any photographers in the house?

[Titch]

got myself a nikon dslr as a 40th present this year

now im on the look out for a lense to complement the ones i have

want a potrait or landscape lense

looking at 35mm 50mm or 85mm


or a Tokina 11-16mm

anyone got any recomendations

thanks

 

[PD]

should cover what you require, from portrait to landscape

http://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/image ... hspart=avg


its quite good.

 

[Titch]

sorry for got to say got one from work as a freebie have the 70 - 300 mm

or that pic is the 18 - 200mm ?


Next

 

[MadrikXIV]

Do you mean a lens to take Portraits of people or to take pics of landscapes?

Or the portrait/landscape rotation?

 

[anthonyUK]

Don't forget that unless you have an FX sensor, a DX has a 1.6 multiplication so a 50mm is really an 80mm.

 

[morethanworts]

Portrait photographers will go with a prime, so the 85mm on a camera that's effectively giving you 1.6x that, if that's the case, for individual portraits. You can get nice candids with a 50mm.

For Landscapes, I'd certainly get the extra wide zoom. You can pick out nice details with the longer lenses,but it's the sub 18mm end that will be more dramatic.

Get yourself on the dpreview forum.

 

[Titch]

thank you

i have a nikon 3100 to play with just now kit lense
and the 70 -300mm

i like portraits and landscapes as i live currently between Manchester and Kuala Lumpur Malaysia so lots to choose from

 

[BarnsleyBrewer]

Think Aleman's big on photography :hmm: :hmm:

BB

 

[morethanworts]

It's worth spending the money on the lenses. They hold their value well. Consumer DSLRs have been good enough for at least 7 years or so, to place the onus on the lenses, IMO. I'm still on a Canon 400D, but with two additional lenses, one which is worth much more than the body. A fourth, well chosen lens would still make more difference than a new body to me, in most situations.

Don't forget to budget for a bounce flash if your taking indoor shots. Direct flash is often terrible, unless it's just to fill in. I'm sure you'll have a long list...

 

[Titch]

saw someone today with a 24 - 70mm or was it 24 - 105mm cannon

oooh i want a wide angle



aaahhhhhhhhh

 

[calumscott]

On the 3100 with the APS-C sensor the Sigma 17-70 f3.5-5.6 is a nice "walkabout" lens. Don't know what the prices are like at the moment but I think I spent about 350 quid a few years back.

If you want a "standard" lens you need a 35mm. There has been a glut of them come on the market in the last 12 months but I can't remember what the reviews were (I'm still thinking that I want a properly fast 35mm but I don't have the funds...).

Nikon's own Nikkor lenses are truly stunning but they don't come cheap. That's why all my more expensive glass is Sigma - awesome (but usually just a little behind Nikon or Canon) quality, usually a third or so cheaper.

So, portraiture - a prime in the 65 to 100mm range would be a good bet. There's a nikkor 105mm out there that gets rave reviews, about the 5-600 quid mark IIRC. Lanscape - well, as far as I'm concerned there is no best landscape lens. I even push landscapes out to 400mm on an APS-C sensor, 600mm in old money! But I do also have the Sigma 10-20 for mega-wide vistas, 90-something degrees of field... I've accidentally got my feet in shots before now...

Anyway, spend as big as you can on glass, it is well worth it. :thumb:

 

[Titch]

think i might go for a nikon 35mm 1.8g as cant afford or justify the 1.4g just now
but also looking at the 85mm ...........mmmmmmmmmmmmmm


reckon i can spend around £300 or so on a lenses just now

keep the ideas coming chaps

 

[Cyclops]

Should have got a Canon (Sorry that is a professional photographers joke)

Used to be a Professional Photographer covering the BTCC for a few local papers. If you want to take portraits you will require a lens that is below 100mm unless you want to stand a good distance away.

Lower the F number, i.e f/2.8, the less depth of field you will get. this will give you more background blur. This will also let you have a quicker shutter speed too for shooting things like birds, or fast action shots, etc.

Sigma do some good lens which are cheaper than Nikon or Canon, however if you develop a fault it will take you at least 6 weeks to get sorted, it did for me that that was a lens worth £3700. They had my 1D and 120-300mm f/2.8 lens for around 6 weeks.

For general hobby work though a sigma lens will be fine though and a damn sight cheaper.

