What kind of Lens is good

[Disneygirl 792]

Hi everyone, My DH got me a Nikon D5000 for Mother's Day. It came with the Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR AF-S DX Lens. I think I am set on getting the
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Autofocus Lens for indoor shots of DS and DD.
My question is what is best for an "everyday/primary" lens?
We're going to WDW in Aug for DS 5th B-day and I don't want to keep switching lenses.

Thanks

[Mosca]

The one that came with the camera, the 18-55, is a good lens; light, with a good zoom range. Generally speaking, Nikon's and Canon's kit lenses for their entry cameras represent good bargains and good choices (IMO, of course). You can spend a lot more and not see the difference in most shots.

[Hoan & Poopie]

The 18-55 is a good lens and has the benefit of being relatively small and light. If you want something with more range either the 18-105 or if you are willing to spend more, the 16-85 or 18-200 are good options. I had used all of these when I used to have a DX crop camera. Best for me was probably the 16-85, but again the 18-55 is no slouch.

[photo_chick]

This is really a question that speaks to personal preference and shooting style. What's best for me may not be best for you.

Switching lenses is part of owning a DSLR. Once you've done it for a while it's really not a big deal.

I'd suggest sticking with the kit lens until you are ready to make an informed purchase based on your personal shooting style. Otherwise you could end up dropping $$$ on a lens you end up not really liking, or using.

[Disneygirl 792]

I was looking at the 18-200. It seems to be what I'm looking for but I'm still so indecisive.

[Steve's Girl]

There is no one lens that will work well in every situation. Decide what is most important to you and buy the best lens for that purpose and realize you will compromise in other areas. I have the 18-200 lens. The lens is great outside, but will not do very well in low-light situations. The 50 1.4 will be great in low light, but not as versatile for other situations. My first two trips to Disney, I took my 18-200 and the 50mm 1.8. I kept the 18-200 on the camera most of the time and only switched to the 50mm for Spectro or walking around the park after dark.

[Gianna'sPapa]

As Photo_Chick stated "What kind of lens is good?" is very subjective to the type of shooting you are going to do. As I tell my DW all the time when she is using my wrench as a hammer,:rotfl2:, the right tool for the right job!! You will need to determine what your going to shoot and then research what lens will be required to get that shot. Between my last two trips to WDW, I determined I wanted to shoot low light for the parades without the use of a flash. That was going to require a minimum of a 2.8 lens. I chose to purchase two such lenses (28-70 and 70-200). Both of these are heavier and bulkier than the standard kit lens. The 28-70 stayed on my camera almost all the time. If your intent is to shoot the dark rides you will need something in the range of 1.4-1.8. Remember, I am not discussing the use of high ISO to compensate for lower speed lenses. That's always an option, but since I don't shoot Nikon (Pentax) I'm not familar with the high ISO capability of the 5000. I wanted to purchase a Sigma 30 f1.4 for shooting the dark rides, but my budget wouldn't allow for it. I had an older manual lens that I tried to use, but I wasn't as successful as I had hoped. Before my next trip to WDW, I will have the Sigma 30, besides my DW will find that it is a lens that best fits her style. I hope that I haven't lost you with this explanation. If your intent is to shoot in good light, then the kit lens and the 18-200 will work fine. Its when the light goes down, those don't perform as well. With the fireworks, almost any lens will work as long as you have a tripod and some type of remote control (I use wireless).

Sorry Steve's Girl, we must have been typing at the same time and said basically the same thing!

[Disneygirl 792]

Ok, I will be using the "walk around" lens for just that...walking around, taking spurr of the moment pics of my DS here and there. I'm not even entertaining the thought of taking pics on rides dark or otherwise...(I haven't even tinkered around with the ISO)I'll just use a camcorder for fireworks nighttime parades and the like.

[Gianna'sPapa]

In that case the 18-200 should work just fine. It will be wide enough for all normal situations and give you the reach for Animal Kingdom. You probably won't even have to change lenses!:)

[photo_chick]

Keep in mind the decreased image quality you will have and how much it might need to be stopped down at certain focal lengths to perform well with a lens like an 18-200. As well as the extra weight over your 18-55.

Not trying to talk you out of it, but there are some definite drawbacks to the "all in one" zooms. Be sure you're aware of them.

[pjacobi]

It came with the Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR AF-S DX Lens. I think I am set on getting the
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Autofocus Lens for indoor shots of DS and DD.


Instead of a new lens for indoor shots, consider purchasing an external flash. Once you learn how to use external flash, you can produce photos much better than average P/S camera with flash, i.e. no red-eye, no harsh shadows or washed out faces.


-Paul

[scrappymel]

has anyone walked around with the 18-200 all day?

[Gianna'sPapa]

has anyone walked around with the 18-200 all day?

The Nikkor lens is 19 oz. and the Tamron version is 14 oz. I have carried a 70-200 f2.8 all day, which is much heavier (48 oz). It eventually got heavy but not unbearable. The 18-200 is a relative lightweight.

[tjl1388]

I have rented a Nikon 24-70 2.8 several times for both work and play and have decided to make the plunge.

My question in the fact that I can buy a sigma model for roughly HALF the price. Now I am all about getting what you pay for but in this case I am really wondering if there is a $8-900 difference.

I am not to worried as far as landscape and portrait work....where I am worried about it is when I go and shoot competitive cheerleading in some of the most atrocious lighting conditions on the planet with 15-25 girls flying around like tinkerbell on speed. Any help would greatly appreciated.


This is the lens in question...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/350972-REG/Sigma_548306_24_70mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html

[Gianna'sPapa]

I can't speak to the Nikon lens (Pentax shooter), but I do have the Sigma 28-70 f2.8 EX. I purchased it as a cheaper alternative ($349) to both of the 24-70's, HSM and the non-HSM. I have been extremely pleased with it. The majority of the 3000 images I took on our recent trip to WDW were with that lens. You can see some of the results on the below thread.

