Photography related discussions

[mike c]

yeah, the 35 1.8DX is 'faster' and cheaper (that would be a nice all around prime)

for closeup stuff (that is still all around) i would look at nikon's 60mm macro lenses or the tamron 60mm f/2 (one stop faster, but third party)

for closeup only, i'd look at the longer macro lenses 105, 150, 180

 

[Warpdrv]

Thanks guys....
Came as a kit from Best Buy, AF-S DK Nikkor 18-105 F/3.5 to 5.6G ED VR

http://nikonrumors.com/2010/10/14/nikon-d7000-kit-whats-in-the-box.aspx

 

[mike c]

Thanks guys....
Came as a kit from Best Buy, AF-S DK Nikkor 18-105 F/3.5 to 5.6G ED VR

http://nikonrumors.com/2010/10/14/nikon-d7000-kit-whats-in-the-box.aspx

that's a nice wide range of focal length (18-105). once you keep using it, you'll know what focal length you mostly use.
(check file properties, then details)

on win7, you can choose to see these properties just by click on the file

 

[CaliHwyPatrol]

Just picked up my first L series lens, 24-70mm f/2.8. I love this thing! I haven't had too much of a chance to mess around with it yet, but I'll get some pics up as soon as I do.

 

[Warpdrv]

I would grab the 35mm F1.8G over the F2D. It's really cheap, and performs well. What lens to you have right now?

SheepStar

Ok, just looking around - whats the deal here... Please help me understand some of the differences... There are 35mm lens's out there for low to medium prices and then we start to get to this new release from Nikon, for $1800.00

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2198/AF-S-NIKKOR-35mm-f%2F1.4G.html

How does that compare to something like this and what are the differences... minor major...?
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35mm-f18.htm


And then there are things like the 18-55mm II as opposed to this 17-55mm
I have been walkin through Ken Rockwells site and reading up on his take on some different lens's.

There are so many different variations of similar lens's, how does one keep the amount to a reasonable number and not have too many that they start to just sit around.

Is this basically like going from Paradigm Monitors to Studios, or Monitors to Signatures kind of difference...

 

[Highlander]

Warpdrv,

So anyone got some links to pointers to good photography and learning?

The book: Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson is generally highly recommended as an introduction to, well, exposure.

And then there are things like the 18-55mm II as opposed to this 17-55mm

I can certainly vouch for the 17-55mm f/2.8 DX lens, which I used to own. This is a professional grade DX lens. I know nothing about the 18-55mm so cannot comment.

I have been walkin through Ken Rockwells site...

Please be wary or what you read on that site, as complete nonsense is written side by side with truth.

There are so many different variations of similar lens's, how does one keep the amount to a reasonable number and not have too many that they start to just sit around?

Knowing what kind of things you like to shoot will inform on what lens(es) you should be targeting (what do you like to shoot?). Landscape shooters, for example, will tend to go for wide angle lenses, i.e. short focal lengths, portrait shooters will tend to go for large maximum aperture lenses, as will shooters of venues subject to low light, bird/animal/nature shooters will go for the big guns, i.e. long focal length lenses.

Congratulations on purchasing a great camera. Enjoy yourself.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Warpdrv,
Please be wary or what you read on that site, as complete nonsense is written side by side with truth.

Yea, I thought I'm the only one who thought so.. Plus Ken is ofter posts like arrogant prick he probably is....

Better websites for photography are:
http://www.digital-photography-school.com/
and
http://www.dpreview.com/

 

[Highlander]

Warpdrv,

Should've answered this initially:

...whats the deal here... Please help me understand some of the differences... There are 35mm lens's out there for low to medium prices and then we start to get to this new release from Nikon, for $1800.00

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2198/AF-S-NIKKOR-35mm-f%2F1.4G.html

How does that compare to something like this and what are the differences... minor major...?
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35mm-f18.htm

1. The first lens you linked to is a Gold Ring (see circumferential marking at the end of the lens barrel) Nikkor lens which tells you it is a professional grade lens. The second lens you liked to is not.

2. The first lens is an FX designated lens, so it projects a larger image circle (larger diameter of light out the back of the lens) onto the sensor of the camera body. This lens was designed for use on an FX, or full frame, camera body (though it can be used on a DX body). In other words a camera body with a sensor 24mm x 36mm; the same as an 'old' 35mm film SLR body.

Your D7000 body, like Sheep's D90 body and my D300 body, is DX, so it has a smaller sensor than the sensor in an FX body. This does not in any way make it inferior. Each type of body (FX/DX) has advantages and disadvantages.

