[Closed] DSLR Lens Advice (complete novice alert)

Big mountain vista shot with 18mm lens:
[url= http://www.bogtrotters.org/rides/2009/19apr/thumb/267p.jp g" target="_blank">http://www.bogtrotters.org/rides/2009/19apr/thumb/267p.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

IMO fixed lenses are a bit like singlespeeds - always the wrong gear :o)

I found a lot of good help here: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/ and also here http://www.dyxum.com/

That said, there are a lot of people on here that know their Glass...

Would be interested in the replies you get- was thinking the same for my A200..

there are a lot of people on here that know their Glass...

why do I always have the urge to punch anyone who calls a lens 'glass' ? Seems to me only an appropriate usage for those who actually grind or design their own lenses...

Sorry..

thats what my old man always used to call them and it just stuck.

You don't need a fixed (prime) lens, but they are rather nice to use. I still love my 50mm f1.4. It's a lovely protrait lens on a DX format camera and a great general purpose lens on a full frame (ie 35mm frame) camera. For a DSLR if I was buying a prime now it would probably be a 35mm (assuming around 1.5 crop factor) - that effective equivalent of 50mm on 35mm film fgives a really simple immediate look to the end product - my old photograpy tutor told me it was because it mimics the field of view of the human eye reasonably well.
Mr FBarnes is right they are a bit like a singlespeed - or perhaps 27 ratio bikes are like zoom lenses - they have a ratio for every occasion but you're always left wondering if a little more or a little less would be better. And like a SS you have to work harder but there is a real satisfaction to getting it right with a prime 50 - not to mention the control of the depth of field that any zoom that doesn't start with "how much" will struggle to match (f1.4 zoom boys).
For the record I use primes and zooms, SS and 27 ratio, hardtail and FS and I like them all. They're just different and you do have to learn how to use each of them properly to get the best out of them.
Best bet is just take more pictures and think about them as you do it - you'll soon work out what you want. I think Simon gets by on a 18-200VR most of the time. I vary between a 16-85VR, a 10-20, and a 50 depending on how I feel. Occasionally I break out the 70-300VR or the 24. But I rarely carry more than 2 lenses at a time and frequently just one.

Rest assured though you can take perfectly good pictures without a prime.

Iain

my old photograpy tutor told me it was because it mimics the field of view of the human eye reasonably well.

which is plainly wrong, as I can see 170° horizontally and about 100° vertically. I think it might be more accurate to say natural perspective...

Eddie, if you can't keep a few bolts tight on your saracen, there's no way on gods earth you will be able to operate a DSLR, let alone utilise different lenses FFS.

Dave Can You do a vander roll? It's an appollo ss recumbrant fixed trike actualy

Damn you........

Simon - Is that fisheye eyes you got there? Yeah you're probably right - I think what he was trying to say was that the bit that you have the full colour, reasonable focus on (ie excluding peripheral vision) is simialr to the focal length of the lens roughly equalling the diagonal of the sensor / film frame. Either way it just looks right sometimes.
Was I right in saying you're just about exclusive with your 18-200 by the way? 'Cos you do seem to turn in the odd photo that's worth looking at. And don't ask to see mine - I can't work flicker.

Iain

Simon - Is that fisheye eyes you got there?

no, it's a composite of a dozen or so shots 🙂

I think what he was trying to say was that the bit that you have the full colour, reasonable focus on (ie excluding peripheral vision) is simialr to the focal length of the lens roughly equalling the diagonal of the sensor / film frame

no, the sharp bit is 0.5° :o)

Was I right in saying you're just about exclusive with your 18-200 by the way?

Yes, as I do most of my photography on rides, my camera gets dirty, with crap lurking in the lens mount, and every time I change the lens I get lots of shite on the sensor, so I try to avoid it.

Traditionally at that price range a fixed focal length lens (Prime lens) will give you a sharper image, less distortion, better colours, less fringing and more contrast. My Canon £300 50mm F1.4 still outperforms my £1000 24-70 F2.8 on sharpness!

As IGM was saying, in terms of natural perspective a 35mm would be be the nearest you would get. However, if you have an 18-70mm already it might not be worth going for a prime lens if you are wanting to try other focal lengths.