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2491060

Good luck with your research.

[DragonSlyr]

I have this lens for my Canon and have been quite happy with it. I have two daughters in competitive gymnastics and know the difficulty of shooting high speed in poor light without a flash.

Tom pirate:

http://photopost.wdwinfo.com/data/500/thumbs/dd1.jpg (http://photopost.wdwinfo.com/member-galleries/p46995-dd1.html)

[Master Mason]

I have rented a Nikon 24-70 2.8 several times for both work and play and have decided to make the plunge.

My question in the fact that I can buy a sigma model for roughly HALF the price. Now I am all about getting what you pay for but in this case I am really wondering if there is a $8-900 difference.

I am not to worried as far as landscape and portrait work....where I am worried about it is when I go and shoot competitive cheerleading in some of the most atrocious lighting conditions on the planet with 15-25 girls flying around like tinkerbell on speed. Any help would greatly appreciated.


This is the lens in question...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/350972-REG/Sigma_548306_24_70mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html

Here is my take on it. No the lens is not going to be twice as good, but it also won't be equally as good.

So the Question becomes will you be happy with the Sigma, or are you one of those people like me that when I want the best, nothing else will do, so in purchasing the cheaper option all I would be doing was spending twice as eventually I would buy the more expensive one anyway.

There are many things that I'm just fine with cheaper or generic options, but on those that I determine I want the best, nothing else is going to do.

[YesDear]

I have said before in other threads that I love to save money, particularly on camera equipment. One of my major exceptions is glass. When you are talking quality glass, I believe you do not scrimp. I am also a lens snob. I shoot Nikon cameras and since my mid forties, I have only purchased Nikon glass.

I do not have the lens you want but know a number of people that have the lens. They all love it. Go for it.

[pgowder]

I just recently switched to Nikon from Sony. I struggled with this same question.

I used the Sigma 70-200mm on Sony/Minolta for several years.

I didn't realize what a difference premium glass would make until I bought the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8. Wow! This thing is amazingly sharp! As Moose Peterson likes to say "wicked sharp".

Sigmas are good lenses and I'll probably buy a Sigma UWA soon.

But if you can afford it always buy the better glass!

I haven't regretted the extra $800 at all!

[Mosca]

I've bought premium glass, always. But I need to say something about the non-premium.

My 40D came with the Canon 28-135 as a kit lens. This lens gets sniffed at a lot by Canon users. And its feel isn't the same as the L lenses. But there is nothing wrong with the pictures. Color fidelity is excellent, and the lens is sharp (on APS-C) at all ranges to all corners. Perspective distortion is low.

The only non-Canon I have is a Tokina 11-16; the photos are so sharp you could cut your finger. That lens was about $600, if I recall correctly.

Use your best judgment. You can't go wrong buying premium, but that doesn't mean you'll always go wrong not buying premium.

[tjl1388]

I think for the price I am going to give the cheaper model a try. For the price difference..$600 vs. $1700...I think it will make a good spare piece of glass for when the time comes to buy the Nikon version.


Thank You everyone for all the help.

[pjacobi]

I am not to worried as far as landscape and portrait work....where I am worried about it is when I go and shoot competitive cheerleading in some of the most atrocious lighting conditions on the planet with 15-25 girls flying around like tinkerbell on speed. Any help would greatly appreciated.


To get the best shots you need knowledge, experience and skills. Don't assume that a $1000 lens will automatically produce award winning photographs.

A good quality lens can help get good shots, but it is ultimately the skills of the photographer that make the shot.


-Paul

[WilsonFlyer]

Also remember that you'd likely lose very little in selling the Sigma down the line should you decide you'd like to pay for an "upgrade". You could probably "use" the Sigma for at most a couple of hundred dollars and still get a year of use out of it. Just take good care of it like you were going to keep it forever and put a skylight on it.

I've done this with a number of lenses I've owned. I always end up with the Canon but I've been known to go through others to get there. ;)

[Miller1412]

I had the same concerns and I ended up buying the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8. I have been VERY pleased with it. It's a great lens and does a fantastic job.

[tjl1388]

To get the best shots you need knowledge, experience and skills. Don't assume that a $1000 lens will automatically produce award winning photographs.

A good quality lens can help get good shots, but it is ultimately the skills of the photographer that make the shot.


-Paul

Looking to drop $1700 for a lens I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that I know more than your average point and shooter thanks....


I don't need award winning shots...I need cheer moms with big wallets loving shots...:thumbsup2

[pgowder]

I don't need award winning shots...I need cheer moms with big wallets loving shots...:thumbsup2

:rotfl2::rotfl2:

[pgowder]

I had the same concerns and I ended up buying the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8. I have been VERY pleased with it. It's a great lens and does a fantastic job.

Had that lens too. It is a great lens I loved it!

[My2Girls66]

:headache: The hard drive in my laptop failed and I will be spending my 85mm 1.8 cash on a new one. Luckily, I had just backed up this years photos onto my external hard drive just 1 week before because the computer guy I took it to said he couldn't get stuff off it if I wanted to.

[mrodgers]

:headache: The hard drive in my laptop failed and I will be spending my 85mm 1.8 cash on a new one. Luckily, I had just backed up this years photos onto my external hard drive just 1 week before because the computer guy I took it to said he couldn't get stuff off it if I wanted to.
Just be careful with that external. I had the same thing, hard drive was failing. I didn't have a backup, so I ran to the store and bought an external drive. I was able to move all my photos over to the external before the drive quit completely. The next day.... the external drive failed and I can't access it.

I think I'm lucky and it is the USB circuit that is failed though. I just haven't gotten around to getting a cable and converting it to an internal drive yet.

