Forum menu
Hmmm I think the moral of the story is more saving is required.
Mirrorless cameras are much easier to design an equivalent quality lens for, so they get the same lens for less cost and weight[\quote]I guess you meant APS-C lenses rather than mirrorless?
I think this thread has got a little out of hand: I was kinda hoping for lenses that didn't cost £600-1000 (I am a student 
). I was thinking more like the 18-105, or other equivalents.
If it helps I have the 18-105 on my D7000 and I'm happy with it. It's a bit weighty but if I'm hiking (where weight is an issue) then it's the only lens I carry and gives me enough of a range that I don't miss my 70-200. I don't blow up my images or crop massively so haven't discovered any flaws with it. It's not great in low light, but then I use my 35mm 1.8 or my Sony RX100 when the light fails...
It's a "Recommended" lens according to ByThom who is like Ken Rockwell but without the BS.
[url= http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-databases-for-nikon/nikon-dx-lenses/nikkor-18-105mm-f35-56g-ed.html ]ByThom[/url]
Here's 18mm:
[url= https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7423/10161710196_54db4f691b_c.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7423/10161710196_54db4f691b_c.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/gtXqpW ]mk36[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/beanum/ ]Beanum[/url], on Flickr
Here's 105mm:
[url= https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7415/10161748026_d9f358f26f_c.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7415/10161748026_d9f358f26f_c.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/gtXBEb ]mk33[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/beanum/ ]Beanum[/url], on Flickr
Yes it has; sorry, that's partly my fault. 😳
You mention that you want better quality, so that will only come with the more expensive zooms, or with prime lenses. StuF mentions using older lenses; this is good advice, as you can find some real bargains around. The demand for manual focus lenses has dropped, so there are many fantastic lenses around. For landscapes, you'll not need autofocus really, so a manual focus lens would be fine; you just have to use it in Manual or Aperture Priority mode. Not a problem if you've got a static subject.
Then there are other brands which do Nikon fit lenses. I've not personally had great experience with such, but many people have, and I'm sure there are some great lenses out there.
"Hmmm I think the moral of the story is more saving is required."
Yes, I'm afraid so. The days of relatively cheap photography are over.
I think this thread has got a little out of hand: I was kinda hoping for lenses that didn't cost £600-1000 (I am a student ). I was thinking more like the 18-105, or other equivalents.
Ebay and third party lenses. And think about/research what you're buying. 🙂
I can see my 35mm 1.8 getting a lot of use
That's not a bad thing, Mikey74. Using just one fixed focal length lens can really help train you in terms of composing and framing shots. Photography courses invariably encouraged students to start of with a 50mm lens for this reason. And one lens doesn't have to be limiting; you can overcome perceived limitations by using your own creativity. Henri Cartier-Bresson was famous for using just the one lens. But there's no harm in exploring what other tools can do. I find myself drawn to portraiture, so medium telephotos with large apertures appeal to me. I'm currently considering an 85mm lens (anyone have experience of the Nikon range? 1.4 G or 1.8 D; quite a difference in price!). Then there's the 135mm f2 DC. Or a longer tele. Etc etc etc.
Maybe a useful thing to do is to look at the exif data (or whatever it's called) when you upload you images to a computer; what focal length are you using mostly? Is it actually really worth buying a zoom if you only shoot at either end? Do you really need an expensive large aperture prime when you shoot everything at f8 and smaller? A macro lens is nice, but will you ever use it? Wishing you had a 24mm when you can't get everything into the frame with your 28mm. And so on.
It will take time to learn about what equipment suits your photography the best. I've been doing it for 25+ years on and off, and a still learning about this really.
I'm currently considering an 85mm lens (anyone have experience of the Nikon range? 1.4 G or 1.8 D; quite a difference in price!).
I don't but it's very common for a 1.4 to be disproportionately more expensive than a 1.8. It might only be half a stop faster but it costs a lot more to get an image useable across the entire frame of an f/1.4. You can get cheap f/1.4 lenses, but they are never very good at their maximum aperture.
At the 85mm end, there's really very little argument for f/1.4. Shooting a portrait at that aperture, you'll need to be shooting a half or three quarters length distance in order to have anything more than just the eyes in focus. If you're shooting a head shot at f/1.4, then probably 85% of the face will be out of focus, at which point you have to question whether you're making anything like a meaningful portrait. Defocused backgrounds a great, but you still need to be able to see your subject.
A 50mm f/1.4 can justify itself because you can just about get away with having enough of the subject in focus. By the time you get to 85mm I think f/1.8 is as large as you need.
This however does need to be balanced against the noise performance of your camera. f/1.4 used to be 'needed' because noise performance was so poor (in both film and digital - ISO800 and higher on film is very grainy and digital sensors used to be unusable above ISO1600 until very recently).