Sigma 10-20mm opens a new form of creative seeing on any Digi-SLR's and most can be got for a shy under £400.

Alternatively, you could replace your standard kit lens with something like the 16-80mm Sony.

If you want to buy a fixed focal length lens, the 20mm, 28mm and 50mm F1.4 are all very well priced around your budget.

mmmm I'm still thinking of upgrading from my A1!

wide angle lenses are quite specialist IMO and you should browse as many pictures as you can taken with them to see if you like the output. It's very hard getting close detail into a wide angle shot unless you're virtually touching the item in question so it might not be the lens for you.... As an example....

[img] ?v=0[/img]

The end of the lens was about 12 inches away from the twig in that picture.

Primes are excellent for clarity and speed. The f1.4 mentioned above can produce stunning results but I have a f1.8 50mm prime which cost me 50 quid which is amazing also. I'm seriously impressed at how dark it has to be before this lens can not get a decent shot. Whether you can get lenses like this for the Sony I don't know.

not much wrong with a f1.8 - the f1.4 goes up to 11 but it costs a sight more for something you'll only use for extremely low light (hand held in the pub or club at might with on flash) or depth of field (choose which of the kids eyes is going to be in focus). 'Course Cannon used to make a f1.0 (and may still do) for real photo extremists.

Lots of ppl have the f1.8 50mm primes as they are very cheap (at least for Nikon / Canon), sharp, work well in low light and you can do clever shots with only a very small depth of field. 35mm primes would be better for modern DSLR, but ouch do they cost more!

samuri, is this the same tarn ?
[url= http://www.bogtrotters.org/rides/2008/29nov/270bp.jp g" target="_blank">http://www.bogtrotters.org/rides/2008/29nov/270bp.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
BTW, any reason why you didn't level out the horizon ? It looks tilted slightly clockwise...

not much wrong with a f1.8 - the f1.4 goes up to 11 but it costs a sight more for something you'll only use for extremely low light (hand held in the pub or club at might with on flash)

Have you ever tried to use a lens at f1.4 or even f1.8 handheld when you're pissed in the pub? Absolutely **** all chance of getting anything in focus IME.

I have the f/1.8 Nikkor - great lens and only £60.
Didn't see the point in paying an extra £150 on top of that to gain two-thirds of a stop when I already struggle to get focus spot on at f/1.8

you should know me better than that Simon, it's Rivington. 😉 That's the pike right in the distance. Yeah, I noticed the very slight tilt of the horizon but it's made worse because one side is dark. If I tilt one degree anti clockwise it looks wrong too so I left it.

you should know me better than that Simon, it's Rivington.

I did think it would be out of your orbit :o)

. If I tilt one degree anti clockwise it looks wrong too so I left it.

it's one of my bugbears - I often get tilted shots due to astigmatism, and although I can tell the photo doesn't look straight it can be very hard to find a level reference 🙁

wide lenses can be great fun if used with care.

if you want to include foreground detail then as others have said you need to be very close indeed, also it needs to be kept in the middle of the shot (depending on the lens) as it will be distorted otherwise.

great for landscapes if your camera deals ok with the high dynamic range you get with bright skies (or if you can bracket).

I love my newish tokina 11-16 f2.8 but they don't seem to make one with a sony fitting and the prices have gone up recently anyway.

Can't say I can do the wide angle thing, I've had a 10-20 sigma and a 10-17 fisheye, and never really had much success with them. As samuri says to get detail in the foreground you've got to be touching it.

I'd suggest a 50mm. I've just bought a f/1.2 which the postie will be delivering tomorrow. 🙂

My 50mm F1.4 was £150 2nd hand, which considering is only £50 more than the F1.8 new meant I jumped on it quicker than M.J. on a lil kiddy. Build quality is so much better! its faster, quieter, and has 8 aperture blades instead of 5 on the F1.8.

Prime lenses are the way forward. Best to look through the photos you've taken and check the focal length in the Metadata. I would think a 35mm would be perfect.