[MICKEY88]

:headache: The hard drive in my laptop failed and I will be spending my 85mm 1.8 cash on a new one. Luckily, I had just backed up this years photos onto my external hard drive just 1 week before because the computer guy I took it to said he couldn't get stuff off it if I wanted to.


you could just put a new hard drive inthe laptop relatively cheaply, if you have recovery disks for the laptop

[MICKEY88]

Just be careful with that external. I had the same thing, hard drive was failing. I didn't have a backup, so I ran to the store and bought an external drive. I was able to move all my photos over to the external before the drive quit completely. The next day.... the external drive failed and I can't access it.

I think I'm lucky and it is the USB circuit that is failed though. I just haven't gotten around to getting a cable and converting it to an internal drive yet.

fi you take a lot of photos, you might want to consider a dock for the hard drive

[My2Girls66]

you could just put a new hard drive inthe laptop relatively cheaply, if you have recovery disks for the laptop

I almost did that, it is over 5yrs old and a Dell so I do have all the disks( I understand they don't do that anymore) but I was having a power problem, also. The laptop would only read the a/c adapter when it was shut down so I could only use it for as long as the battery lasted then I'd have to fully charge it before using it again. They said they wouldn't have been able to tell what was causing that problem unless they replaced the hard drive and got Windows running again but it sounded like it was something with the motherboard and not worth fixing if it was.

[1tufgt]

We are going to Disney in September and I plan on taking my Rebel XT on this trip. Currently I have the stock 18-55mm lens and a 50mm portrait lens.

I was looking for suggestions on what's a good lens to buy or even rent for the week.

[pgowder]

We are going to Disney in September and I plan on taking my Rebel XT on this trip. Currently I have the stock 18-55mm lens and a 50mm portrait lens.

I was looking for suggestions on what's a good lens to buy or even rent for the week.

Read this:
http://www.wdwphotography.com/location/magic-kingdom/spend-some-time-with-your-prime/

You may want a day or two with just that 50!

[1tufgt]

Yeah, I've thought about that but you have to be a good distance from the subject when using the 50mm.

I guess I'm looking for a good close / mid-range lens where I can get some distance shots but still be able to get good subject shots without having to change out lenses.

[pgowder]

Yeah, I've thought about that but you have to be a good distance from the subject when using the 50mm.

I guess I'm looking for a good close / mid-range lens where I can get some distance shots but still be able to get good subject shots without having to change out lenses.

The min focusing distance on most 50's is less than 1.5 feet. That's about the closet you are going to get!

[mom2rtk]

We are going to Disney in September and I plan on taking my Rebel XT on this trip. Currently I have the stock 18-55mm lens and a 50mm portrait lens.

I was looking for suggestions on what's a good lens to buy or even rent for the week.

If you current maximum focal distance is 55mm, then I'd consider something with more zoom. AK with no zoom doesn't sound any fun at all!

The Tamron 18-270VC is a well reviewed "all-in-one" that lends itself well to Disney photography where you never know what focal length you will need. Right now there is even a rebate running if you decide to buy instead of rent:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/581246-REG/Tamron_AFB003C_700_18_270mm_f_3_5_6_3_Di_II_VC.htm l

I'd also bring the 50mm prime for low light situations.

[1tufgt]

Is there anything in the $200 range?

[mom2rtk]

Is there anything in the $200 range?

I'm not sure what's out there in that range. Maybe you want to rent something?

[JimbobJimbo]

I would say get the Canon 55-250 IS it's in that price range. You would still have to change lenses but you would be covered from 18-250. If you want an all in one lens you may have to rent.

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-55-250mm-4-0-5-6-Telephoto-Digital/dp/B0011NVMO8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1279291140&sr=8-1

[1tufgt]

I'm not sure what's out there in that range. Maybe you want to rent something?
That's what I might have to do since I don't know if I would get my $'s worth out of a $500+ lens as I don't take pictures as much as I used to.

[1tufgt]

I would say get the Canon 55-250 IS it's in that price range. You would still have to change lenses but you would be covered from 18-250. If you want an all in one lens you may have to rent.

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-55-250mm-4-0-5-6-Telephoto-Digital/dp/B0011NVMO8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1279291140&sr=8-1
What's the performance and picture quality of that lens?

[pgowder]

The min focusing distance on most 50's is less than 1.5 feet. That's about the closet you are going to get!

Ohh, you mean you want to zoom in closer!

Rent a good zoom lens like a 70-200mm 2.8.

[photo_chick]

What's the performance and picture quality of that lens?

The 55-250 is an entry level telephoto zoom so it's right in line with the 18-55 kit and the 50mm f/1.8 quality wise.

$200 limits you to entry level lenses.

[1tufgt]

The 55-250 is an entry level telephoto zoom so it's right in line with the 18-55 kit and the 50mm f/1.8 quality wise.

$200 limits you to entry level lenses.
Looks like I might just end up renting a lens.

So what are your opinion's on Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS lens?

[JimbobJimbo]

For an entry level lens the image quality is quite good. You can see some samples here
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=459569&page=181

[1tufgt]

Thanks for the information.

Might end up renting a lens since I don't know if I would get my money's worth using it enough after buying it.

[JimbobJimbo]

Looks like I might just end up renting a lens.

So what are your opinion's on Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS lens?

I used a 24-105 my last trip almost exclusively for shots other than on dark rides. The only probem with it is that it may not be quite wide enough on a crop camera.

[1tufgt]

I used a 24-105 my last trip almost exclusively for shots other than on dark rides. The only probem with it is that it may not be quite wide enough on a crop camera.
True, didn't think about that.

Hmmmmmmmmmm

[JimbobJimbo]

It depends on your shooting style more than anything. I had the Tokina 11-16 with me if I needed it. Other than you might needing a wide angle the 24-105 is a very useful lens at Disney. Also you would have your kit lens if you needed the 18-24 range.

[Gianna'sPapa]

On my June trip, I took more lenses than I actually needed. I primarily used a 28-70 f2.8 lens. I used a 70-200 f2.8 for reach like the shows in front of the castle and AK. The DW has the 18-55 and the 50-200 for hers. If you want to go lighter these lenses would have worked equally well except for the indoor shows. If you intend on taking shots on the dark rides, the only other lens that I would recommend is something in the 30mm f1.4 range.