These days the quality of noise control at ISO3200 on even and APS-C camera is so good, you just don't need f/1.4 to compensate.
That's not a bad thing, Mikey74. Using just one fixed focal length lens can really help train you in terms of composing and framing shots.
Good point, and I'd be happy to take out my camera with just the 35mm (I fancy trying some stich panoramas with it, as an example). However, for a general walkabout lens, I do find the 18-55 quite useful, if a little limiting at the upper end of the focal range.
I would guess that I tend to use the 18-55 at the ends of it's focal range, with limited use in the middle. Having said that, I do switch between the two quite frequently, when out, and I don't really fancy changing lenses that often.
You do get some nice effects with f1.4
[url= https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7117/7631223228_3015c2bc9d.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7117/7631223228_3015c2bc9d.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/cCm1Nh ]F1.4[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/brf/ ]Ben Freeman[/url], on Flickr
Henri Cartier-Bresson was famous for using just the one lens.
He wasn't exactly renowned for his sports or landscape photography.
My most used lens is the Nikon 18-200, then my 35mm f1.8. ....... I find the 18-200 to be a jack of all trades and master of none, but I captures more shots as a result of having it than not, as I don't have to faff around with lens
This is also me. I had the lens to start with on a D80 and it was ok but recently bought a D7200 body. The new body has made so much difference to the usability of the lens now that high iso images are that much more acceptable. Suddenly crisp action shot at distance are now possible as is hand held (or just monopod) low light non flash photography. Doesn't get around not being able to shoot with a nice shallow depth of field though like I could with a faster lens.
You do get some nice effects with f1.4
You do, but you also get a lot of people using shallow depth of field as a crutch to compensate for poor composition.
(For the avoidance of doubt, that's not a dig at anyone here, just a general observation!)
You do, but you also get a lot of people using shallow depth of field as a crutch to compensate for poor composition.
So so true. You see so many people lauding the 'creative talent' of such pictures when really it's a case of 'look at me, I can afford an f/1.4 and I'm damn well going to use it wide open'. (also not a dig at anyone).
Other than the (rubbish) detail automotive shots I've just posted, none of the street portraits I've put up here are at anything wider than f/2.
The picture above, of the guy with the spoon in his mouth, is good example of the problem with using such a huge aperture. That's basically a picture of the guy's nose; that's the only thing in focus. Everything else is out of focus so if you wanted to take a picture of the person, I think that counts as a fail (sorry to be blunt, I don't mean it to be rude, just honest and constructive).
Now, I'm not saying that soft focused portraits can't ever work, because they can. This, I think, is utterly wonderful but it works I think because of the overal composition, presentation and the mood that it creates; the cavernous aperture (this is an f/0.95 50mm lens, also known as the Canon Dream Lens for obvious reasons) is working in a complementary way with the other elements.
[url= https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3947/15295027317_930d35e9b6_k.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3947/15295027317_930d35e9b6_k.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/piz1Kx ]dream lens f/0.95 canon 50mm sony a7s a7 a7r[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/paul_marbrook_photography/ ]Paul[/url], on Flickr
"At the 85mm end, there's really very little argument for f/1.4."
Some interesting thoughts, thanks. Gogle searches suggest there is a difference between the two, in terms of background focus (or lack, thereof), with the 1.4 having a noticeable edge. But I take your point that it's rare to be shooting wide open. Searches also suggest the 1.8 is just as sharp as the 1.4. I just don't want to be in a position where I regret not buying the other lens.
"The picture above, of the guy with the spoon in his mouth, is good example of the problem with using such a huge aperture. That's basically a picture of the guy's nose; that's the only thing in focus. Everything else is out of focus so if you wanted to take a picture of the person, I think that counts as a fail (sorry to be blunt, I don't mean it to be rude, just honest and constructive)."
That's more to do with an error of focusing though. Would be interested to know why the focus point is the nocse. Is it a self-portrait? Critical focussing is a nightmare when doing those. I had to provide someone with a portrait of myself for an article, and with no-one else around had to shoot it myself. Was a bugger to get the focus on my eyes. Took several goes. I now have a little gizmo that plugs in the camera and allows you to use your 'phone as a viewfinder, and to select focus points. Would have loved to have had it then!
Would be interested to know why the focus point is the nocse
It's not uncommon for cameras to end up back or front focusing, i.e. where the focal point selected on the AF system results in a focal point just infront or just behind. It can be fixed as the focusing mechanism can be recalibrated (that might not be true if the phase detection is on chip rather than a module as it is in a DSLR - i.e. not mirrorless).
That's more to do with an error of focusing though.
At 85mm and f/1.4 (which is what that image is shot at), you could select an AF point that is right on the eye, but the camera ends up focusing on the eyelash. That would give you the result you see above.