The second lens is a DX lens (marked on the barrel; if DX is not specifically marked on the barrel it is usually safe to assume that the lens is FX) so was designed for use on a cropped (smaller) sensor DX body. It is more difficult to produce a great FX lens than it is a DX lens.

3. The first lens has a marginally larger maximum aperture than the seond lens (f/1.4 vs. f/1.8) which will make very little difference. On the other hand, the diaphragm of the first lens that forms the aperture 'hole' through which light is permitted to reach the camera sensor consists of 9 blades whereas the diaphragm of the second lens consists of 7 blades. The effect of the larger number of blades in the professional (first) lens will be to make out of focus (blurred) circles of light more circular, and therefore more pleasing to the eye, than a lens with fewer blades. Think back to 'old' photos you may have seen with hexagonal blurred highlights - this was caused by a lens with a diaphragm formed from 6 blades.

4. The first lens has Nikon's Nano Crystal Coating ('N' designation on the lens barrel) that helps to reduce flare from stray light or when shooting directly into the sun. It also helps retain contrast in these situations. The second lens does not (I think, Ken's site states that it is multicoated and I'm unclear if this is the same thing), and therefore should, in principle, be more prone to flare.

In summary, the first lens is almost certainly a better perfoming lens and with fewer flaws than the second lens, hence the large difference in price for apparently a very similar lens.

Hope this helps.

 

[Highlander]

...I thought I'm the only one who thought so...

Good grief no. Ken Rockwell is slated in the forums of any reputable photography site that I know of.

Better websites for photography are:
http://www.digital-photography-school.com/
and
http://www.dpreview.com/

I wasn't aware of the first, but certainly second your recommendation for dpreview. Also worth considering in my opinion are:

Photozone (Warpdrv, note that 'APS-C' refers to DX and 'Full Format' refers to FX)

and

Nikonians A great resource and a friendly forum community.

Cheers,

 

[mike c]

hey warpdrv

the 17-55 is straight through the focal length f/2.8 aperture (the smaller the number, the bigger the opening, thus the faster the shutter speed)

the 18-55 is variable aperture through the focal length, so some of it's focal lengths are "slower" than the others and all of them are slower than the 17-55.

i could never understand though why nikon doesn't have a 17-55 VR (vibration reduction)

so i'd actually look at Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC (vibration compensation) [i use this] or Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS (optical stabilization)

like rob said, the 35 1.8 was designed for a crop sensor (DX) which is why it's smaller and lighter due to the smaller diameter glass.

 

[Warpdrv]

Hey guys - thanks for all the replies..... I truly appreciate you guys spelling it out to me like i'm a 4 year old, as I'm truly in my infancy with all this - and it will take me some time to absorb all this new info....

The understanding of differences with all the wide varieties of lenses is very helpful, and as much as I'd like to try them all being a newbie I don't think I want to drop a ton of coin on some of these truly major $$ lenses until I get a much better grasp on what I'm doing with this seriously over the top camera. I had a opportunity to grab the D7000 and I figured it would be a good investment for many years to come. I don't want to skimp or cheap out on the glass, just don't want to have a bunch of products sitting around I won't end up using. Not that I feel they would be money wasted. I don't mind spending extra for good quality, but if an 1800.00 lens isn't worlds better then the other suggested. I can live with the relatively decent one.

I'm going to go through the list of different options posted here.... first priority would be something that I could use for good wide angle close up pics, this kit lens just doesn't seem to be able to do close enough focus or wide enough. Its not bad, most of the pics I've taken are pretty nice, I obviously still have some learning to do... but I'm excited to get working on it...

I have a pdf of the manual, and have been paging through it - I'll also start bringing the paper manual with me for when I have some downtime... but I do appreciate the links for learning sites.... this is cool, and I'm excited that I finally have a real camera in my hands... Pretty happy I got one on the first release....

 

[Highlander]

Mike,

i could never understand though why nikon doesn't have a 17-55 VR (vibration reduction).

It does appear to be more fashionable these days to build VR into standard focal length lenses. My own stance, however, is exactly the opposite to yours : why would Nikon build VR into the 17-55mm? It's not a macro lens, the focal length range doesn't justify it and one can always open up the aperture (or increase ISO) to achieve a faster shutter speed.

Why do you consider the lack of VR an issue?

 

[mike c]

Mike,

It does appear to be more fashionable these days to build VR into standard focal length lenses. My own stance, however, is exactly the opposite to yours : why would Nikon build VR into the 17-55mm? It's not a macro lens, the focal length range doesn't justify it and one can always open up the aperture (or increase ISO) to achieve a faster shutter speed.

