MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
One for the photog types 🙂
I have a Nikon D5000 which I currently use with an 18-200 f3.5-5.6 lens. This is a pretty decent "do it all" lens, but I'm struggling with low light stuff - specifically pics of bikes in the woods in winter - I end up using low shutter speeds and high ISO. Neither ideal.
So I thought about getting a fast fixed prime. Either the Nikkor 35mm F1.8 AFS which is cheap(ish) or the Nikkor 50mm F1.4 AFS- a chunk more expensive.
Now I had a chat with a guy in the LCS, and he was a bit negative about the idea as using a fast lens in such circumstances will give me such limited depth of field that I'll be lucky to get decent shots. By the time I've used a small enough aperture to get a decent d-of-f, I might as well just stick with the 18-200. He and another colleague were very much pushing me towards the remote flash option. Similar sort of price for a mid sized Metz with a long wired remote lead.
Thing is a) I'm not a great fan of the remote flash look - too "Dirt Mag" and too much about the rider, not the location. b) I want to cut down on the bulk and the junk I'm carting around, not add to it. It would also be "on the fly" stuff, not multiple setup shots from the same location - I hate asking people to reride stuff - breaks up the flow of a ride.
Thoughts...?
Thanks!
I've used a Nikon 50mm 1.8 and a Sigma 30mm 1.4 for biking shots, and it can certainly be done - but you will struggle at the wider end of the aperture if you want to get things in focus, especially with a 1.4 - the DOF is a bit silly. You may well also miss the flexibility of the zoom, in the woods you can't always move around as much as you like. Might make you think more creatively though...
My do it all lens is currently a Tamron 28-75 (I think) 2.8 - might be a useful compromise.
I've got the 35mm for my Nikon and I use it a lot, it is great for low light. You might want the 50mm though if you're taking pics of moving bikes depending on how close you are to them when they fly past.
I don't quite see why having your subject in focus with a blurred background would be a problem, quite the opposite in fact.
If you're really close then only parts of the subject will be in focus; like this:
[img] 
[/img]
..but if you're far enough away to get the whole bike in I can't see if being an issue..
It's more the fact that the autofocus will already be struggling in the low light and the subject is moving pretty quickly making it tricky to get a good focus. Less of a problem with higher F numbers 'cos the depth of field is so much wider, and you can prefocus a lot easier.
Maybe try a 2.8 zoom which would give you at least an extra stop and keep some of the dooming versatility of your 18 - 200
On the other hand there is always the option of the D7000 🙂 1600 iso without real noise to speak of
You can do the remote flash thing without the remote flash "look":
[url= http://www.mu-43.com/gallery/data/500/medium/P1030255.jp g" target="_blank">http://www.mu-43.com/gallery/data/500/medium/P1030255.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
After all, you only need to light the rider, you can use a longer shutter to burn in the background a bit and the flash will freeze the rider. Also depending on kit, it might not be much more bulk.
Having said that, going from an 18-200 to a 35/1.8 would actually cut down the weight and bulk you're carting. But even going to 1.8 from f4 ish on your zoom isn't enough in dark woods to make that much of a difference. Yes you can double your shutter speed, but is going from say 1/30th to 1/60th enough of a difference to make a difference? Probably not. In combination with high ISO etc. etc. you might be ok.
The thin DoF can be an issue with shooting moving riders, (and moving targets in the dark woods is where you want help, if the rider's not moving you don't need the fast lens). For example, say you're shooting a rider 4m away with the 35/1.8 wide open - a reasonable scenario? You've got a DoF just under 1m. Sounds like enough, but it's not if they're moving at all fast. If you focus on the front wheel the face may be getting OOF etc.. And that's if they're stood still. If they're going 10mph (not that fast!) it takes them 1/4s to get OOF. Can you AF and take the shot that quick? Doubt it. So you have to pre-focus, and hit that 1/4s they're in that 1m range..... sounding tricky?
Even with the lights on that above pic, where I was shooting 18mm (on 4/3) f5 at about 2m - so a DoF of over 2m - I was getting about half in good focus say? And that's knowing exactly where the rider was coming, with twice the DoF of my above scenario...
So in summary, a 35/1.8 might help, but you'll probably still be boosting the ISO (and if it's just for web use, push it properly high, Noise will be ok in a small image). Also for reference, note that the motion's not quite frozen in the above pic, it's at 1/160.
your 1.4 & 1.8's are great in low light but you have to be spot on with your focusing
Personally I would be considering a 2.8 zoom, hell of a lot more flexible. I am currently considering swapping my 18-200 nikon for 70-200 tamron f2.8
i agree with what the guys said. I've run a bunch of lenses in my time (canon 400d but I guess the principle sticks) - the kit lens, a cheapo 70-300mm, then a 18-50mm f2.8 sigma, the 50mm f1.8 canon, and I now run a 10-20mm sigma, 18-200mm sigma, and a 200-400mm tamron.
The lens I miss the most is the 18-50mm. Whilst really wide aperatures are good for 'set up' shots, where you have time to check the focussing is just right, i found that with the f1.8 a load of my shots were just out of focus. Letting the body do the focussing (not my eyes) helped with this to a point, but I'd often find it still wasn't quite right. Stopping the lens down to f2.8 or f3.5 helped loads, opened up the depth a little. At this point, the fixed lens is cheap, light, and probably better quality than the 18-50mm, but the fixed length was annoying after a while. Particularly for bike photos in 'close' conditions (ie in the woods) I think you might find that to get a rider in, a 50mm lens puts you restrictively far away (presuming your body has a 'digital' sized sensor rather than full size). The zoom lens was heavier, bigger, and more expensive, but the added flexibility was very welcome. For the year I ran both, the f1.8 virtually never made it out of the bag