My Brother in law is a wedding photographer and he loves his f/1.4 50mm Prime lens, think he sold his 70-200mm f/2.8 recently.

Again though Canon :)

 

[anthonyUK]

For Nikon info Ken Rockwell's site is worth a read - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recomme ... htm#lenses
He is a big fan of the D3100 and rates the supplied lens very high.

The 35mm f1.8 looks to be a steal @£150 = 55mm for those with FX sensors.

 

[morethanworts]

I think around 80mm on an APS-C sensor will be good for individual portraits. I have a 50mm 1.8 on my Canon, and it's slightly too wide for that purpose, on the whole.

Lower the F number, i.e f/2.8, the more depth of field you will get.

I'm not arguing with an ex-professional, but shouldn't that be 'less' depth of field? Totally concur with everything else said, though.

At the wide end, the Sigma 10-20 always used to get rave reviews when I was last into it. I very nearly bought one (Canon fit), but had other priorities. I greatly enjoyed the Canon 10-22 that I hired for a few days (£700+) and the Sigma looked like a good compromise.

PS - you can still do portraits at the longer end of your kit lens: the longer focal length will still give some blur to the background, if you want to spend money on the wide lens first instead, especially if you set it to the lowest f you can and keep fairly plain, distant backgrounds.

 

[Aleman]

Modern Zoom Lenses (especialy the Marque Lenses) are very high quality, and some of the 3rd party lenses are great (I am a fan of Sigma) . . .However you will always get better quality with prime lenses . . . You may not see it until you have a 4 foot by 3 foot print, but it will be there

My personal Faves . . . Oh and I'm a minolta Fan coming from Film and still use my Dynax 700si's

Sigma 10-20 Super Wide Zoom for Landscapes . . . although Tricky to use properly . . . . Sometimes it's not what o can get into the shot it's what you can leave out . . . I've seen some great Landscapes shot with a 1200mm and 2X converter :shock:

Sigma 28-80 HSM . . . Pretty much stays on my camera, as a Grab lens good value all round lens.

Minolta 70-210 f4 . . . Good for getting into 'detail' landscapes

Now down to the workhorse lenses

Minolta 50mm f1.2 . . .Always worth having a standard lens in the bag especially a fast one for low light work cost difference between a 1.2 / 1.4 is significant, and generally tehy are interchageable

Minolta 100mm macro f2.8 . . Macro work . . . well DUH! . . . also a good portrait lens although I have

Minolta 135mm f2 'short' tele . . . My perfect Portrait lens Fast, Sharp as a Tack, ( around 80mm on a C Sensor).

Avoid the super zooms, they rarely perform well although some can surprise you, but only if you are talking expensive series glass (Canon L or Sigma EX for example)

The one thing is to determine just what you want to photograph, and buy the best lenses you can afford to do that . . .then you can compromise on lenses to perform other functions.

 

[rpt]

For Nikon info Ken Rockwell's site is worth a read - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recomme ... htm#lenses

Take anything you read there with a bucket of salt. His opinions change regularly and he often talks total rubbish.

BTW, the focal length magnification for Nikon DX is 1.5 (not 1.6 - that's Canon).

 

[Titch]

WOW thanks fellas

now im confused

so much choice
aahhhhh

i think atm the moment landscapes and the likes will be my main focus whilst away from the family, especially with where i work.

need to decide soon back to Malaysia end of the week

bugger

 

[Cyclops]

Lower the F number, i.e f/2.8, the more depth of field you will get.

I'm not arguing with an ex-professional, but shouldn't that be 'less' depth of field? Totally concur with everything else said, though.
quote]

My mistake, you will have less depth of field as you will create more blur in the background :)

 

[BicesterTerrier]

Have you considered going old skool and looking out for some old manual lenses. You can pair them with an inexpensive adaptor and get some great results. I use a Sony NEX-7 (like a DSLR but without the mirror), I have a 50mm f1.8 Canon FD lens, it is a great lens for portraits, comes out at 80mm effective with the crop of my sensor and the shallow depth of field at f1.8 is amazing. There are some bargains out there but they have a bit of dirt or fungus in the lens. You can get a small manual lens stripped and cleaned for less than £100. I have not cleaned mine but the adaptor was less than £20 and the lens was £30, for £50 you couldn't go out and get a good prime lens.

Being able to manually open and close the aperture and focus is certainly more fun than point and shoot.