Newbie to SLR and loaded with (lens) questions !!

OneWayMule

After shooting with my first camera (F717) for 1.5 years and completely being drawn into photography, i'm trying to move up into the SLRs. I bought a Nikon F100 body for photography class and now i need a lens. Except i didnt think it would be this complicated... :wxwax

After learning the different between Wide and Telephoto (:wink), i figured i having lenses ranging from W - T (i.e. 35-70mm, 70-200mm, etc) would be best... assuming higher the zoom, the "more" lens one is getting, hence higher the $$$. But thats not the case huh? I've compared some lens where they seem to VERY similar, except the price tag suggests otherwise.

All prices taken from BH

---

Nikon Wide Angle Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D AF - $199.00


Nikon Wide Angle Nikkor AF 24mm f2.8D AF - $279.00


Nikon Wide Angle Nikkor AF 28mm f1.4D AF - $1694.95



What justifies the huge leap in price between the $199 and the $1694 here?

---

Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF Zoom Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G (black) - $99.95


Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF VR Zoom Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8D G-AFS ED-IF Autofocus Lens (Vibration Reduction) - Light-grey - $1469.95


The white one here certainly looks fancier and has vibration reduction but for $1300 price-gap, i'll stay up late-night and learn to keep my hand steady.

Dopey jokes aside, by looking at these for a while, i notice that if the f-stop is non-adjustable, and opens wider (i.e the $1469 lens above) than its always more expensive. So i'll assume that a fixed aperture in a lens is good thing? (dont know why though :dunno).

As the beliefs runs (rightly so) that its the photographer who makes the image not the equipment. Then why would i not just buy the following lens, go wider, pocket the $1200 and work on my skills?


Nikon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF Zoom Nikkor 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF Autofocus Lens - $269.95

---

So my question is, what makes one lens so much more superior then another?
- Unchanging aperture (wider opening the better)?
- Quality of the glass?
- More expensive glass = better pictures?
- Faster AF?
- All the above?... if so how does one know the manner in which a lens will perform prior to buying it? (reviews?)


Sorry about all the question and i dont expect a simple answer, but guide me in the proper directions guys and gals

Oh, another thing - Does a lens that just reads 50mm or 85mm or whatever mm have a fixed zoom/focal length? Meaning it wont zoom in or out at all? If so, why would one want to buy it cos it sounds very limiting?

-sohil

Mitchell

Sohil,

Welcome to Dgrin.

You've got so many questions that I don't even know where to begin.

First off, none of these lenses have fixed apertures. The f-stop listed is the widest aperture available for that lens. If you look carefully, you will notice that the lower the f-stop, the more costly the lens for the same focal length. We talk about fast lenses. These are lenses with wider apertures (smaller f-stops) which allow greater flexibility in shooting in lower light situations. The 28mm, f2.8 is $199, but the 28mm, f1.8 is $1700 primarily because of this factor. I suspect the build quality of the 1.8 is also superior (metal vs. plastic).

I would suggest you do a lot more reading before you go out buy a lens. The F100 is a great camera. I just sold mine.:cry You may want to start out with a 50mm, f1.8 lens ($100 at B&H). This lens is inexpensive and will provide you with good speed. Everyone should start out learning with this lens. Another option is the 28-300 zoom you listed. For the money, it is a good walkaround lens with ED glass, although it is not particularly fast.

Harryb

Excellent questions.

[

---

Nikon Wide Angle Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D AF - $199.00


Nikon Wide Angle Nikkor AF 24mm f2.8D AF - $279.00


Nikon Wide Angle Nikkor AF 28mm f1.4D AF - $1694.95



What justifies the huge leap in price between the $199 and the $1694 here?

The difference in price reflects the quality of the glass. The 28mm, 1.4 is one of Nikon's best primes. It has better construction, is much faster, and produces better quality pics than the other lenses. It is considered to be pro quality glass while the other two are not.

Does this mean you have to pay for the 28/1.4 no. If you can afford it and intend to shoot with Nikon SLRs or DSLRs in the future I would definitely get it. If you can't afford it and/or you are strictly a hobbyist the cheaper glass will serve you just fine. When I moved on from my 717 and bought a Nikon D100 I initially bought cheaper glass because that's what I could afford. I shot for awhile with the Tamron 28-300 and it served me well.

Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF Zoom Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G (black) - $99.95


Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF VR Zoom Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8D G-AFS ED-IF Autofocus Lens (Vibration Reduction) - Light-grey - $1469.95


The white one here certainly looks fancier and has vibration reduction but for $1300 price-gap, i'll stay up late-night and learn to keep my hand steady.

Dopey jokes aside, by looking at these for a while, i notice that if the f-stop is non-adjustable, and opens wider (i.e the $1469 lens above) than its always more expensive. So i'll assume that a fixed aperture in a lens is good thing? (dont know why though ).

As the beliefs runs (rightly so) that its the photographer who makes the image not the equipment. Then why would i not just buy the following lens, go wider, pocket the $1200 and work on my skills?


