Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Next two lens purchases...

profile picture
cool.
Posts: 3457 - Karma: 1,724
so right now all i own is a D60 with a 18-105mm lens (and a tripod). i've had this setup for about 10 months and i feel like i'm ready for some new shtuff because i feel a little limited some times.

so this summer i'm doing this little photography internship with Vermont State Parks and i'll be shooting a lot of stuff for their websites so i think it's time to start working with some other equipment. I've been saving for a while and i'm willing to spend like $500 bucks.

so right now this is what i'm looking at... (also have a lens hood, and a UV filter on the list but those aren't what i need help with.)

24mm f/2.8 wide-angle. this lens seems pretty perfect because i really enjoy shooting landscapes and macro during the summer (please don't suggest a macro lens, i dont want one yet) and wide-angles can get great close-up action shot.


and here is the second:


fixed 50mm f/1.8. another great lens (from what ive heard) and it seems like its almost a necessary lens for a photographer. another great lens for shooting landscapes and pretty much everything else, and it's cheap. one of the reasons i like this lens is because i would really like to start shooting some portraits, just for friends and stuff to start out and go from there, and this is a great lens for portraits.


so yeah those seem like the 2 best options that make the most sense. throughout the next year i will most likely buy a flash (next on my list), a 70-300mm, and then possibly upgrade my body but we'll see how things play out.

so if you have any other suggestions i would really like to hear them. these lenses make the most sense to me and a flash/longer lens can wait a bit. but lemme know if you have any other suggestions.

thanks!
cole
Apr 26 2010 9:36PM
0 0
profile picture
yourthemannowdog
Posts: 4541 - Karma: 313
don't be afraid to look at 3rd party lenses, i love sigma http://www.sigmaphoto.com/ they have just a good quality for a cheaper, both lenses look good for what you are doing.
Apr 26 2010 9:41PM
0 0
profile picture
Jacuse
Posts: 1792 - Karma: 1,549
yeah definitely get 1 or 2 flashes if you want to start doing portraits
Apr 26 2010 9:43PM
0 0
profile picture
cool.
Posts: 3457 - Karma: 1,724
eh, ill just borrow yours for now
Apr 26 2010 9:59PM
0 0
profile picture
SeanTom
Posts: 7936 - Karma: 1,747
Click for larger image

not my best but an example of the 50mm. ns killed the color. Honestly it's a killer lens. i bought it at the start of the ski season and fell in love with it. It's so worth the $120
Apr 26 2010 10:14PM
0 0
profile picture
Snowcase
Posts: 11456 - Karma: 634
I would get the 50mm and an 85mm. Cheap, crisp lenses. They would both be great for shooting some landscapes. If you want to go wide get a 24mm.
Apr 26 2010 10:16PM
0 0
profile picture
1080ski
Posts: 4424 - Karma: 191
if you want to go wide, go wider than 24mm. on a cropped body, thats probably wider than you want (if you want a legit wide angle). shoot for 12-24 range. Tokina makes a great one for a decent price. The 50 f1.8 or f1.4 are both great lenses too.
Apr 26 2010 11:53PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is tits

Click for larger image
Apr 27 2010 12:47AM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61100 - Karma: 118,256
I've never understood why the 50mm 1.4 is like 300-400 dollars more than the 1.8, is it a full stop at that low of an aperture? or are people paying more for just .4 less(not full stop?) its always sparked my interest.
Apr 27 2010 12:53AM
1 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
many wide angle primes are actually sharper when stopped down a bit, so getting a 1.4 will enable you to stop it down to 2.4 with awesome sharpness, as opposed to getting a 2.4 and having to stop down to 3.4 to get the equivalent level of sharpness.
Apr 27 2010 12:55AM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61100 - Karma: 118,256
Ah, but stil, .4 seems so minuscule. I could understand between 1.4 and 3.5 but 1.4 and 1.8?
Apr 27 2010 12:58AM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
its probably just nicer, has smoother bokeh, edge to edge sharpness, etc., or something along those lines. I've found that 50% of what gives a lens its "look" can't be explained with technical specs.
Apr 27 2010 1:03AM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61100 - Karma: 118,256
Ah, word.
Apr 27 2010 1:17AM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31038 - Karma: 29,003
+1
Apr 27 2010 1:26AM
0 0
profile picture
basedjase
Posts: 2510 - Karma: 640
i have this lens, sooo sick.
Apr 27 2010 8:22PM
0 0
profile picture
Shredability
Posts: 2756 - Karma: 501
If you get the 50mm, you can always get a telephoto extender for about $100 for macro. It will meter and AF too pretty much gets you 1/1

