10]

50 mm f1.8 is a good choice. It will be helpful in low light and it is sharp. check out the nikon 17-55 it is a great lens. if you do wedding don't use the kit lens 18-55... if you want an affordable lens check tamron 28-75.

[nikki_banik]

Oh, I never want to use the kit lens ever again. I want to go in a different direction with my pictures and I realize that will require me to invest in better lenses. What is the difference between these lenses: 28mm f1.8, 50mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8?

 

I do not like to change my lens out very much (especially during the ceremony) I am afraid I will miss something. If you could only shoot a wedding ceremony with one lens, which lens would you pick?

 

What about wide angle lenses?

 

I should post some of my work here but I admit im scared!

[adw]

I've recently bought a 17-55mm lens for my D200. It was very expensive, even used, but is

genuinely worth every penny.

 

I would much, much rather have the one 17-55mm with it's battle tank build quality and

constant f/2.8 than several sub-par lenses such as the 18-55 and cheap telephotos.

 

A fisheye, if worth it at all, should really be the last lens you buy - after you've already

bought the fast standard, fast telephoto and macro lenses.

[daverhaas]

Nikki -

 

I've used the 70-200 2.8 vr for weddings and haven't had any complaints. It's expensive and built like a brick, but it is sharp and the constant 2.8 helps inside dimly lit churches.

 

For formals, I've used the 18-70 and had no issues with sharpness, etc...

 

With 2 bodies, I'm covered from 18-200mm and don't have to switch lenses, just grab the right camera that's hanging around my neck.

 

Dave

[david_schilling___chicago_]

A more expensive lens is not likely to take your photography in a new direction. Flash can be your friend. Reflectors can make a huge difference. Suggest you start here: http://www.photovisionvideo.com/store/shop.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=P&Product_Code=LLT028&Category_Code=DVD

[russ_konrad]

<b>"...I do not like to change my lens out very much (especially during the ceremony) I am afraid I will miss something. If you could only shoot a wedding ceremony with one lens, which lens would you pick?..."</b>

<p>

I have shot more than a few weddings with just the 17-55mm f/2.8 Nikkor lens or Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens with excellent results.

<p>

Get yourself a wide angle FAST zoom first. I am currently using the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens for all of our formal work and during the reception. My partner shoots with a longer lens during the ceremony and prefers to be further away from the action.

<p>

A fisheye is a great addition to your lens lineup, but get your other lenses first.

[russ_konrad]

I almost forgot - get an SB800. We use flash for 90% of all of our shots. Even outdoors - a light fill-flash adds lights to the eyes and solves that whole raccoon-look thing in bright sunlight.

 

We actually have four SB800's. We use three of them for all the formals and we get awesome results.

[russ_konrad]

<b>"...I do not care for using flash unless I absolutely have to (I really prefer a natural look)..."</b>

<p>

If you know how to use your flash, you can obtain a totally natural look! Esp if you ever plan to shoot any formal wedding shots inside!

[kevin_swan1]

Nikki: You've been shooting weddings with a D40 and slow, plastic lenses?

 

Just curious: have people been paying you for this, or are you simply taking photos as a guest, to give to the bride and groom?

[jeff_keplinger]

Kevin's sarcastic remark is not very constructive. Grow up man.

[nikki_banik]

Russ, that is a very nice picture. I need to learn how to make the flash my friend.

 

Jeff, Thanks.

[kevin_swan1]

I wasn't being sarcastic, I was looking for clarification. If he is indeed charging money for shooting weddings with the lowest-possible consumer grade SLR, with no backup equipment, and shunning any kind of flash photography at all, I think that warrants comment. When people pay good money to have their once-in-a-lifetime event photographed, I think there's a certain professional standard that is expected, and Nikki's description so far falls below that threshold, in my opinion.

 

It's quite possible Nikki has backup gear and simply hasn't mentioned it, or is not charging money for weddings. This is why I was asking for clarification before making inappropriate criticism.

[nikki_banik]

Yes I was paid for a handfull of small, low key weddings last year. Was it a lot of money, no, not at all. Just enough to cover my time. The people that hired me knew the type of photography I did and were ok with it. Everyone loved their pictures and refered me to other people. Thats what matters at the end, isnt it, that the client is happy? I realize now that I was not shooting with the best of equipment. I am taking steps to change that (purchased a d300, 50mm f1.8 lens and am looking to order a wide angle zoom lens very soon).

