Digital SLR Purchase

[jonnythan]

If you're taking landscape shots with a tripod, you shouldn't get anywhere near ISO 800

There's really no such thing as "pro" or "consumer" lenses. What you do want is a quality lens with good optics. For landscape stuff, distortion, sharpness, and color are going to be very important to you.

There are lots of places that review lenses, and lots of photography forums that will give you commentary on and recommendations for specific lenses.

 

[Highlander]

There's really no such thing as "pro" or "consumer" lenses. What you do want is a quality lens with good optics.

Then I'm sorted, because it goes without saying that I'd only purchase lenses of a quality deserving of the calibre of the 5D or D300.

Cheers,

 

[haraldo]

Yeah, go with very high quality optics.... The analogue SLR that I bought a long while ago had a very high quality 28 - 200 Tamron lens, that was a bloody expensive lens, I never regretted that for a second... once I had paid all the bills ) Still using that every now and then actually...

With lenses, go with as low f value as possible (which means it lets more light through = Equals better pictures)
Here it is: wider/larger = better

 

[ErinH]

With lenses, go with as low f value as possible (which means it lets more light through = Equals better pictures)
Here it is: wider/larger = better

This is true to an extent, but some lenses tend to lose sharpness at low f-stops. Usually, I find it's better to go right above the lowest possible setting. But, it is much nicer to have the freedom to go low; especially in low light situations where you don't want to sacrifice shutter speed.


x2 on wider=better. I don't take my w/a lens off... it's my daily shooter.

 

[haraldo]

This is true to an extent, but some lenses tend to lose sharpness at low f-stops. Usually, I find it's better to go right above the lowest possible setting. But, it is much nicer to have the freedom to go low; especially in low light situations where you don't want to sacrifice shutter speed.


x2 on wider=better. I don't take my w/a lens off... it's my daily shooter.

Yes absolutely, perhaps I explained myself improperly. What I meant to say is that I would want a lens with the best possible quality and the lowest possibe f numbers, in order to get a lens as well performing as possible.
Read: a lens with high light brilliance

While when you take the pictures, if you want sharp pictures with depth resoultion you want a small aperture, which means an high f-number. But that's a totally different matter.

Regards

Harald N

 

[ErinH]

Yes absolutely, perhaps I explained myself improperly. What I meant to say is that I would want a lens with the best possible quality and the lowest possibe f numbers, in order to get a lens as well performing as possible.
Read: a lens with high light brilliance

While when you take the pictures, if you want sharp pictures with depth resoultion you want a small aperture, which means an high f-number. But that's a totally different matter.

Regards

Harald N

I understood what was meant, but just posted my response to somewhat clarify. Obviously, the lower you go the better, even if you're staying just a stop or 2 above that lowest. Didn't mean to say argumentative.

 

[jonnythan]

This is true to an extent, but some lenses tend to lose sharpness at low f-stops. Usually, I find it's better to go right above the lowest possible setting. But, it is much nicer to have the freedom to go low; especially in low light situations where you don't want to sacrifice shutter speed.


x2 on wider=better. I don't take my w/a lens off... it's my daily shooter.

One thing to keep in mind is that because lenses are generally softest at maximum aperture, a wider lens (all else being equal) will be sharper at a given aperture than a narrower lens.

For example, a 50mm f/1.4 lens will generally be much sharper at f/2.8 than a 50mm f/2.8 lens.

 

[ErinH]

One thing to keep in mind is that because lenses are generally softest at maximum aperture, a wider lens (all else being equal) will be sharper at a given aperture than a narrower lens.

For example, a 50mm f/1.4 lens will generally be much sharper at f/2.8 than a 50mm f/2.8 lens.

Totally understood. I think we're talking the same issue.

Take your example and the 2nd lens that isn't as sharp @ 2.8. We'd say that's because it's lowest stop is 2.8. So, it might be sharpest at 3.6 or the like.

So, are we on the same track or am I totally missing what you're saying?


I love learning about this stuff. It's just hard to read about it. I have yet to crack the manual on mine. I just tinker with it and let friends show me what they've learned.

 

[jonnythan]

Oh yes we're totally agreeing. I just thought it was worth pointing out

Most lenses are sharpest in the f/8 - f/11 region, no matter what their maximum aperture. This is a result more of general optics than of specific lens design.

 

[ErinH]

Oh yes we're totally agreeing. I just thought it was worth pointing out

Most lenses are sharpest in the f/8 - f/11 region, no matter what their maximum aperture. This is a result more of general optics than of specific lens design.

I've heard that before on a photography forum.

I know it's mainly lens dependent, but the common "best" seems to be in that range.

 

[masak_aer]

Cheers Jonnythan



The reason I ask is that I too am considering a digital SLR, although realistically not until summer at the earliest, and quite possibly not until next year. At present it's between the Canon 5D and Nikon D300. I take landscape photos almost exclusively, hence the interest in the 5D with its full frame sensor, but have read that Nikons feel perfect in the hand. The D300 has been very well received. Shutter speed is unlikely to be of concern for landscapes, and a tripod would eliminate blur.

Considering these cameras, and the quality of an image shot on either at ISO800, do you still consider good 'pro' lenses to be the way to go, or would good 'consumer' lenses perform saisfactorily for the subject matter being photographed?

I have handled both the canon and the nikon. Ergonomically (if that's the right word), the nikon is nicer on my hand. I can reach the shutter easier and not too tiring for long hand-held actions (i have smaller hands). You can't go wrong with either of the two. Depending on what you are shooting/preference, your choice of lenses will vary. In this case you are mostly shooting scenery then a slower lens (arguably cheaper) won't be much of a challenge for you. You may need a wider angle lens though. Also depending on what lens you have already had, that may also be your consideration. You may borrow or exchange/switch lenses with your mom who already has a canon. The only problem i have for canon is that the newer canon dslr won't take older canon lenses (can't go as far back as the nikon dslr in terms of lens choices).

Well, i am not a pro shooter but Jonathan has pointed out clear explanation on fast lenses very well. Most of your money will go into the lenses so the choice of the any of these two camera won't matter that much. It is your eye and lenses that matter more. I, personally, like nikon better for the reasons above.