[AlbertZeroK]

An 18-200 is a pretty popular walk around lens. Wide enough to get good shots, tele photo enough for far away items. Requires no lens change. We use the Tamaron version at work.

As for image quality, the 18-200 used well will do pretty good. It's not a high quality piece of glass, but it's usable, besides, sometimes it's more about what your shooting than getting it perfect. I have some great pictures of my daughter taken with my camera phone I wouldn't trade for the world.

The only issue is that the 18-200's need a fair amount of light. I agree to take the nifty fifty (50mm) with you. It's small enough to keep in a bag somewhere.

[curtiswheat]

Thanks for the information.

Might end up renting a lens since I don't know if I would get my money's worth using it enough after buying it.

The Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS lens is a very nice lens! seems to be my main lens anymore!

[1tufgt]

Thanks for all the inputs.

[TandLMommy28]

I've got a Canon Rebel XSi and the lens it came with... EF-S 18 - 55mm IS. I am really considering getting a 35mm or 50mm fixed lens and many of my photography friends are recommending it. They don't have experience taking photos at Disney but say that the f/1.8 would be great for low light situations.

But I wanted to hear from some Disney loving people. I am not wanting to spend a ton of money and my goal is really just nice pictures of the kiddos. I've only been playing in DSLR world for 6 months and I have a lot to learn!

[Frantasmic]

You should get the 50mm f1.8 because it is a good lens and it is a good deal.

However, it is not necessarily going to get you great pictures in dark rides. At 1.8, you focal point in the lens is kind of small, so only a small portion of the picture is going to be very sharp. It would probably be a decent lens for some close up parades and it is one of the best lenses deal/price wise, but it isn't going to transform your low-light photography.

[bdtracey]

I have the 50mm 1.8 and it's really nice for portraits but I find that it's a bit too "long" for a lot of applications. If I was to do it again I'd pick up the Sigma 30mm 1.4. Up here in Canada it's about $500. I've heard some really good reviews about it too. For the price though Canon's 50mm 1.8 is a great second lens to have. Shooting wide open at 1.8 can be tricky though since your depth of field is so shallow. I like to stop down twice when using it and shoot at 2.2 rather than 1.8. Hope this helps!

[mom2rtk]

Only you can decide how much you are willing to spend. If price is the deciding factor, then the 50mm f1.8 is great bang for the buck at around $100.

It's NOT great bang for the buck though if you decide later (as I did) that 50mm is just too LONG for most situations and you end up having to buy a wider lens later. I really don't think you can go wrong with the Simga 30mm f1.4, but at $440, it's quite a bit more of an investment. Once on the camera, many refuse to ever take this lens off!

[photo_chick]

I love the 50mm f/1.8. It's a great lens for an outstanding price. I don't often run into feeling it's too long, but I think that just depends on personal shooting style.

[Docarino]

My experience was similar to Mom2rtk- I found the 50mm to be too long, on a cropped sensor, for my comfort level. I've since replaced it with the Sigma 30 mm 1.4, which I like a lot more. I'm sure some of that is related to my skill level- I've got a lot to learn and need to really practice more to get better use out of a prime lens.

I think it really depends on what your goals are for this trip. If it really is just to take great pictures of your family, you'll be fine with the lens you have and it will be less stressful. If you want to push yourself creatively, there are definitely great shots you could get with a fast prime. It just depends on what you want to do. :)

[curtiswheat]

http://www.digital-slr-guide.com/prime-lens.html

[JimbobJimbo]

I agree that for the money the Canon 50 1.8 is a good lens to have for low light. But as has been said on a crop camera I found that it was not quite wide enough for me, so I went with a Sigma 30 1.4

[DisFam95]

I took the Canon 50mm 1.8 w/ me to Disney and used it mainly for some creative close-ups and more artsy pics (our food, window displaysbut like others have said the super shallow dof wide pen does not work very well in low light rides.

I do use it at home a lot for pics of the kids and when we go to museums and other indoor settings. Great bargain for the price to learn with. I too felt like I was always having to back up when taking my pics in the home setting (because of the long 50mm focal length) so I got the Canon 28mm 1.8.

I had not done much research on others so not sure how it comapred to to Sigma that I hear a lot about.

Atually I just looked back at my pics and I took the 28mm prime with me for the low light close-ups.

If the budget allows I might go for the Canon 28mm or the Sigma 30mm..if not start w/ the 50mm.

[mom2rtk]

The 50mm focal length might be great for most situations. I just find that at Disney, that leaves too much room for people to get between you and your subject. I love a much wider lens at Disney for that reason alone.

[dsilva51]

I have a canon rebel XT EOS, with the basic lens. I would like to get a lens for portraits. any recommendations?

[AlbertZeroK]

I have a canon rebel XT EOS, with the basic lens. I would like to get a lens for portraits. any recommendations?

You will find alot of people saying the 50mm f/1.8 canon lens which is about $100. It's an OK lens and great to learn on, but I don't personally recommend it.

For portraits, I like my Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and am looking forward to the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 which has just hit the market. Also, you can take a look at the Canon 85mm f/1.8 which is about $350 used. I had that lens, but want something wider (the f/1.4).

For portraits, one thing people like is the blurred background, this is something you may want to practice on and is related to three different factors, the focal point of the lens (the mm measurement), the distance of both the subject from the lens and the subject from the background, and the f-stop of the lens.

Lighting is also very important, do you have a flash for your camera? If so, you should try light modifiers or getting the flash off the camera using a hot shoe cable or remotes. Google Strobist for a good place to start with lighting.

[photo_chick]

Any lens can work for portraits.

How much are you looking to spend?