Well, seeing how expensive 'modern' lenses are, I invested in an adapter to take old Olympus OM-fit lenses in total manual mode on my Canon EOS450D. I think they also do them for '4 thirds fit' modern olympus kit too.

Here are some of the shots i've snapped since using the manual lenses. The Glass is so much higher quality than the bargain-basement modern lens that came with the camera.

28mm (44.8mm with the 1.6 crop factor of my canon) Prime:
[url= http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3411/3477431115_24b0cbdc69.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3411/3477431115_24b0cbdc69.jp g"/> ?v=0[/img][/url]

50mm (80mm) Prime:
[url= http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3554/3478159170_892ea1550d.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3554/3478159170_892ea1550d.jp g"/> ?v=0[/img][/url]

All my ones taken with my OM lenses are [url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_farrell/sets/72157616585983490/ ]here[/url]

It takes a little bit of getting used to, but you can get much better lenses for the same price, and I think it's really worth it unless you've got the cash to spend on pro-level canon / nikkor glass

IMO fixed lenses are a bit like singlespeeds - always the wrong gear :o)

I'd agree with the sentiment on single speeds where there is no obvious (to me) advantage. The optical quality of a good prime will always outweigh the downsides of perhaps not quite having the correct focal length. The joys of digital photography mean you can always crop the image easily anyway....

The joys of digital photography mean you can always crop the image easily anyway....

you can never crop [b]w-i-d-e-r[/b] 🙁
and of course cropping throws away the extra resolution...

and of course cropping throws away the extra resolution...

.....and the distracting crap you'd not noticed in the original shot. 🙂

.....and the distracting crap you'd not noticed in the original shot. [:)]

My thoughts too 🙂

you can never crop w-i-d-e-r [:-(]

I know. But as I simply can't afford a super-wide angle lens (old OM or modern), it's a largely irrelevant point. It would have to be super-wide given the crop factor on my canon too!

Horses for courses I guess. If I were to take my SLR on rides like you Simon, I'd persevere with the sigma 28-300 i'm just about to put on ebay. As I don't tend to carry an SLR riding, and am happy to take a bag-full of kit walking etc, I'll happily (until the novelty wears off I guess) lug a few primes about. The beauty of the OM kit is it's so small and light so I can carry 5 or 6 lenses without feeling like i'm a sherpa! I do have an old Tamron 80-210 OM-fit tele that I find very good, but as i've just got a 135mm prime, I suspect I won't use it as much, seeing as the 135 equates to 200ish on my sensor.

[url= http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Canon-EF-50mm-F1-8-f-1-8-II-lens-International-Warranty_W0QQitemZ220404778402QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_CameraLensesFilters_JN?hash=item220404778402&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1683%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318 ]ebay linky[/url][img] [/img]
£68 on ebay, is this good?

£68 on ebay, is this good?

Great optics for the money.

be warned, when you get hold of the f1.8 it feels like it's cheap, which it is. It's made out of thin plastic and the mount is even plastic and it rattles when you shake it. It seems to be fairly sturdy though and does take great shots.

I had a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 and hardly used it. It wasn't the right length for anything I wanted and the quality wasn't so much better than my zoom that it was ever worth the hassle or inflexibility.

Good thing about lenses is that if you buy at the right price you can sell them again on ebay for just about as much as you paid. After a year, I got £10 more for my 50mm and £28 more for my wireless controller!

I really like my new 10-20mm Sigma. That's what I take out on most rides these days, that or a 18-200.

IMO fixed lenses are a bit like singlespeeds - always the wrong gear :o)

You keep yer 3-45,000mm f13.8-72.

Can't beat something like a nice 85mm f1.4 or a 135mm f2 or simliar, for portraits. And focusing a 200mm f2.8 is a darn sight easier than 5.6.

Henri Cartier Bresson, praps the greatest tographer ever, seldom used owt other than a 50mm lens. Sometimes a 35mm, or maybe up to a 90mm.

Using a fixed-focal length lens can help you to develop photographic skills, such as composition and choosing the right position to shoot from, as you have to work with the limited scope of the lens.

And lots of 'bells and whistles' zooms are inferior, in optical quality, to a decent prime lens.