just saying
Apr 28 2010 11:36AM
0 0
profile picture
LC.
Posts: 5952 - Karma: 2,423
Just get the 50mm then save the rest towards a 70-200 f4 or some flash gear. 24mm isn't a nice length on a crop body.
Apr 28 2010 12:01PM
0 0
profile picture
1080ski
Posts: 4424 - Karma: 191
Or, since you are using a crop body, you may want to consider the 35 mm f1.8 or f1.4. It will act as roughly a 50mm lens on a full frame body. Looking back, I wish I had bought the 35mm instead of the 50mm lens because often 50mm is too long on a cropped sensor for what I am looking to do. I do use it for basketball sometimes though (indoors, shitty light, f1.8 is great!).
Apr 29 2010 8:28AM
0 0
profile picture
owen_rotondi
Posts: 15 - Karma: 10
if you've come as far as saving up 550 save up a little more, maybe see if the state parks will help you a little bit... working outside like that with so much wild life you should think telephoto it's a staple in a photographers camera pack and will pay you huge dividends this summer.

80-200 f2.8 not cheap but worth every penny
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800697333-USE/Nikon_1993_Zoom_Telephoto_AF_S_Zoom.html
Apr 29 2010 3:13PM
0 0
profile picture
cool.
Posts: 3457 - Karma: 1,724
ive saved up about a grand and right now im still planning on getting the 50mm fixed, the wide-angle, and the sb-600 flash which is about $850 with a couple other things, including a new memory card.

i'll probably get a 70-300 next, then try and upgrade my body within the next year, but right now i'd rather have the 50 and the wide-angle.


Apr 29 2010 3:21PM
0 0
profile picture
owen_rotondi
Posts: 15 - Karma: 10
yeah i hear that, primes are the way to go but if you are at all serious about photography i would try and steer clear of the 70-300 with variable f-stop lenses they are just not nearly as sharp as something like a 70-200, or 80-200, you obviously can save your money so i would get the primes and the flash and then just start saving again for a used 80-200 worth every penny. I wont try and steer you away from anything because it looks like you have done your homework, on the other hand your obviously a skier and probably shoot on the mtn. so just make sure you think about timing to buy these two big investments. the primes and the flash will pay off huge shooting in the park next winter but if you think about what lens will ultimately help you the most this summer... i would go with the 80-200... just so much wildlife in the state parks.
what park are you working at? my girlfriend is the naturalist at bomoseen.
Apr 30 2010 11:27AM
0 0
profile picture
cool.
Posts: 3457 - Karma: 1,724
word man, thanks for the help. i definitely get what you're saying about the 70-200 or 80-200, but they are just mad expensive but obviously worth the cash. I've got a decently paying job for the summer so i should be able to save up for a 70-200 or 80-200, even though half of my money goes towards school.

i was assigned to Jamaica State Park, (5 miles away from my house) and Camp Plymouth State Park in Ludlow but once we get the shots for the website, we can go wherever and shoot whatever we want which is sweet. im pretty excited to be taking pictures for them, should get some good shots. but yeah hopefully i can buy a 80-200 before the winter, i would be psyched.

thanks again man, +k
Apr 30 2010 12:03PM
0 0
profile picture
LC.
Posts: 5952 - Karma: 2,423
70-300 isn't meant to be too bad up to 200mm, you just have to shoot it around f/8. 70-200 f/4 is supposedly arriving in the next 9 months though, I'd sell my 2.8 for that for sure.
Apr 30 2010 1:23PM
0 0
profile picture
mak
Posts: 700 - Karma: 167
also, at least with my canon, the build quality is definitely of a higher grade than the 1.8. looks like the same deal with the nikor
Apr 30 2010 4:31PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,385
here's a quick lens buying guide. This is all from my opinions, preferences and personal experiences so people will disagree, but trust me - I've put a ton of time into considering what gear I buy.