I like the 50mm f/1.8 (which totally rocks on the XT, I used it on one for a few years) is a good working distance for portraits of kids, at least to me. Andyou can't beat the price. But if you can afford to spend more by all means do that. But if you're on a tight budget, the 50mm f/1.8 is a nice option to have.

If you can spend more, you might consider something like the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It's sharper than Canon's 18-55 kit and faster. It has nice bokeh, which works well in portraits. It's not as fast as a prime, but a lot more versatile.

Really though, everyone can give you opinions. You need to learn about lenses so you can make your own decision because what is right for me may not be right for you.

I disagree on the above statement about getting a flash or additional light. I shoot available light portraits. You don't need additional light if that's your style.

[Marlton Mom]

Hello all,

My husband and I have a question for those of you in the know concerning lenses.

Eventually I will upgrade to a full format sensor camera (example Nikon D3) but right now I'm rocking a Nikon D90 with the smaller DX format.

We were looking at prime lenses and we were wondering, aside from format, which is the better piece of glass.

The AF NIKKOR 35mm f/2D (full format)
or
The DX sensor compatible AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G

I'm looking to have a razor focus lens that will capture the level of detail I want for a fixed lens in the standard focal length for my D90. I know that on the D90 this lens will image at equivalently at 50mm and on a Full format sensor it will come in at a wide angle 35mm.

I also am aware that the AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G won't work well with a full format camera sensor (image crop).

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

:love2:

Marlton Mom

(Your fellow sufferer in Nikon Acquisition Syndrome)

[NLD]

Don't have the 35 f/2, but do have the 35 1.8 DX and love/d it with my D60.

The 35 1.8 is inexpensive, light, and sharp. The one thing though is the bokeh... kind of "busy."

HOWEVER, if you're definitely going FX at some point, I would think get the f/2. Might as well start building the FX lens collection now. Yeah it's a little more expensive, but well... that's the full-frame world for you. And it's a lot less expensive than buying a DX lens now and then buying the FX lens in addition later.

[AlbertZeroK]

I disagree on the above statement about getting a flash or additional light. I shoot available light portraits. You don't need additional light if that's your style.

Right, you don't need a flash, but if you have one and want to use one, you should try playing with bouncing the flash and getting the flash off the camera. It's my pet peeve, I hate head on flash.

[AlbertZeroK]

Don't have the 35 f/2, but do have the 35 1.8 DX and love/d it with my D60.

The 35 1.8 is inexpensive, light, and sharp. The one thing though is the bokeh... kind of "busy."

HOWEVER, if you're definitely going FX at some point, I would think get the f/2. Might as well start building the FX lens collection now. Yeah it's a little more expensive, but well... that's the full-frame world for you. And it's a lot less expensive than buying a DX lens now and then buying the FX lens in addition later.

Agreed. However, also remember, lenses tend to hold their value fairly well, I think you could get 80% of the price you pay if you buy from an online source. So if you get the 35 f/1.8, you can sell it later.

[NLD]

Agreed. However, also remember, lenses tend to hold their value fairly well, I think you could get 80% of the price you pay if you buy from an online source. So if you get the 35 f/1.8, you can sell it later.

True. If you don't mind selling it should hold value pretty well.

[Experiment_626]

A quote from Thom Hogan's review of the 35mm f2:
The 35mm f/2 just doesn't make the grade against the f/1.8 DX lens. First, it's more expensive and slightly slower. It has slightly more vignetting and the corner performance isn't up to that of the DX lens. It is also not AF-S, so won't autofocus on the recent low-end consumer DSLRs. That's a lot of minuses. In terms of pluses: it works on FX bodies and has a very nice manual focus ability, including DOF markings. On balance, a DX user should choose the DX lens. If you have both DX and FX bodies, the f/2D starts to make some sense, especially if you're stopping down some.

A link to the full review: http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor-35mm-D-lensreview.htm

A link to Thom's full review of the 35mm f1.8: http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor-35mm-DX-AFS-lensreview.htm

[Uncle Greg]

As a D90 owner thinking about some day going down the full frame trail myself, I've had this same discussion. Turns out I went with neither lens...but that's not the point I want to make.

You are talking about investing several thousands of dollars into the full frame switch. A new D700 is nearly $2500...not sure what a used D3 would cost but I wouldn't think much less.

The 35 f/1.8 is one of the most inexpensive lenses Nikon makes. It's $189 at B&H right now. I can see the need to think through the DX lens vs FX lens decision when you're talking in the $1000+ range...but not here.

If the DX 35 f/1.8 is the right focal length for you now...buy it.

[WDWFigment]

Get the Sigma 30mm f/14. Whole thread of sample images around here somewhere.

[seashoreCM]

If you plan to save the lens for use on your future full frame camera, you should get a full frame lens. Otherwise the lens sweet spot (sharpness, vignetting, etc.) may be much too small to span the full frame. A larger frame lens on a smaller frame camera will work fine.

Digital camera hints: http://www.cockam.com/digicam.htm

[mrcricket]

I'm a Nikon guy, but I just had to comment. In the Nikon world, the 70 - 200, f2.8 is THE go to lens for professional photographers. It's a behemoth, but it creates beautiful DOP and bokeh. I believe Canon makes a similar lens. If you have the budget, these lens are great for portraits. But they are expensive.

[AlbertZeroK]

I'm a Nikon guy, but I just had to comment. In the Nikon world, the 70 - 200, f2.8 is THE go to lens for professional photographers. It's a behemoth, but it creates beautiful DOP and bokeh. I believe Canon makes a similar lens. If you have the budget, these lens are great for portraits. But they are expensive.

The canon 70-200 IS f/2.8 is one of my favorite lenses. Canon just released the mark ii or revised version of this classic an people are upgrading their old mark i lenses. If i could afford it o would be doing the same. It is absolutely my favorite lens!!!

[Groucho]

Two things... first, when buying "good" lenses, they often resell for close to new prices. In fact, you can buy a used one, use it for a couple years, and probably resell it for nearly what you paid for it - so it's not like you're throwing your money in the trash if you upgrade in the future.