Nikon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF Zoom Nikkor 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF Autofocus Lens - $269.95

The 70-200VR/2.8 is probably the finest zoom lens Nion makes. The VR gives you around 2-3 stops leeway in shooting stationary targets. It will focus much faster than the other two lenses. The wider aperture is better because it allows you to shoot with higher shutter speeds so you are not tethered to a tripod. The sad fact is that the better quality glass costs much more and it will if used properly get you better shots.

I rely on user feedback and reviews. I get to shoot with lots of other photographers so I get to talk with them about their glass. I will also check out user reviews at Fred Miranda and photographyreview.com. Bythom.com also is a good source of info on all things Nikon.

Oh, another thing - Does a lens that just reads 50mm or 85mm or whatever mm have a fixed zoom/focal length? Meaning it wont zoom in or out at all? If so, why would one want to buy it cos it sounds very limiting?

Many photographers, myself included, feel that primes (Fixed length) are superior to zooms. Basically a prime is maximized to shoot at the focal length its built for while a zoom has to be a jack of all trades and seldom is a master of them. Zooms are popular because most of us just can't lug around all the primes we would need to match the versatility that a good zoom gives us.

Nikolai

Sohil,
I agree, it can be confusing at once. How come 28-300 zoom lens costs ten times less that non-zoom-at-all (i.e. "prime") 85, which is neither wide, nor tele?
Well, I'm sure you can read and hear that from a lot of other sites/people, but since there are no answers so far I'll try to fill the gap with my fairly limited knowledge.
Lens are VERY complex devices. It's not just one or two pieces of glass. As a normal fact any particular lens can be comprised from 5..15 individual elements, often aspherical (translation: hard to make), often with multiple coatings (translation: hard to make). Zoom lenses are even more complex, since they are supposed to work equally at different focal distances (i.e. when internal distance between the lens elements varies). Since each wavelength (i.e. each color) have slightly different speed at travelling through the glass and the air, chromatic aberration happens, when different colored photons are coming from a single point, but due to some basic laws of physics land on different point of the sensor plane..
One can go long and deep describing why this is all happening, but it's time to get practical:-)

• With the current technology it is not even theoretically possible to create a zoom lens with the same image quality as a non-zoom one throughout the range. You can get close, but never identical. Hence zoom lenses with the big range (like 70-300) inevitably suffer from the final image quality loss - hence the price drop. The best lenses are usually "prime" ones (i.e. non-zoom) or carry a very short zoom range (50-70, etc.)
• The maximum aperture value (i.e. lower f/stop value) shows how wide open this lens can be. The more open it should be, the bigger chunk of high quality glass should be involved. That's why f/5.6 lenses can cost just $100-300, while f/1.2 can cost a fortune.
• The quality of glass can (and usually does) play an very important role in the final image quality, as can (does) precision of the lens assembly. You heard of canon's "L" glass:-)
• As you pointed out yourself, the combination of zoom and "openness" creates additional price step: the lens that can uniformly hold f/2.8 will be way more expensive compared to one that "naturally" loses some light at the tele end and features f/4.5 .. f/5.6
• Then it gets hairy: image stabilization (not an issue for sensor based stabilization on K-M, but definitely an issue for Canon, Nikon, et all); fast or super fast auto-focusing; auto-focusing light limits...

Bottom line - lens price usually (not always) defines the ultimate image quality. Not by itself - you have to have a good body, know what you're doing with it, etc. But with all the other things being equal, there is a fair chance that a more expensive glass would give you some sort of advantage compared to its inexpensive sibling.

HTH

OneWayMule

Mitchell wrote:

Sohil,

Welcome to Dgrin.

You've got so many questions that I don't even know where to begin.

First off, none of these lenses have fixed apertures. The f-stop listed is the widest aperture available for that lens. If you look carefully, you will notice that the lower the f-stop, the more costly the lens for the same focal length. We talk about fast lenses. These are lenses with wider apertures (smaller f-stops) which allow greater flexibility in shooting in lower light situations. The 28mm, f2.8 is $199, but the 28mm, f1.8 is $1700 primarily because of this factor. I suspect the build quality of the 1.8 is also superior (metal vs. plastic).

Got it. And the lens which has, for example, f2.8-4.5 will cost you light depending on when it decides to head towards the 4.5 mark.

But the cost of getting a slightly wider aperture is... well, costly! :wow

I would suggest you do a lot more reading before you go out buy a lens. The F100 is a great camera. I just sold mine.:cry You may want to start out with a 50mm, f1.8 lens ($100 at B&H). This lens is inexpensive and will provide you with good speed. Everyone should start out learning with this lens. Another option is the 28-300 zoom you listed. For the money, it is a good walkaround lens with ED glass, although it is not particularly fast.

I'm surprised you recommended the 28-300 cos I always assumed (dont know why) that a lens which goes from very wide (28mm) to super-zoom (100, 200mm +) wont do either too well. Otherwise everyone would only have this lens.



And thanks for the welcome, Mitchell!

OneWayMule

Harryb wrote:

Excellent questions.

The difference in price reflects the quality of the glass. The 28mm, 1.4 is one of Nikon's best primes. It has better construction, is much faster, and produces better quality pics than the other lenses. It is considered to be pro quality glass while the other two are not.