 

I am doing my best to learn and grow. I know I have a long way to go. It took me months to put myself out here, and I am proud for taking that step. I am hesitant to put my website link on here. Once my skin thickens up a bit, I will.

 

Nikki

[kevin_swan1]

<P>Nikki, I apologize if my previous initial post seemed a bit brusque. Unfortunately, tone is difficult to convey over a text medium like the Internet. Also, if you're a female, I apologize for referring to you as "he." :)

 

<P>First of all, I admire your passion. You are clearly passionate about photography, and I did not mean to discourage you in any way. Photo.net is a fantastic resource for advancing both your technical and artistic skills.

 

<P>Secondly, the reason I was inquiring about your equipment was because most professionals consider it very risky to shoot a paid event with only a single camera. Cameras can get dropped, or damaged, or just plain stop working, and as a paid professional, you are expected to be prepared to handle such eventualities. However, you've already taken care of this, as you've got a D300 on the way, and you already have a D40. Problem solved.

 

<P>Thirdly, while the D40 is pretty much the lowest-of-the-low in terms of bare-bones, consumer DSLRs, it nevertheless is more than adequate for shooting a wedding (provided an appropriate backup exists, as I already said). It's the <b>lenses</b> that matter. The lenses you currently have are not really adequate for photographing a wedding, especially since you've indicated a predilection for "natural light" photography. The 50mm f/1.8 you have on order will address that nicely, but as you already know, you need similar capabilities in other focal lengths, too. Nikon's 17-55 f/2.8 is the industry standard workhorse for this role, but as you've no doubt noticed, is quite pricey.

 

<P>Tamron offers a comparable lens (17-50 f/2.8) that is much more affordable. I think this is the perfect candidate for you and the type of shooting you do.

 

<P>As your business grows, you'll want to add similarly fast glass on the long end. Again, the go-to lens for this role is a Nikon: the 70-200 f/2.8. And, as you might expect, this lens is quite expensive. However, lenses like these are what will separate your shots from the "Uncle Bobs" shooting with their kit lenses and pop-up flashes.

 

<P>The last photo you posted (DSC_0186) is a classic example of how your lens is limiting your work. Some may look at it and perceive the blurriness as "artsy." Indeed, you'd better hope that's the conclusion your client reaches! :) While such shots can nicely round out an album, the lenses you currently have, combined with your aversion to flash, restrict your ability to offer similar shots with crisp focus. If you add the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 to your collection, combined with the D300 and 50 f/1.8, I think you'll find a whole new world of photographic opportunities will open up to you (and your clients). It's the next logical step to grow your artwork and business.

[nikki_banik]

I am learning so much right now and I really appreciate everyone's comments. I think im just going to throw myself out there and get it over with. This will be my second year seriously doing photography for money. I think for what I have been able to accomplish in the first year with the knowledge and equipment I had, I did a good job. I KNOW I have so far to go. So please be nice and constructive with your comments as not to crush my spirit. *smile*

 

I did have a back up camera that was probaly a worse choice than the D40 and I wont name it here, so I did have that covered. Luckily I did not run into any problems.

 

What about a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 lens for my D300? Is this one any good? I am willing to pay the money for a good lens as this is the direction I am heading in career wise.

 

www.thesweetestmemory.com

 

Im having logo problems, I am aware it looks bad. Working on it.

 

Nikki

 

Ps, kevin the last comment was much more productive thank you. I really do appreciate it.

[russ_konrad]

<b>"...What about a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 lens for my D300?...."</b>

<p>

When you start shooting groups or the bride getting ready in a small room, you will wish that you had a wider lens.

<p>

Get a 17-50 f/2.8 lens (17-55 f/2.8 in the Nikkor line) I can personally recommend the Tamron lens in this range. Very sharp and it only costs 1/3rd of what the Nikkor lens costs. The picture that I posted above in this thread was taken with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 lens.

[nikki_banik]

You're right, I can see how a wide lens would have been so much better. Im looking at the Tamron and Sigma, thanks for the reccomendation.

[kevin_swan1]

I don't know much about the quality of the Sigma 24-70. I'm not sure if you've heard of him or not, but Ken Rockwell has a site (<a href="http://kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm">kenrockwell.com</a>) that does (in my opinion) a great job reviewing cameras and lenses. However, I couldn't find a review of the Sigma 24-70 on his site.