The other question is, are you sure that APS cannot possibly satisfy your needs? APS sensors are moving forward and it's definitely not a dead end. If you're after high ISO performance, supposedly the new 16mp APS sensor that will be (if the rumors are right) in the Nikon D95 and Pentax K-5 that'll be shown at Photokina in a few week will offer D700 levels of high ISO noise control. I don't know if it's true or not (frankly, I'm pretty skeptical ;) ) but the K-x is amazingly good at high ISO already; this is certainly the main thing that manufacturers are trying to improve on in APS sensors at this point.

With more UWA lenses available now and the ISO performance gap narrowing (no, I don't expect that it'll ever be closed for obvious reasons), depth of field and a bigger viewfinder are the main advantages - and you can get DoF with a faster lens, which will be smaller and lighter and cheaper in an APS format.

I guess what I'm saying is "don't worry about it" :) - and you can certainly use the DX lenses on FF, it'll just be in "crop mode" - not ideal, but usable.

[MarkBarbieri]

I don't know anything that hasn't already been said about the two lenses in question. I just wanted to post a opposing view to Groucho's suggestion that you stick with APS-C. As someone that owns and shoots with both a full frame (5D Mark II) and an APS-C (7D), I think I have a good perspective on the difference.

A full frame sensor is more than twice as large as an APS-C sensor. The difference is actually much larger than the difference between APS-C and micro 4/3rds. The size difference has many advantages.

First, you can have a lot more pixels without making them too small. My 5DMII has 21 megapixels, but each pixel is the same size as the pixels on an APS-C with only 8 megapixels. For any given generation of sensor technology, bigger pixels will have less noise and have more dynamic range because they capture more light. Having twice the surface area means that you capture twice the light, so there is typically a 1 stop advantage in noise levels.

Larger sensors give you a significant DOF advantage. The difference between FF and APS-C is roughly the equivalent to a full stop. So an f/2 lens on a FF has the DOF as an f/1.4 lens on an APS-C camera.

FF cameras also use larger lenses and magnify the image of those lenses less. That results in greater resolving power from the lenses. My experience is that all of my lenses perform significantly better on the 5DMII than on the 7D.

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with APS-C cameras. They can take great pictures. Just don't be mislead into thinking that there isn't a significant difference between APS-C and FF. The difference, in fact, is about the same as the difference between FF and medium format. Even my non-photographer wife always grabs the 5D over the 7D because the pictures are so much better. She does that even though the 7D runs rings around the 5D in handling.

[photo_chick]

My 5DMII has 21 megapixels, but each pixel is the same size as the pixels on an APS-C with only 8 megapixels.


The 8MP Rebel XT does have larger pixels than the 5DMkII. Yes, the 5DMkII has less noise and greater ISO range without question. But the Rebel T2i clearly has smaller pixels than my Rebel XT and also has a lot less noise and greater ISO range than the XT as well.

I think as technology progresses we will see less and less of a gap due to sensor size. It still makes a difference now, but it's not the huge leap in quality that it was just a couple years ago. And in the future I really don't think that size will matter. We're not there yet, but we're getting closer.

[Groucho]

I don't know anything that hasn't already been said about the two lenses in question. I just wanted to post a opposing view to Groucho's suggestion that you stick with APS-C. As someone that owns and shoots with both a full frame (5D Mark II) and an APS-C (7D), I think I have a good perspective on the difference.
...........and everything you say holds true for MF vs FF (as you hinted at the end there.) Why would anyone want to stay with such a puny little sensor as you find in FF DSLRs? MF gives you much better images, more pixels, more DoF, is easier on the lenses, etc... and the price is coming down dramatically on MF cameras. (Frankly, I think the high megapixel count on the Canon FFs is a negative, even more so for the Sony FFs. IMHO those nice big, lazy photosites in the 12mp Nikons account for much FF lust, which Canon countered with video.)

Point being - there is always something better. Put a photo from a FF DSLR vs an APS DSLR and 99% of the time, you will not be able to tell the difference. FF comes with serious negatives as well as advantages and it's good to remember that APS is certainly not the dead end that some make it out to be.

Finally - I did not suggest that anyone stick with APS. I suggested that you make sure that it's really what you want when you're talking about buying lens today when thinking about some far-off hazy future camera. Nothing wrong with going FF, but I don't think it's for everyone and people often don't forget about the negatives.

[MarkBarbieri]

The 8MP Rebel XT does have larger pixels than the 5DMkII.
Actually, the Rebel XT and the 5DMkII have pixels that are virtually identical in size.

I think as technology progresses we will see less and less of a gap due to sensor size. It still makes a difference now, but it's not the huge leap in quality that it was just a couple years ago. And in the future I really don't think that size will matter. We're not there yet, but we're getting closer.

Technology improves for both at the same time, so the gap stays relatively persistent. The relevance of the gap might diminish as the ability to shoot cleanly at ISO 1600 is much more important than the ability to shoot cleanly at ISO 6400. Other parts of the gap aren't changing at all, such as the DOF difference and the decreased magnification of lens limitations. They are physical constants that don't change with technology.

...........and everything you say holds true for MF vs FF (as you hinted at the end there.) Why would anyone want to stay with such a puny little sensor as you find in FF DSLRs? MF gives you much better images, more pixels, more DoF, is easier on the lenses, etc... and the price is coming down dramatically on MF cameras. (Frankly, I think the high megapixel count on the Canon FFs is a negative, even more so for the Sony FFs. IMHO those nice big, lazy photosites in the 12mp Nikons account for much FF lust, which Canon countered with video.)

I would love an MF camera. When the price is right, I'll go there. Everyone has a different price for performance curve. What makes FF attractive is that it is only 2-3x the cost of APS-C whereas MF is about 10x the cost of FF.

Put a photo from a FF DSLR vs an APS DSLR and 99% of the time, you will not be able to tell the difference.