Does this mean you have to pay for the 28/1.4 no. If you can afford it and intend to shoot with Nikon SLRs or DSLRs in the future I would definitely get it. If you can't afford it and/or you are strictly a hobbyist the cheaper glass will serve you just fine. When I moved on from my 717 and bought a Nikon D100 I initially bought cheaper glass because that's what I could afford. I shot for awhile with the Tamron 28-300 and it served me well.

The 70-200VR/2.8 is probably the finest zoom lens Nion makes. The VR gives you around 2-3 stops leeway in shooting stationary targets. It will focus much faster than the other two lenses. The wider aperture is better because it allows you to shoot with higher shutter speeds so you are not tethered to a tripod. The sad fact is that the better quality glass costs much more and it will if used properly get you better shots.

I rely on user feedback and reviews. I get to shoot with lots of other photographers so I get to talk with them about their glass. I will also check out user reviews at Fred Miranda and photographyreview.com. Bythom.com also is a good source of info on all things Nikon.

Many photographers, myself included, feel that primes (Fixed length) are superior to zooms. Basically a prime is maximized to shoot at the focal length its built for while a zoom has to be a jack of all trades and seldom is a master of them. Zooms are popular because most of us just can't lug around all the primes we would need to match the versatility that a good zoom gives us.

Harry,

I think along the same lines that if i'm going to buy something once, then i'd buy the best and use it to its max. And i'm so into photography now that i'm moving to CA to study it next year!

I personally like Nikons better and feel comfortable w/ their ergonomics and would LIKE to switch to their DSLR. But Canon DSLRs seem to be just a step ahead of Nikon DSLRs (w/ noise control & technology) and i like their selection better (20d, 5d, Marks).

And thanks, you cleared up some other questions i had!

-sohil

OneWayMule

Nikolai wrote:

I agree, it can be confusing at once. How come 28-300 zoom lens costs ten times less that non-zoom-at-all (i.e. "prime") 85, which is neither wide, nor tele?
Well, I'm sure you can read and hear that from a lot of other sites/people, but since there are no answers so far I'll try to fill the gap with my fairly limited knowledge.
Lens are VERY complex devices. It's not just one or two pieces of glass. As a normal fact any particular lens can be comprised from 5..15 individual elements, often aspherical (translation: hard to make), often with multiple coatings (translation: hard to make). Zoom lenses are even more complex, since they are supposed to work equally at different focal distances (i.e. when internal distance between the lens elements varies). Since each wavelength (i.e. each color) have slightly different speed at travelling through the glass and the air, chromatic aberration happens, when different colored photons are coming from a single point, but due to some basic laws of physics land on different point of the sensor plane..
One can go long and deep describing why this is all happening, but it's time to get practical:-)

• With the current technology it is not even theoretically possible to create a zoom lens with the same image quality as a non-zoom one throughout the range. You can get close, but never identical. Hence zoom lenses with the big range (like 70-300) inevitably suffer from the final image quality loss - hence the price drop. The best lenses are usually "prime" ones (i.e. non-zoom) or carry a very short zoom range (50-70, etc.)
• The maximum aperture value (i.e. lower f/stop value) shows how wide open this lens can be. The more open it should be, the bigger chunk of high quality glass should be involved. That's why f/5.6 lenses can cost just $100-300, while f/1.2 can cost a fortune.
• The quality of glass can (and usually does) play an very important role in the final image quality, as can (does) precision of the lens assembly. You heard of canon's "L" glass:-)
• As you pointed out yourself, the combination of zoom and "openness" creates additional price step: the lens that can uniformly hold f/2.8 will be way more expensive compared to one that "naturally" loses some light at the tele end and features f/4.5 .. f/5.6
• Then it gets hairy: image stabilization (not an issue for sensor based stabilization on K-M, but definitely an issue for Canon, Nikon, et all); fast or super fast auto-focusing; auto-focusing light limits...

Bottom line - lens price usually (not always) defines the ultimate image quality. Not by itself - you have to have a good body, know what you're doing with it, etc. But with all the other things being equal, there is a fair chance that a more expensive glass would give you some sort of advantage compared to its inexpensive sibling.

HTH

I enjoyed that mini-insight you gave on what goes into constructing a lens, Nik.
I can see why primes and other lens w/ wider apertures cost more. This "selling of more light" reminds me of compressed cans that sell AIR.
Sounds :crazy huh?

Appreciate you clearing up further questions i havent thought of
And since youre a Nikon fan... care to "donate" some lens :stud

RaindogPhotography

I recently sold my last zoom, the 70-200mm vr. It was a fine lens but I sold it because it was not critically sharp at it's widest aperture. I've found that primes are far superior in this aspect. The 200mm F2 that I replaced it with is an extraordinary lens even wide open.

Harryb

RaindogPhotography wrote:

I recently sold my last zoom, the 70-200mm vr. It was a fine lens but I sold it because it was not critically sharp at it's widest aperture. I've found that primes are far superior in this aspect. The 200mm F2 that I replaced it with is an extraordinary lens even wide open.

200mm F2

outstanding piece of glass. I want one. I want one bad.