What are the benefits of this lens vs. 70-300mm. I have it. the glass is 62mm. I do not really like it, I get alot of blurry shots with it but I need a telephoto..any help appreciated.
What are the benefits of this lens vs. 70-300mm. I have it. the glass is 62mm. I do not really like it, I get alot of blurry shots with it but I need a telephoto..any help appreciated.
Celeste,
Very fast prime and zoom telephoto lenses can cost into the thousands of dollars. They also tend to be very heavy, but that it compensated to some degree by the lightness in your bank account.
What do you want to accomplish and what are the conditions you might encounter?
Goals might include sports or wildlife etc.
Conditions might include the time-of-day as well as cloudy or bright or indoors, etc.
What camera will you be using?
The more detailed your answer the better we can guide you to the right equipment.
If the answer involves a large expense, how far, approximately, does your budget allow?
I am using a nikon d50. I shoot mainly outdoor portraits but some indoor in low lights. I currently have a 70-300mm and love it for outdoor but not indoor in low light. I do not want to spend more than $700.00 if possible. I do want a good lens. Thanks for any help,
I am using a nikon d50. I shoot mainly outdoor portraits but some indoor in low lights. I currently have a 70-300mm and love it for outdoor but not indoor in low light. I do not want to spend more than $700.00 if possible. I do want a good lens. Thanks for any help,
celeste
For portraits with a crop 1.5x/1.6x camera I typically recommend:
85mm:
Head shots
Head-and-shoulders
50mm:
3/4 length
Full-length
17-50mm(ish):
Small groups (2-3 people, maybe 35-50mm)
Larger groups (4 or more, 17-50mm, depending on room or distance)
The Nikkor 85mm, f1.8D and Nikkor 50mm, f1.8D should be fine for individuals and even couples in a head-and-shoulders situation.
The Tamron 17-50mm, f/2.8 XR Di II would probably be fine for the other group needs.
Thanks, What size glass do these have? Sorry to have so many questions?
These are all very very good optics and the two prime lenses are pretty fast, much faster than what you have currently. The main attraction is that they all have desirable qualities in terms of bokeh and sharpness.
The only time the "size" of the glass matters is when purchasing filters and lens hoods.
With that said, the Nikkor 50mm, f1.8 has a filter size of 52mm.
J: The 85mm/f1.8 takes a 62mm filter (2 1/2 inches). Indeed even smaller than your telephoto.
H: But really I think you're looking at the wrong end of the lens! It's not the front side that matters, but what comes out the back that's important.
J: The almost 3 stops increase in light gathering (over your zoom telephoto) would let you shoot at shutter speeds seven or eight times faster than you currently use.
H: Or conversely, you'd be able to lower the ISO instead for less noise. Either way, it's win/win.
Ok, last question...for now, what about a telephoto, what would you recommend?
The 85mm, f1.8 is a short telephoto FOV on the Nikon D50.
Since you have a 70-300mm tele-zoom I imagine you are looking for something close to that range (just much better quality).
The very best choice in that range IMHO is actually the Nikkor 70-200mm, f/2.8G AF-S VR IF-ED plus the 1.4x teleconverter. It's pretty pricey, but I think it's worth the cost.
Next best is the Nikkor 80-200mm, f/2.8D ED, again with the 1.4x teleconverter.
The Tamron 70-200mm, f/2.8 Di LD IF Macro is the new kid and it's getting good reviews, both with a couple of DGrinners and in formal reviews. I'm not sure I can absolutely recommend it for action shots, but I think it might work with slower subjects.
Lastly, the Sigma 70-200mm, F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II. I think Sigma still suffers from quality control problems but, if you get a good copy, many people like the lens.
If you don't have one, a 50mm f1.8 is a good lens to add in now, cost is roughly $120 with shipping, the 85mm is a nice lens too, and you could get both and still have some leftovers for a good head and legs combo if you don't have that.
Try your 70-300 on a tripod with the infrared remote and see if your shots are a little sharper.
Thanks for the info. I do not have that lens, nice pictures. I do have a 18-55mm. Is the 50mm alot better than this? Those shots are really great! When you say remote, do you mean for the camera? What mode did you shoot the two pics on. One more question, I asked this several times and still do not understand, I saw a lens with a large front glass, when does someone need that? and can you recommend one and would the benefits outweigh the cost ever, I shoot some indoor with low light..... like I said my 70-300mm has a 62mm filter and this lens I saw was much larger than that.
One more question, I asked this several times and still do not understand, I saw a lens with a large front glass, when does someone need that?
J: It's actually answered in my post above.
H: It allows you to increase shutter speed and/or decrease the ISO. A large aperture will also increase the amount of background blur, helping to isolate the subject (if that's your preference).
Celeste, this is the remote I was talking about, it's infrared, so you have to point it from in front of the camera (but you can practice getting it from below and out of the shot) and for less than $20, it's worth it.
I shot those pics in Aperture mode, no flash, just the florescent lights in my office.
What I do for pictures that I want to see the details on, in Firefox browser, is to use the Opanda plugin to give up the details with a right click (windows only, though)
Yes, the 50mm is definitely better than the kit lens in the respect that the F1.8 allows you to shoot in lower light without flash, than the kit lens 18-55 you currently have, I got the same lens with my D50, but haven't used it in a long time. You will have to "zoom with your feet" however, to get the shot you want.
