| Non-motoring > DSLR lens | Specialists |
| Thread Author: movilogo | Replies: 8 |
|
New Wed 6 Mar 13 12:13
DSLR lens - movilogo
|
|
Few months back I ventured into DSLR world after buying a Nikon D3100 with 18-55 mm F/3.5-5.6 kit lens. I have no intention of becoming a professional photographer. But I am wondering whether I should upgrade to a better lens or compliment my current lens by buying a new one. So question is, do people really change lens while on holiday? Not only it is a hassle but also I'd be worried to change lens in a dusty environment. My options [after few days research on internet] Get a 35 mm (effectively 52 mm in APS-C) F/1.8 prime lens + keep kit lens or Sell kit lens (it sells new under £100 so don't think I'll get much for it) + buy a 18-200 zoom What lenses you guys use? It is not the case that I dislike 18-55 kit lens. But after reading photography forums it seems to me that F/3.5 is not a large enough aperture for good low light shooting. That's why I'm thinking of getting 35 mm F/1.8. But again, I am not sure how it really feels shooting with a prime lens which offers no zoom at all. PS: Didn't want to post it in dedicated camera forums because responses are often overwhelming and I don't have unlimited budget. |
|
New Wed 6 Mar 13 12:30
DSLR lens - spamcan61
|
|
>> >> It is not the case that I dislike 18-55 kit lens. But after reading photography >> forums it seems to me that F/3.5 is not a large enough aperture for good >> low light shooting. >> How much low light photography do you do that requires very low image noise? Zoom lenses faster than F3.5 tend to get big and expensive and bring very little benefit to the amateur IMHO; just use a higher equivalent ISO. Personally I'd get a long zoom - say around 60-300 - to complement your existing lens rather than a fast but limited 50mm f1.8, unless you're going to specialise in photgraphing black cats in coal cellars. |
|
New Wed 6 Mar 13 12:50
DSLR lens - Zero
|
|
you really don't want to be stuck with a fixed lens. And as the 'can said, what do you need to photograph in low light, where frankly lack of colour saturation makes photos like that not very satisfying. You have only had the camera a few months, get to exploit what you have fully before you venture onto something else. In 35mm film days, I found the 28-80mm was the single most versatile lens, and invariably ended up as the only lens on the camera. |
|
New Wed 6 Mar 13 14:03
DSLR lens - Mapmaker
|
|
>>In 35mm film days, I found the 28-80mm was the single most versatile lens, and invariably ended up as the only lens on the camera. In fact I bought myself an 80-200 to go with it, and it's still in its box, unopened. That was a waste of money! These days I sometimes hanker after a DSLR. Perhaps I'd take more photographs if I had a proper camera; there's something very unsatisfying about using a compact. Unsatisfactory too - you can never be sure wht the picture will look like; there are too many clever functions on a digital camera when really what you want to be able to alter is the depth of field. But they're quite bulky, and if I haven't taken a compact then why would I take a DSLR? And then I think well maybe I should buy something inbetween, like a Lumix GFS5 with a compact 14-42 lens. And then I don't. |
|
New Wed 6 Mar 13 14:11
DSLR lens - TheManWithNoName
|
|
I bought a Nikon D3000 2 yrs ago with the standard 18-55mm lens. I subsequently bought myself a 55-300mm zoom lens. I don't find it a hassle to change it whilst out and I've never had any issues with dust and grit. Obviously you don't want to be changing lenses in a Saharan dust storm! One option which I have considered myself was to ditch both lenses and buy a Tamron 18-270mm lens which would effectively replace them. |
|
New Wed 6 Mar 13 16:47
DSLR lens - lancara
|
|
Don't think the 18-200 will help with low light work - same max. aperture as the kit lens. You would need to go to the 17-55/2.8, but that is big bucks, and is only giving you an extra stop. I rely on the tripod for low light work (and have gone MFT to cut down on weight - find carrying a messenger bag is preferable to a backpack) |
|
New Thu 7 Mar 13 15:28
DSLR lens - Stuartli
|
|
I've got a Nikon D90 with the 18-105mm zoom lens. It basically covers 90 per cent plus of my needs and I can compromise for the remainder. My film equivalent is a Nikon F401 (last of the model run at the time of purchase) which I paired with a Tamron 28-200mm AF zoom. This zoom is so compact it fits in the standard case when unextended, yet produced superb results whilst covering a range from wide angle to useful telephoto. Why I've never yet tried it on the D90 I don't know, apart from the fact the zoom range equivalent would need to be increased by 1.5. |
|
New Thu 7 Mar 13 16:54
DSLR lens - Haywain
|
|
It must be 6 years since I bought my Nikon D80; it was equipped with a standard 18-70mm lens and, as part of the deal, I bought a Tamron 55-200 lens. Within a year, I realised that that entry of dust during lens changes was a real problem. I recall going to a show on the local airfield on a windy June day where the air was thick with dust, smuts from steam engines and saw dust from a massive circular saw. Dust got on to the sensor which I didn't notice for several months - and then I saw the effect when I looked for the consistent marks on the images. And then you have the inconvenience of changing lenses and carting them around. Subsequently, I bought a 18-200mm lens - and I don't think it's been off the camera since. A DSLR is heavy enough to lug around without carrying a range of lenses as well. I can get my camera/lens into an every-ready case - I don't have to carry a large camera bag. The purists will tell you that it's a compromise, but I wouldn't bother with anything else. My 18-200 (Nikon) was an early model without the zoom-lock; this can be a bit of a pain if the camera is pointing down though you do get used to it. |
|
New Thu 7 Mar 13 21:16
DSLR lens - Mike H
|
|
I have a Nikon D5000, which came with the same lens as yours. I have never had any issues with the aperture size, seems perfectly adequate. Perhaps you are reading too many photographic forums, you don't really need a larger aperture for most normal use ;-) I bought a 55-200 Nikon AF-S to complement it, which if I recall was around £150. For it's price, it got good reviews at the time. I find the two perfectly adequate, but quite often I can't be bothered to carry the longer lens either on or off the camera. It partly depends on how much you want to spend, you would certainly need to spend more than £150 to get a decent 18-200mm. And you need to consider the bulk, do you really want to carry around such a bulky object? |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