Either way, at that physical distance, 85mm and f/1.4 wouldn't ever give you anything but the eyes in focus. Everything else would be out and would still, in my view at least, count as a fail if what you were trying to do is make a portrait.
Artificial Backgrounds are useful for a lot of things in portraiture but being able to stop a lens down to something like f/5.6 is one of the main reasons to use them.
That's more to do with an error of focusing though. Would be interested to know why the focus point is the nose. Is it a self-portrait?
No, just random, camera was on spot focusing and wife just took a shot. I really like the shot as it is.
You could do worse than look at the Nikon 35-70 f 2.8 . Range isn't brilliant but quality is very good ;prices are more than acceptable .
For me the 85/1.4 is the ultimate portrait lens - not just for the focal length or aperture but also for some undefinable thing about bokeh and all that stuff - it's not called "the cream machine" for nothing!
He wasn't exactly renowned for his sports or landscape photography.
Not so, actually, his landscapes are quite well known. MTB shots, not so much.
For me the 85/1.4 is the ultimate portrait lens - not just for the focal length or aperture but also for some undefinable thing about bokeh and all that stuff - it's not called "the cream machine" for nothing!
85mm is too long for a portrait lens on a DX body imo. 50mm is where its at.
I don't do portraits.
Small example of 85mm on DX
[img] 
[/img]
Maybe I'm just a perv and like to be close enough to breath down their necks! 🙂
I'm currently considering an 85mm lens (anyone have experience of the Nikon range? 1.4 G or 1.8 D; quite a difference in price!). Then there's the 135mm f2 DC. Or a longer tele. Etc etc etc.
The Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 discussed above [i]could[/i] work. As said, pretty sure it was developed as a wedding 'tog lens.
Some interesting observations - I know until recently I was one for cranking the lens open as wide as possible (normally down to 2.8) to try and make inroads into the shutter speed while shooting in darker conditions. It's actually why I switched to a 7200.
On a 1.4 vs. 1.8 note, I was recently in Seattle and looked into getting a 35mm prime if it worked out substantially cheaper to buy in the US (it didn't). While inquiring the salesman asked whether I was shooting full frame or cropped, as he claimed the 1.4 was developed for full frame use whereas the 1.8 was better suited to a cropped sensor. And here was me thinking it shouldn't make a massive difference...
the 1.4 was developed for full frame use whereas the 1.8 was better suited to a cropped sensor. And here was me thinking it shouldn't make a massive difference...
Ironically with a crop sensor you gain depth of field for a given aperture versus the equivalent FF sensor. If you crave blurry backgrounds on a crop sensor you need more aperture.
@geetee got get exactly the same equivalence as for focal length so on a Canon lens f1.4 on an ff camera will be the equivalent DoF of f3ish on a crop.
This is why it is so difficult to get a nice blurred background on a small compact camera or phone even though many phones are f2 of below.
When you start looking into noise equivalence as well things get really interesting...
It seems the consensus is that the 85m f1.8 is an excellent lens, and '90% as good' as the 3 times more expensive f1.4 version. And some think it's even sharper. Sample images suggest there is a difference, but how that will affect my photography, is very hard to quantify. But it doesn't seem like there's a massive £800 difference. I'm thinking that the 1.4 version is simply more 'desirable', I can't find anything to suggest it is significantly better to justify the extra cost.
"While inquiring the salesman asked whether I was shooting full frame or cropped, as he claimed the 1.4 was developed for full frame use whereas the 1.8 was better suited to a cropped sensor."
If someone came up with crap like that, I'd laugh at them and shop elsewhere.
EDIT: Unless they meant the DX 35mm f1.8. Weird that Nikon do 2 different versions of the same focal length and aperture. What's the reason for that? Cheaper DX version?
"Either way, at that physical distance, 85mm and f/1.4 wouldn't ever give you anything but the eyes in focus. Everything else would be out and would still, in my view at least, count as a fail if what you were trying to do is make a portrait."
I disagree; I've seen quite a few stunning portraits that are just as you describe. All a matter of subjective taste I suppose.
D7000 can take the older autofocus (AF-D) lenses, look out for the 60mm f2.8 AF-D lens secondhand if you want a cheap and decent full frame 90mm equiv.
Good call. Nikon macro lenses are superb. I have the older 105mm D version, which doubles up as a great portrait lens. The 24mm f2.8 becomes a 36mm lens on DX, so excellent for 'general purpose' use. Older AF prime lenses (not the newer 'G' versions) are selling for relatively low prices these days, yet offer fantastic quality. The even older manual focus AI lenses can also be used with the D7000, albeit only in full Manual mode and with only centre-weighted or spot metering. Some absolute bargains to be had there. And then there's E-series lenses. The E-series was a range of cheaper Nikkors; lighter and less robust builds but often with the same optics. The primes are reputedly often just as good as the more expensive AI versions. Silly cheap, comparatively, but will work like any AI lens.