Why do you consider the lack of VR an issue?

slow shutter speeds
(shaky photographer <- me)

can you believe that my keeper rate even at higher than 1/focal length isn't good?

1/125 at 85mm was still blurry, also tried 35mm on 1.6 crop with shutter speeds of 1/60, 1/80 and 1/100 (for experimentation of keepers) <-not good

i once had the 24-70 f/2.8 L (no IS) i told myself i didn't need IS or flash because i could push my 5D2 3200 all day without complaining about noise. came home from a trip abroad with dismal % of keepers.

sold it, bought the 7D and the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC and i've had a million better keepers. [yes, i sold an L for a third party lens ... NOT blurry is better than NOT sharp ]

canon, sigma and tamron all put some sort of IS/VC/VR/OS on the same focal length albeit the f/2.8, so i guess i'm not alone which is why i wonder why the nikon version which is more expensive than these three brands doesn't have IS. nikoners are better photogs?

 

[Highlander]

Mike,

(shaky photographer <- me)

I was going to say that perhaps you were in the minority, but...

...canon, sigma and tamron all put some sort of IS/VC/VR/OS on the same focal length albeit the f/2.8, so i guess i'm not alone...

Perhaps you're not. On the other hand, with good technique I would have thought that the overwhelming majority of folk could prevent camera shake from being visible in photos...unless intending to print large.

...i wonder why the nikon version which is more expensive than these three brands doesn't have IS. nikoners are better photogs?

Nah, probably just easier to fleece.

 

[Warpdrv]

(shaky photographer <- me)

Mike,
I was going to say that perhaps you were in the minority, but...

You can count me in on this as well... Although I was experimenting on Moon Shots, and I guess you won't get something of that distance very easily without a nice long lens... closer up shots were def less difficult.

Gotta start looking into some lens filters - I see alot of kits online for cheap, are these ok ? They seem to be together with remote shutter.

Making up a list of stuff to order...

 

[Highlander]

Warpdrv,

Gotta start looking into some lens filters - I see alot of kits online for cheap, are these ok?

If you were to own just one filter it should be a polariser, but make sure it is a circular polariser. 'Circular' refers to the type of polariser rather than its physical shape. The Nikon CPL II polariser is as good as any, is thin so will minimise vignetting at wide angles and has a front thread so will accept, for example, a filter holder for Graduated ND filters.

The photo of the boat in the 'Cool Photos' thread may have been taken with a polariser attached as the colours are quite saturated and you can see through the water (as opposed to a reflection on the surface). You are likely to see a profound (positive) difference to your photos with a polariser attached (caveat: a polariser is best used on a sunny day with the sun in any position except directly in front or behind the direction in which you are shooting, and ideally at 90 degrees to the direction you are shooting).

Note: the link above is for a 67mm diameter filter that will fit your 18-105mm lens. However, the de facto filter diameter for professional grade lenses is 77mm. Therefore, you may wish to consider purchasing the 77mm diameter version along with a step up ring (adapter - cheap) so that if/when in future you purchase lens(es) of greater quality you can still use your polariser without issue.

Apart from a polariser and Graduated ND filters there is little else that cannot be duplicated by modern software. Cheap filters may introduce a colour cast to your images. Cokin filters were known to do this but may not nowadays. Singh-Ray and Lee are two companies that make top quality filters, but they are very expensive.

Graduated ND filters are used extensively by landscape photographers, who also shoot extensively on a tripod. If you are not interested in landscape photography or are but do not have a tripod, then you would be ill advised to consider Graduated filters.

They seem to be together with remote shutter.

The remote release allows you to trigger the shutter without touching the camera, therefore minimising camera shake and maximising image sharpness (additional features are available with some remote release models). Landscape photographers will use this device extensively. Image sharpness, if you haven't already guessed, is paramount for landscape photographers.

Making up a list of stuff to order...

And so it begins.

 

[Warpdrv]

Thanks Highlander for the excellent info on the filters...
I figured that not all filters were the same, and thanks for the heads up on the adapter ring... I assume there are also lens caps to just serve as protection for the lens with no filtering abilities or just keep the cap on when not in use. The tend to offer these filters when shopping for lenses, so I was curious how those compared to the better grade products out there... or if they were just a waste.



I indeed would like to be able to shoot landscape photos, and I have the camera set to shoot both RAW and jpg to maximize usage and post production abilities. The remote is a no brainer IMO, and I do have a tripod - though I'm sure that will be something I'll be looking to upgrade as its just a simple inexpensive unit.