First, if you are going to buy glass, fuck DX (crop sensor specific) glass. Lenses will last forever if you treat them well, and every DSLR will be full frame before long. Don't waste your time

Don't ever buy a new lens that you aren't going to keep. If you are going to upgrade, buy used. Brand new lenses will lose value quick, but then level out and really never drop past a certain amount. That's why you see the same lenses all the time on craigslist and ebay for the same price. Also, if you aren't going to keep a lens forever, don't worry if it's got a few scratches. Odds are you will never ever notice, and a single hairline, almost invisible scratch will save you 100$.

Look at older versions of lenses. I have a fisheye from the 1970s that is sharper than the current one. It's just a tad darker and it's manual focus (which sucks sometimes but I don't really care about. It cost me 300 dollars used. the newest version costs like 900. I think you can even get older AF versions for 600-700.

KEH.com can suck balls, but not if you talk to Dan Orchard. Don't order online. Call KEH, ask to talk to him, and have him complete your order by phone. He's the only legit one there. If you are smart about it KEH is illllll.


I read Ken Rockwell's reviews before buying any glass. He has GREAT comparisons. Lots of people don't like him, and I would always read more than one review, but his website is reallllly useful and has almost every nikkor lens you can possibly think of there.

Also - this is just my opinion - but FUCK (most) 3rd party lenses. There are some gems out there, but Sigma, Tamron, etc, can all suck it. They lose value very quickly, and they very very rarely ever have better results. They also are more likely to end up with problems like loose focus rings, dirt, scratching, etc. Nikkor or bust.

Lastly, I know I said a bunch about "If you want to upgrade later", but i gotta say, buy the lenses you want. if it's truly what you want, you won't be disappointed, it will be worth every penny.



Apr 30 2010 5:13PM
0 0
profile picture
00000000
Posts: 11075 - Karma: 82,508
I'd go with a 35mm 1.8 and save up for a nice 70-200 2.8

A flash and a pair of pocket wizards are also really handy
Apr 30 2010 5:25PM
0 0
profile picture
cool.
Posts: 3457 - Karma: 1,724
word! thanks dood.
Apr 30 2010 5:29PM
0 0
profile picture
Jacuse
Posts: 1792 - Karma: 1,549
very helpful
Apr 30 2010 5:42PM
0 0
profile picture
LC.
Posts: 5952 - Karma: 2,423
I was kind of with you up until you recommended Rockwell's reviews. Dude he is such a tool. His site is useful for specs and to differentiate between different versions of lenses, but not for reviews. Bjorn Rorslett's site has by far the most legitimate opinions out there and Thom Hogan's is decent too.

As far as avoiding DX glass that's just stupid unless you know you're going to go full frame soon. Nikon are bringing out a load of decent DX lenses just now and that's a sign that they're committed to the DX format. I don't know what's good and bad in DX these days so do your own research but if you find a good DX equivalent it's going to save you a load of money and weight.

KEH, I've only used them once a few years ago but I got a perfect 70-200/2.8 for $1300 and I saw some decent prices on stuff last week when I looked online. Good call on buying old used lenses though. Look for old manual focus stuff. I got my 24 AIS for €90 and 16 AIS for $300. Next will be 300/4.5 when I find a nice one. I don't know about you guys but 100% of the ski shots I take are pre-focused so AF doesn't really mean much to me.
Apr 30 2010 6:14PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
"Buy the best and you will have it forever."
-Ostness on lenses
Apr 30 2010 6:19PM
0 0
profile picture
cool.
Posts: 3457 - Karma: 1,724
since i'm a beginner, i shoot probably 75% of my shots in AF because i feel more comfortable doing that, but that number is constantly lowering. auto-focus is also handy if you need to take a spur of the moment shot and don't have enough time to focus it perfectly, which i find myself doing quite a bit.