Prime: Right tool for the job.

Zoom: Adjustable spanner (AKA Bodger's Tool).

Really like the 50mm f/1.8 myself. Great for portraits.

RB: mleh, I suspect even the cheapest zoom today is far beyond the quality of the lenses HCB used.

HCB din't need such 'quality', though...

Using a fixed-focal length lens can help you to develop photographic skills, such as composition and choosing the right position to shoot from, as you have to work with the limited scope of the lens.

it helps you develop a redundant skill, but don't stop there, think of the [b]quality[/b] you can get with an 8" plate camera - or tie one hand behind your back etc

Behave, Barnes. You'll hurt yourself.

it helps you develop a redundant skill

Rubbish.

For once I find myself agreeing with RB. Taking away a variable by restricting yourself to using a prime (even for a day) will help you think about other aspects. Same as using a tripod can slow you down and improve your pics.

(But I disagree that a zoom is a bodger's tool. That's just bollocks)

will help you think about other aspects

I'm only interested in the subject, the gubbins used in the process are an inconvenience

I think sfb is looking forward to the fully automated DSLR that as well as the current features choosing exposure, dof, and autofocus. It will also automatically zoom to the optimium compositional focal length, thereby removing any user input.

It will also automatically zoom to the optimium compositional focal length, thereby removing any user input.

no, I like doing that bit :o)
But fiddling with exposure is a bit like adjusting the spark advance on a vintage car...

But fiddling with exposure is a bit like adjusting the spark advance on a vintage car...

No, fiddling with exposure ensures that your focal point is correctly exposed, rather than exposing for the mean of the whole picture.

yeah, but the whole exposure thing is arse. My eyes don't need it. I object to having to make up for the failures of the medium. It's like shooting in the dark, the 2 blobs of jelly in my face get everything sharp and clear but the camera usually gives useless streaky blurs 🙁

richpips - Member

But fiddling with exposure is a bit like adjusting the spark advance on a vintage car...

No, fiddling with exposure ensures that your focal point is correctly exposed, rather than exposing for the mean of the whole picture.

Agreed. If you're not bothered about correctly exposing your photos, then that D300 is wasted on you SFB. A compact would be much easier to carry on rides.... 😉

yeah, but the whole exposure thing is arse. My eyes don't need it.

Of course they do. Your eyes adjust aperture all the time to perform auto-exposure control - but you still sometimes do manual exposure compensation like squinting or wearing sunglasses in bright light.

I object to having to make up for the failures of the medium.

Sorry, but that's like saying you enjoy driving, but you're not keen on the steering part. Working within the limitations of the medium is a fundamental part of photography.

If you're not bothered about correctly exposing your photos

I just want the camera to [b]work[/b]

hen that D300 is wasted on you SFB. A compact would be much easier to carry on rides

I don't get on with them. They can't take 6 shots a second and there's no zoom ring 🙁

Your eyes adjust aperture all the time to perform auto-exposure control

yeah, that's the point, they just work, and the 'sometimes' is very rare.

Working within the limitations of the medium is a fundamental part of photography.

inevitably, but that doesn't mean I don't think we can do better. I'm not going to make a virtue of the limitations.

learning composition is a valuable trait. Fair enough, it is how it all interacts in the frame but 90% of the time you want a photo that attracts your attention.

What I will say is composition is like humans; the basic idea of compositonal rules hasent moved on in years. the rule of thirds/golden ratio/golden spiral was being taught in education in the 50's and 60's but is derived from a theorum devised before christ was born...

that Canon F1.8 is not a particularly well built lens, but the quality to price ratio is very good, so I would say go for that and have a play at that kind of money.

Looking at your bogtrotter pics simon, one of my favourites was this:
[img] [/img]

Which works precisely because of the limitations of the medium. The limited dynamic range gives nice solid blacks and contrast. If the same picture contained the full dynamic range of human vision and was exposed "properly" so that the entire scene was clearly visible then it would be a far less interesting shot.