Yes - Yes, it so begins with the research and then tons of purchases.... Determining which of the lenses will for me to prove more difficult, but I think I'm going to start with that Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX on sheeps suggestion....

The one nice part of all this, is that we just bought the sugar mama's father (avid photographer) a D90 and he is working on a few lenses so I'm trying not to overlap on higher end stuff he got so we can use each others stuff from time to time...

 

[Highlander]

I assume there are also lens caps to just serve as protection for the lens with no filtering abilities...

Yes, NC, or Neutral Clear, filters (as distinct from ND, or Neutral Density, filters). These filters are the subject of hot debate as they do little apart from reduce haze. Some consider them a waste of time and to detract (marginally) from ultimate image quality because it's something else the light has to pass through before reaching the sensor, whereas others consider them protection to the lens front element and requiring only the filter and not the lens element itself ever to be cleaned.

Bottom line: if you take care of your lenses there is no strict requirment for them. However, if you do use them you are unlikely to notice any degredation to your images and they may give you peace of mind that the lens front element is never exposed to dust/dirt/scratches. It's entirely your choice. If you do decide to use an NC filter, I recommend the Nikon.

...or just keep the cap on when not in use.

An NC filter is not meant to be a replacement for the lens cap that comes with the lens. The latter should always be attached to the lens when not in use. Note that an NC filter will have a front thread so that the lens cap can be attached to the filter, which of course is itself attached to the lens front thread.

Think of the lens cap as protection for the lens when not in use and an NC filter (if used at all) as protection for the lens while being used.

...I was curious how those compared to the better grade products out there... or if they were just a waste.

Re the filters in the link you provided, the first thing to note is that they are for a 52mm diameter thread, rather than the 67mm thread of your 18-105mm lens. With regard to the filters themselves:

1. Ultraviolet Protector - Your camera body, like all modern DSLRs, has a built in filter that blocks Ultraviolet and Infrared light. Therefore an external Ultraviolet filter is a waste of space.

2. Circular polariser - Discussed previously;

3. Warming filter - These filters were used, for example, to add a bit of warmth to skin tones in portrait photography. The effect can be duplicated in any modern photography software. Therefore, a waste of space.

...I have the camera set to shoot both RAW and jpg to maximize usage and post production abilities.

I absolutely agree with shooting RAW, but why also jpg?

The remote is a no brainer...

Remember to make sure it is compatible with the terminal on the D7000.

The one nice part of all this, is that we just bought the sugar mama's father (avid photographer) a D90 and he is working on a few lenses so I'm trying not to overlap on higher end stuff he got so we can use each others stuff from time to time...

You get to try before you buy, or get to borrow and never have to buy. Sounds ideal.

 

[Warpdrv]

If you do decide to use an NC filter, I recommend the Nikon

Re the filters in the link you provided, the first thing to note is that they are for a 52mm diameter thread, rather than the 67mm thread of your 18-105mm lens. With regard to the filters themselves:

1. Ultraviolet Protector - Your camera body, like all modern DSLRs, has a built in filter that blocks Ultraviolet and Infrared light. Therefore an external Ultraviolet filter is a waste of space.

2. Circular polariser - Discussed previously;

3. Warming filter - These filters were used, for example, to add a bit of warmth to skin tones in portrait photography. The effect can be duplicated in any modern photography software. Therefore, a waste of space.



I absolutely agree with shooting RAW, but why also jpg?


Remember to make sure it is compatible with the terminal on the D7000.

You get to try before you buy, or get to borrow and never have to buy. Sounds ideal.

Thanks again sir...

Yes, its nice that we'll be able to swap out different stuff from time to time... He's a really cool guy and has no problem sharing.

I figured that I would use both RAW and jpg if I wanted to quickly upload pics and not have to convert, as well as still have the untouched format for editing. I'm not all that concerned about space - I can easily upload everything to my server - I have more space there then most would dream about - 25TB, less then 1/2 used at this point.

The remote was only one of those IR dealy do things for $10-15, not a tethered one just yet...

Also found a speedlight locally - SB-800 for a little over $300 (pretty much new), seems they sell new for much more.... or mostly the same price as the new SB-700 that just came out... or maybe its just too heavy for normal use... or are there other third party products out there for this...?

 

[Highlander]

Warpdrv,

I'm not all that concerned about space - I can easily upload everything to my server - I have more space there then most would dream about - 25TB, less then 1/2 used at this point.

Remember to back up your files. Your RAW (NEF, really) files are essentially digital negatives. Once lost...

...speedlight...

I have no experience with Speedlights so hopefully others will chime in.