As someone that shoots with both, I can tell you that this isn't true at all. The difference is noticeable most of the time. It isn't always extreme and it isn't always noticeable at computer screen resolutions, but it's pretty obvious. It is not uncommon for my wife and I to shoot with both cameras at the same time and for me to review them intermingled in LR. I almost always notice the difference without even looking for it.

FF comes with serious negatives as well as advantages and it's good to remember that APS is certainly not the dead end that some make it out to be.
FF definitely has disadvantages. As I said above, it costs 2-3x more. For many people, that takes it off the table right away. That cost difference will come down some, but it will always cost about 20x for the sensor itself. FF is also bulkier and heavier, which ripples through lots of gear (bigger lenses, filters, heavier tripods, larger packs, etc).

APS-C is certainly not a dead end. It is the dominant DSLR format and I suspect that it will be for the foreseeable future. FF has established a solid niche for professionals and serious amateurs that are willing to spend the extra money. I think that the vast majority of DSLR shooters are better off with an APS-C setup. I also think that those willing to put up with the cost, size, and weight disadvantages of FF will be well rewarded with a significant improvement in image quality. Everyone has their priorities and needs to make the appropriate choice.

Finally - I did not suggest that anyone stick with APS. I suggested that you make sure that it's really what you want when you're talking about buying lens today when thinking about some far-off hazy future camera. Nothing wrong with going FF, but I don't think it's for everyone and people often don't forget about the negatives.
Sorry, I misunderstood your post. I took it as an assertion that the OP not be too concerned about FF because there was little advantage to it. I just wanted to present the opposing view - that they should not give up their hope of FF because there are substantial IQ advantages.

[Groucho]

I would love an MF camera. When the price is right, I'll go there. Everyone has a different price for performance curve. What makes FF attractive is that it is only 2-3x the cost of APS-C whereas MF is about 10x the cost of FF.
The OP mentioned the D3... the Pentax 645D is easily less than 2x the price of a D3s (since the D3 is no longer available.) It's less than 4x the price of a D700 and less than 5x the price of an A850, which are as cheap as FF gets and both are "cut down" with no battery grip, etc. It's currently only available in Japan but I would assume that we'll hear more about a worldwide release at Photokina. Adobe even included lens profiles for many 645D lenses in their new ACR/LR update. Mamiya's newly announced one is also close to the price, but from what I've heard (and I admit that I haven't played close attention), it costs more than the 645D and is worse in about every category.

Now, these MF DSLRs are mainly built for studio use, so forget the high ISO performance of the "sports" FF DSLRs like the D3. The 645D is a good competitor to the D3x, and only slightly more expensive - maybe 10-20% more. If I was in the market for a studio camera and looking at the two, the 645D is certainly far more compelling.

So, the price difference isn't nearly what it used to be - I'm sure it will always be very expensive, but who knows - it's not impossible that someone will take the MF sensor and put it in a small, cheap body, like Nikon did taking the D3 and selling it for almost half price with the D700. Obviously FF still has an advantage for those of us who are not Rockefellers in that it uses the same lens mount and there are plenty of cheap FF lenses available.

I guess I would also sum up my original message as, if you're considering a $5,200 D3s, I wouldn't worry too much about a $189 35mm lens. :)

[Luv2Scrap]

I'm looking at this lens: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-15mm-Fisheye-Lens-Cameras/dp/B00009R6WN/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

I'm so tempted to order it from Amazon because I have Amazon Prime so it would be here it two days. I really want it to arrive before my Disney trip.

The only lens I've ever ordered online was a $100 lens from Adorama. I'm not sure how much to trust...

Any advice?

Thanks!

[ChiSoxKeith]

Thanks for posting......that's a really nice deal on that fisheye lens and it's got me tempted too.

[Code]

Amazon is definitely a reputable seller, I've had no problem ordering lenses from them (as long as it is from Amazon rather than a 3rd party seller).

You have a crop sensor camera (i.e. not full frame), right? If you're going for the fully wide fisheye look (near 180 degree field of view), you should consider 10mm rather than 15mm: http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-Fisheye-Canon-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000YYDF7W/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1281712629&sr=1-1

If you just want it as a wide angle lens, I'd recommend going with something rectilinear.

[Luv2Scrap]

Amazon is definitely a reputable seller, I've had no problem ordering lenses from them (as long as it is from Amazon rather than a 3rd party seller).

You have a crop sensor camera (i.e. not full frame), right? If you're going for the fully wide fisheye look (near 180 degree field of view), you should consider 10mm rather than 15mm: http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-Fisheye-Canon-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000YYDF7W/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1281712629&sr=1-1

If you just want it as a wide angle lens, I'd recommend going with something rectilinear.

Thanks for the tip. Are there any other differences between the two lenses that might influence my decision?

Also, does a lens purchased from Amazon come with any type of warranty?

[Luv2Scrap]

Ok now I'm excited! I just ordered the Sigma 10mm. :banana:

And since I have Amazon Prime, for $3.99 it'll be here tomorrow!!! :dance3:

[ChiSoxKeith]

Jealous!

:thumbsup2

[Luv2Scrap]

Jealous!

:thumbsup2

I had to choose between a couple fun lenses and 25 more DVC points. I guess this means I have made my choice. :laughing:

[ChiSoxKeith]

25 DVC points is more than this sigma lens.....so what else are you buying?

I'm actually looking at either buying or renting this lens (http://www.amazon.com/100-400mm-4-5-5-6L-Telephoto-Zoom-Lens/dp/B000X4LOQ2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1281718600&sr=8-1)for my trip to AKV this December.

[Luv2Scrap]

25 DVC points is more than this sigma lens.....so what else are you buying?

I'm actually looking at either buying or renting this lens (http://www.amazon.com/100-400mm-4-5-5-6L-Telephoto-Zoom-Lens/dp/B000X4LOQ2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1281718600&sr=8-1)for my trip to AKV this December.