 

<P>Other reviews I found were somewhat mixed. However, since it is a "full-frame" lens, it would be equivalent to a 34-105 focal length on your D40 and D300. Personally, I think you'll need something with a wider wide end. Now that I think about it, I suspect the Tamron 17-50 might suffer from the same problem. Maybe someone who has this lens can comment.

 

<P>The Nikon 17-55, being a "DX" lens, gives you a true 17mm on the wide end, which is what you're looking for when photographing indoors, or family portraits of large families.

 

<P>Is there a store near you from which you could rent these lenses and maybe try them out at a couple events? Or maybe even just bring your camera into the store and try the lenses with a salesperson?

 

<P>I'm trying not to say "Just buy the Nikon 17-55", but it really is a fantastic lens. :)

[russ_konrad]

Kevin,

 

The Tamron lens is a DX lens just like the Nikkor lens and it will not work on a full frame body (like the D3 or a film body) without serious vignetting.

 

The focal length is the focal length. A Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 lens which will work on all full frame bodies - will produce the same field of view on a D300 as the 17-55mm f/2.8 DX lens at the 17mm setting.

 

Finally - read Thom Hogan's site as well as almost ANYONE else compared to Ken Rockwell. I find that many of his recommendations for camera settings for example - produce very poor results if you shoot anything but landscapes.

[kevin_swan1]

Thanks Russ, I appreciate the clarification regarding the lens focal lengths. I've always been a little bit confused about the significance of the focal length for DX and non-DX lenses. I guess they're all the same, except DX lenses produce a smaller image circle that would vignette on a full-frame camera, is that right?

 

I know Ken Rockwell is controversial among pro photographers, and I take whatever he says with a grain of salt. I still find his reviews useful though, even if only for the raw data. He seems reasonably thorough, even if you discount many of his subjective opinions.

 

I'll check out Thom Hogan's site, thanks for the recommendation.

[david_schilling___chicago_]

The Tamron 17-50 f/2,8 is a fine lens. It's affordable and will serve you well. However, too many people posting to this forum place a heavier emphasis on equipment than they do with professional skill and technique. There's is no reason to apologize about the kit lens. If you purchased expensive glass today I think you'd be hard-pressed to see much differences in your images. Look to supplement your lighting and enhancing your post-processing skills to see your photography move to a higher level.

[russ_konrad]

<b>"...DX and non-DX lenses. I guess they're all the same, except DX lenses produce a smaller image circle that would vignette on a full-frame camera, is that right?..."</b>

<p>

Correct!

[andrewg_ny]

Firstly, that DSC_0186 is a nice composition.

 

For an illustration of what an expensive faster lens might have done for you in your DSC_0186 image; it was exposed at f/5.6 for 1/6 second at 55mm. A pro-style f/2.8 zoom would have yielded you a shutter speed of 1/25 second for the same exposure. Better, but still with some risk of camera shake and will not freeze movement of dancing subjects. Also reduced depth-of-field makes focus that much more critical. If you can add some flash (balanced with ambient light), you can raise the shutter speed further, freezing motion and eliminating the likelihood that camera shake will blur your shot.

 

If you were using that inexpensive fast 50mm lens, at f/2 you get your shutter speed up to ~1/50, enough to eliminate camera shake most of the time but a bit slow for moving subjects. There is also a further loss of depth-of-field, making focus that much more critical.

 

I was unable to see what ISO that image was taken at but a faster lens could also have image quality benefits in terms of allowing use of lower ISO settings.

 

Also, for what it's worth--other competitive 3rd party choices for 'pro standard zoom' include Tokina 16-50 AT-X Pro f/2.8 and Sigma 18-50 EX f/2.8 Macro.

 

One more lens category to consider--there are a few moderate telephoto zooms designed for APS-C-sensored D-SLR's, the Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 and Sigma 50-150 EX f/2.8. These are intended to fill the role that 70-200 did on a film body.

[jim_orr]

Your web site looks great. You definately dont charge enough for prints unless you are getting them for free. I use the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 macro for a majority of wedding shots with a SB-800 and a good diffuser and I love the results. Lens is about 400 and the flash 300. Ill post a shot to let you see if you like it .

http://www.photo.net/photo/6048571