You may also find these two books by Scott Kelby to help you, as well:
Comments
I'm guessing maybe a long, fast prime such as 200mm f/2 or 400mm f/2.8 maybe. If the front glass is larger than 77mm, you're looking at big bucks.
My SmugMug
My Project 366 :ivar
Celeste,
Very fast prime and zoom telephoto lenses can cost into the thousands of dollars. They also tend to be very heavy, but that it compensated to some degree by the lightness in your bank account.
What do you want to accomplish and what are the conditions you might encounter?
Goals might include sports or wildlife etc.
Conditions might include the time-of-day as well as cloudy or bright or indoors, etc.
What camera will you be using?
The more detailed your answer the better we can guide you to the right equipment.
If the answer involves a large expense, how far, approximately, does your budget allow?
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
celeste
For portraits with a crop 1.5x/1.6x camera I typically recommend:
85mm:
Head shots
Head-and-shoulders
50mm:
3/4 length
Full-length
17-50mm(ish):
Small groups (2-3 people, maybe 35-50mm)
Larger groups (4 or more, 17-50mm, depending on room or distance)
The Nikkor 85mm, f1.8D and Nikkor 50mm, f1.8D should be fine for individuals and even couples in a head-and-shoulders situation.
The Tamron 17-50mm, f/2.8 XR Di II would probably be fine for the other group needs.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
These are all very very good optics and the two prime lenses are pretty fast, much faster than what you have currently. The main attraction is that they all have desirable qualities in terms of bokeh and sharpness.
The only time the "size" of the glass matters is when purchasing filters and lens hoods.
With that said, the Nikkor 50mm, f1.8 has a filter size of 52mm.
The Nikkor 85mm, f1.8 has a filter size of 62mm.
The Tamron 17-50mm has a filter size of 67mm.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
H: It sells for about $400.
J: The 85mm/f1.8 takes a 62mm filter (2 1/2 inches). Indeed even smaller than your telephoto.
H: But really I think you're looking at the wrong end of the lens! It's not the front side that matters, but what comes out the back that's important.
J: The almost 3 stops increase in light gathering (over your zoom telephoto) would let you shoot at shutter speeds seven or eight times faster than you currently use.
H: Or conversely, you'd be able to lower the ISO instead for less noise. Either way, it's win/win.
Good luck,
J&H
The 85mm, f1.8 is a short telephoto FOV on the Nikon D50.
Since you have a 70-300mm tele-zoom I imagine you are looking for something close to that range (just much better quality).
The very best choice in that range IMHO is actually the Nikkor 70-200mm, f/2.8G AF-S VR IF-ED plus the 1.4x teleconverter. It's pretty pricey, but I think it's worth the cost.
Next best is the Nikkor 80-200mm, f/2.8D ED, again with the 1.4x teleconverter.
The Tamron 70-200mm, f/2.8 Di LD IF Macro is the new kid and it's getting good reviews, both with a couple of DGrinners and in formal reviews. I'm not sure I can absolutely recommend it for action shots, but I think it might work with slower subjects.
Lastly, the Sigma 70-200mm, F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II. I think Sigma still suffers from quality control problems but, if you get a good copy, many people like the lens.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
85mm f1.8 lens
105mm f2.8 micro (non-vr)
If you don't have one, a 50mm f1.8 is a good lens to add in now, cost is roughly $120 with shipping, the 85mm is a nice lens too, and you could get both and still have some leftovers for a good head and legs combo if you don't have that.
Try your 70-300 on a tripod with the infrared remote and see if your shots are a little sharper.
Thanks so much.
H: It allows you to increase shutter speed and/or decrease the ISO. A large aperture will also increase the amount of background blur, helping to isolate the subject (if that's your preference).
Some leisure reading...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Photography+basics&aq=f&oq=
J: If I had the bucks I'd buy one in a heartbeat.
H: Whether or not it would work for you depends on a lot of things... What you are shooting, your budget, and your priorities.
J: Obviously for some people they do.
H: What value do you place on your own Portfolio/Gallery?
J: There you go.
H: Keep in mind that on the down side, your focusing has to be spot on.
J: And as Ziggy pointed out, it would be very heavy. Do you mind toting around several pounds of camera? My own answer to this is No...
H: Start saving your pennies!
J&H
I shot those pics in Aperture mode, no flash, just the florescent lights in my office.
What I do for pictures that I want to see the details on, in Firefox browser, is to use the Opanda plugin to give up the details with a right click (windows only, though)
Opanda
http://www.opanda.com/en/download/index.html
scroll down for the freeware version, has to be installed before the Firefox plugin works.
Not knowing the details of the lens, I'd hate to venture a guess solely based on "wider than 62mm"
85mm f1.8 lens I used
105mm f2.8 micro lens I used
This site will give you a deep history of all the lenses, with photos, and may help you to find the one a lot faster (though you may get lost for hours browsing/window shopping!)
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/index.htm
Yes, the 50mm is definitely better than the kit lens in the respect that the F1.8 allows you to shoot in lower light without flash, than the kit lens 18-55 you currently have, I got the same lens with my D50, but haven't used it in a long time. You will have to "zoom with your feet" however, to get the shot you want.
You may also find these two books by Scott Kelby to help you, as well:
http://www.kelbytraining.com/product/the-digital-photography-book.html
http://www.kelbytraining.com/product/the-digital-photography-book-volume-2.html