Whoa! Now that's a lens!

I don't know what else I'll be buying yet... that will be my next question to you guys! :laughing:

If I have a fisheye lens do you think I still need a wide-angle lens?

[ChiSoxKeith]

Don't know. I only have the stock lens that came with my 300D and a 70-300mm zoom.

I have a huge laundry list of stuff that I want to add to my camera bag (like even a new camera body) so I dunno.

I actually think I'm going to buy either the canon 50mm f/1.4 or the sigma 30mm f1/.4

For the more expensive stuff I'll probably just rent as needed. Last year I rented a Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L (http://www.borrowlenses.com/product/canon_super_tele/Canon_400mm_f2.8_IS) to shoot two of my stepson's HS football games. It was a blast to play with that nice of gear, but my 300D really wasn't up to the task.

[ChiSoxKeith]

Soo.....

Now that the lens and the flash have arrived, how are they?

[ssanders79]

Just watch to make sure who is actually selling the item on Amazon. Sometimes it is from a 3rd party. I've purchased from Amazon, but not from any of the 3rd party sellers.

[handicap18]

I bought both my dSLR's, 2 flashes, and 4 lenses from amazon with zero issues. Not to mention hundreds of other items (books, dvd's, receivers, PnS camera, media cards, external hard drives and more).

[Luv2Scrap]

Soo.....

Now that the lens and the flash have arrived, how are they?

FUN, FUN, FUN!!!!

I played around a bit yesterday, but homework is the priority today. :headache: We were having a little fun doing weird fisheye faces pics last night. That was pretty hilarious! I'm seriously considering putting them on Facebook. :rotfl2:

I will have a ton of fun with my new toys, I can promise you that! :yay:

[jsmjovi]

OK - so I just got a new lens - a 18-105mm lens and I already have the kit lens - the 18-55mm lens. I don't need both right??

That kit lens falls into the range of my new one doesn't it? Is there any reason to keep the kit lens? I don't get lenses! LOL!

[SrisonS]

No, you don't really need it. If anything, if the kit lens is your only other lens, it might be wise to hold on to it. Just in case something happens to your 18-105, at least you'll have something.

[AlbertZeroK]

So did you get the Sigma lens? I just ordered it last night along with this (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-II-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B0033PRWSW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1281918319&sr=8-1) which is an upgrade for me (I'll sell my Revision or Mark I Lens for $1500.)

Amazon is definitely reliable! And the warrantee is the same as manufacture (1 year). Plus they don't sell gray market lenses.

[AlbertZeroK]

No, you don't really need it. If anything, if the kit lens is your only other lens, it might be wise to hold on to it. Just in case something happens to your 18-105, at least you'll have something.

I would hold on to it as well, mostly because they are practically worthless. And a backup lens is nice to have just in case.

[ChiSoxKeith]

Nice choice in lenses.

[Luv2Scrap]

So did you get the Sigma lens? I just ordered it last night along with this (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-II-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B0033PRWSW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1281918319&sr=8-1) which is an upgrade for me (I'll sell my Revision or Mark I Lens for $1500.)

Amazon is definitely reliable! And the warrantee is the same as manufacture (1 year). Plus they don't sell gray market lenses.

Yep, I got the Sigma lens. If I wasn't still so smitten with my new Fisheye, I'd have lens envy over your purchase. :love:

[mom2rtk]

I don't know how big the 18-105 lens is, but sometimes you might want to carry a lighter smaller camera, and the kit lens will typically fit that bill. I actually had mine out last night for the first time in a long time. I was attending an outdoor theater production of Beauty & the Beast. The policy is no cameras except point & shoot. So I took the strap off my DSLR and used the kit lens and we made it through fine. I think they mostly didn't want anyone to have any long telephoto lenses.

[C&B Young]

I concur with what everyone else has said. Keep the kit lens, as carrying around the 18-105 pay not always be an option. It never hurts to have a backup lens in case you get a 2nd body, plus resale value on the kit lens is negligible.

[mom2rtk]

Also, if you ever want to sell your current camera (like to upgrade) it will help immensely to have the kit lens to put with it!

[Zion21]

I would say so. Amazon has some of the best customer service and return policies so even if something is wrong with the lens they wont make a fuss about it. :)http://rewardslink.info/flash/images/19.gif

[SrisonS]

What are some great websites to buy used lenses??? I'm trying to expand beyond eBay.

[MarkBarbieri]

I've never bought one there, but I used KEH to get a sense of pricing. B&H also sells used stuff, but they never seem to have much.

[zackiedawg]

I'll back up KEH as the place for me. I have bought several lenses from them, and recommended friends of mine who bought there - haven't heard any dissatisfaction about them anywhere, and they are so conservative in their lens ratings that lenses are usually in far better shape than you expect them to be.

[bob100]

What are some great websites to buy used lenses??? I'm trying to expand beyond eBay.

for Canon lens and gear this site:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum

[Geoff_M]

I'd recommend KEH. I've bought camera bodies (film) off of them in the past and they rate wear VERY conservatively. I'd buy "EX+" grade stuff off of them that looked "LN" to me!

[AlbertZeroK]

Dgrin.com is okay
fredmiranda.com is great, I've sold and bought there.

[photo_chick]

KEH almost always has what I'm looking for.

[handicap18]

another vote for KEH.com. Big selection and VERY fair with their ratings.

[saturndb]

KEH is very good. I have bought from them many times....

[AlbertZeroK]

Just be prepared, Used Inventory changes rapidly. I also find KEH sells alot of old glass. Like the 85L Mark I or the 300mm f/2.8 non-IS. So make sure you know EXACTLY what you're looking for and be aware of the discontinued versions of the same thing. I ran into this looking for a 85mm f/2.8 Mark II. KEH has the Mark I version, but not the II (unless you want it new).

[SrisonS]

Thanks for the ideas!!!!!