Apr 30 2010 7:15PM
0 0
profile picture
1080ski
Posts: 4424 - Karma: 191
hahaha WHAAAT??

you have some good points, but i dont agree with a few of them

first of all, DONT say fuck DX glass. Are you going to buy a full frame camera soon? most likley not. even if you do, you will probably keep a dx camera as a backup and therefore having dx lenses wont be an issue. There are lots of dx lenses out there that are great for what almost everybody needs. they are lighter and work like a charm. cheaper too!

KEH is legit, but is overpriced at times. I haven't ordered through the phone, but have had no issues ordering online.

Rockwell is a moron. He is great at comparing stuff, but often times his recommendations are for soccer moms (which is probs why he praises the d40 so much) and not for serious users (sometimes). Check his site out, but DEFINITELY go other places when considering equipment.

Fuck 3'rd party lenses? WTF?!?! They usually dont have the same optical quality as some of the higher quality lenses, (which is why you should check out reviews for whatever you buy) but some of their lenses are great and chances are, unless you are a pro/really big enthusiast, you wont know the difference. The tokina 11-16, tokina 12-24, tamron 17-55 (or 50, i forget), are all great lenses. Im sure there are more, but that is what I am familiar with.

That being said, do not be afraid to spend a lot on a lens if you are serious about photography. it will usually pay to have something nice.
Apr 30 2010 9:34PM
0 0
profile picture
Ftacnik
Posts: 1997 - Karma: 111
What's that? Sorry, new to photography and got a 50mm 1.8 Canon lens
May 1 2010 2:39AM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,385
As I said, It's my opinion.

I probably should have prefaced all that by saying that I'm assuming he's trying to get into photography as some a very enthusiastic amateur who appreciates good glass, possibly extending into some professional work. That's kinda the impression I got.

I should also say that I am super frugal and try not to keep around stuff I don't need. I have a small quiver of lenses that does everything I need and I don't plan on changing until a substantially better lens comes out in the same range.


As for -


DX lenses:
I'm standing by what I said. I don't like them. I have never owned a dx lens that I have been all that impressed with, and if you ever go full frame you are stuck with a bunch of dummy lenses. Like I said, I'm frugal though, so I'm not gonna have a backup body.

I also think that within the next few years, DX will be a thing of the past (although who knows really). I just don't see any place for it economically as technology gets better. So I'm not buying any DX glass.

If you are into it, go for it. some of them are really great lenses.


Ken Rockwell:
Like I said, I know some people hate him. I, however, am able to weed through the soccer mom BS and get into what I want to learn about, namely performance. Which his reviews are generally really good for. So yea, I see where people are coming from, but you can't deny that they are helpful. There are plenty of other review sites out there, but his are easy to go through if you don't know a ton to begin with. That's why I recommended him.

Third Market lenses:
I've never been impressed with them. If I'm going to spend hundreds on a lens, I'm willing to spend an extra hundred or two to get the Nikkor version. Like I said, just my opinion.



May 1 2010 12:39PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
I can name a handful of lenses that beat any Canon or Nikon lenses in terms of build, sharpness, speed, and cost a third of the price. I understand the point you're trying to make, but you really have to take it with a grain of salt.

In general, brands like Sigma and Tokina won't beat first-party lenses, but that doesn't mean there are a few gems. The Tokina 11-16 absolutely kills any canon or nikon wide lens within double its price range. Aside from price, Zeiss CP Primes absolutely slay anything Canon or Nikon has ever made...
May 1 2010 3:53PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,385
Which is why I indicated "most" when I referred to 3rd party lenses in my first post. Nobody is going to argue there's a few gems. And I didn't mention zeiss because based on the info he has given, it doesn't seem like he's in the market for one. Most of us aren't, actually.

I'd never heard of the 11-16 because it's a dx lens. it looks pretty ill though. It wouldn't work for our friend as it doesn't AF on a d60.


May 1 2010 7:19PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)