If the same picture contained the full dynamic range of human vision and was exposed "properly" so that the entire scene was clearly visible then it would be a far less interesting shot.

granted, but I'd prefer to have the choice to take [b]out[/b] unwanted detail rather than having it done willy-nilly. And interestingly that shot does correspond with what I saw because my attention disregarded the shadow detail 🙂

Well it's not "done willy-nilly". You already have the ability to choose which bits should be visible - it's called exposure 😀

the basic idea of compositonal rules hasent moved on in years.

ie they are stultified. Composition is an artifact of the media used. In the real world there is just stuff and you looking at it

Composition is an artifact of the media used. In the real world there is just stuff and you looking at it

...and to an extent what you, or another viewer are expecting to see.

Composition is an artifact of the media used. In the real world there is just stuff and you looking at it

...and the stuff that you look at that makes you go "Wow!" or "That's nice/interesting/disturbing/whatever" [i]tends[/i] to be because it follows certain compositional rules.

The framing, shape, balance, patterns and juxtaposition of subjects is just as important in "reality" as it is in an image.

I'm not sure what you actually want from a camera simon. You apparently think composition is foolish and exposure is an arse - so what would your perfect camera do?

You apparently think composition is foolish and exposure is an arse - so what would your perfect camera do?

Have 'Bottom-Recognition' technology?

Have 'Bottom-Recognition' technology?

You mean [b]female[/b] 'Bottom-Recognition'

You mean female 'Bottom-Recognition'

From most of his shots, it appears he's not that picky! 😉

Who was it said that a good photgraphy is about what you leave out? All the best (to me if no one else) photos I have ever seen have not reflected reality. They have reflected a part of it and left the viewer to add the rest. From the portrait with the blurred background, to the restricted dymamic range shown by SfB to the the black and white shot of what I assume was a colour landscape to the shot which screams that there is something just outside of shot or just about to happen.

Composition is simply choosing what to include and what to leave out (and of course where to put it in the frame to draw attention to it - or not).

SfB just wants something that allows him to play with only the elements he wants to play with and let the machine look after the ones he doesn't - which is fair enough. The doesn't want to walk forwards and backwards and side to side looking for the angle that includes everything he wants so he carries a zoom. I find when using a prime it's one less thing for me to thing about - actually the same reaon he's carrying a zoom.

Some things just suit different people differently.

Now Simon - can you resist disagreeing?

The doesn't want to walk forwards and backwards and side to side looking for the angle that includes everything he wants so he carries a zoom

you mistake me, I want to choose the shooting position and framing - to me that [b]*is*[/b] photogrpahy, well, that and critical observation, but once I've selected the shot I'd like the camera to capture what I can see and not a compressed, shadow blocked version of it.

If you think a zoom is just to save one walking I wonder how well you understand focal lengths ? I often walk [b]away[/b] from my subject to get the isolation of a long focal length. In the conditions I shoot, my zoom gives me far better quality than I could ever get from a prime because I'm able to control the amount of shite getting on the sensor. It's no good having a sharp image if it's covered in crap 🙁

I want to choose the shooting position and framing... isolation of a long focal length

Position, framing, depth of field?? That sounds like composition. I thought composition was stultified?

once I've selected the shot I'd like the camera to capture what I can see and not a compressed, shadow blocked version of it.

So what would your ideal fantasy camera capture simon? And what controls would you have?

Presumably you'd still want control over depth of field, for the reasons stated above. And you'd still need control over shutter speed to be able to get your freeze-frame water splash pictures. And a zoom. And a flash.

My eyes have none of these features.

Incidentally I assume you are shooting in RAW/NEF mode. IF your shooting in JPG then you can't really complain about blocked shadows.

I tend to think of focal lengths as viewing angle and perspective. So yes I agree that walking towards someting then zooming out or walking away and zooming in may result in the main subject being the same size in the frame but will change the perspective (and if you like portraits done with an extreme wide angle, which I do, completely distort the subject).

But a lot of the time people zoom in because they are further away than they would like to be - and if you don't believe me re-read the thread (and I am not acusing you, but read some of the comments)

Anyway - always fun to disagree. And please do note I am disagreeing not slagging. Your views are not without merit - I just chose not to agree with all of them.

The slagging will be provided by others in a minute.