DSLRUsers.com

My first official 'topic' post
Just some fun with a couple of glowsticks and a spider minding it's own business, although I think with 8 eyes and delayed vision it woud have enjoyed the multispectral light show

wendellt
Stunning colour, great choice of arranging the mixing of the light show.

Very imaginative Wendell, the colour and subject work really well

Hi Briddog and Glen
thanks for the comments, Birddog the minimeet was great, I enjoyed your hospitality and the opportunity to get valuable advice from the group, everyone was very nice.
Anyone know the best 1:1 lens that can take steady pictures in low light conditions, e.g like inside a cathedral, I heard the more glass a lens has the more light it lets in.
I am trying to decide what kind of reference lens I should start of with, I am leaning towards a nikon 24-120 VR lens because it seems very versatile, that being slightly wide angle medium and bordering telephoto, although on the forum alot of people have alot of different opinions about it, some think the D70 kit lens is much faster(whatever that means)?

wendellt wrote:Anyone know the best 1:1 lens that can take steady pictures in low light conditions, e.g like inside a cathedral, I heard the more glass a lens has the more light it lets in.
I am trying to decide what kind of reference lens I should start of with, I am leaning towards a nikon 24-120 VR lens because it seems very versatile, that being slightly wide angle medium and bordering telephoto, although on the forum alot of people have alot of different opinions about it, some think the D70 kit lens is much faster(whatever that means)?

I like the shot on the left, because it's sharper than the other. The colors and light play are interesting backgrounds.

I'm not sure what you mean by a 1:1 lens.

When people talk about more glass letting in more light, they're talking about the size of the glass, in diameter. That directly relates to the widest aperture available on the lens. The wider the aperture, the faster shutter speed you have available in the same light.

When they say a lens is faster than another, they are talking about the aperture size. For example, a lens with an f/2.8 max aperture is faster than a lens with an f/4 max aperture. The f/2.8 lens will be larger and heavier than the f/4 lens, because all of the glass inside the f/2.8 lens will be of a larger diameter.

I'm not sure what the opinions you are citing with regard to the 24-120 and the kit lens. Both lenses seem to be pretty good consumer lenses, IMO.

If you want to take low light shots inside a cathedral, I'd guess that the 50mm f/1.8 or 85mm f/1.8 would be your cheapest, most effective solutions for hand held shooting.

thanks for your advice Kerry
------------------
I like the shot on the left, because it's sharper than the other. The colors and light play are interesting backgrounds.
------------------------------
the wind was shaking the spider in the second shot
------------------------------
I'm not sure what you mean by a 1:1 lens.
------------------------------
I mean a 50mm lens what you see in is what you get
------------------------------

I'm not sure what the opinions you are citing with regard to the 24-120 and the kit lens. Both lenses seem to be pretty good consumer lenses, IMO.
---------------------------
what pro lenses are analagous to the 24-120 VR - if this is a consumer grade lens? I need a lens that will last in snow and desert conditions
---------------------------
also my main lens should be fast enough to capture the moment without me having to play with the manual settings too much, i just want instant results

I have taken shots in a cathedral with the 50 1.8 and ut worked well but 1:1 it is not.

Only dedicated macro lenses are capable of 1:1 redproduction. Although most macros are fast f2.8, when used for macro photography (usually smaller apertures f11 +)they require good lighting conditions or the use of a tripod.

dhess wrote:I have taken shots in a cathedral with the 50 1.8 and ut worked well but 1:1 it is not.

Only dedicated macro lenses are capable of 1:1 redproduction. Although most macros are fast f2.8, when used for macro photography (usually smaller apertures f11 +)they require good lighting conditions or the use of a tripod.

so when i am looking for an ultra fast lens between 24mm and 70mm which does very well in low light without the benefit of a tripod or flash, what should i be looking for?
thanks!

Hi Wendell,

I am far from a pro but....

I would be looking at fixed focal length lense like:

Nikkor 50 f1.8 = super sharp, light, cheap (around $200) and very useful especially for portraits or general indoor available light photography.

Nikkor 50 f1.4 = all of the above with excellent build quality and ever so slightly better optical performance at about 2.5 to 3 times the price.

All of the fast zooms:

17-35 f2.8, 17-55 f2.8 and 28-70 f2.8 are nice but they only let about half the amount of light in and are pricey. i.e. thousands $

Also the Nikkor 60mm f2.8 micro might be a good option if you want a macro lense that is also very good for portraits etc.

Your best bet would be to start a thread in general discussion telling people exactly what you want to photograph, where and you budget. I'm sure heaps of people will chime in.

Dom

Nikkor 50 f1.8 = super sharp, light, cheap (around $200) and very useful especially for portraits or general indoor available light photography.

Well for my first lens i can afford a versatile item like the 24-120mm VR, since it has the range of 24-120 does that mean the it can do '50 f1.8' ?

anyway i will start a threadin general discussions

mostly i am interesting in taking photos of architecture, either true 1:1 or in warped harsh perspective. I also like taking pictures of architectural monuments from a great distance away so i can compsoe the shot easily with a telephoto lens and get little perspective distortion e.g. shooting the pyramids framed nicely but from a very far distance.

24-120 f3.5-f5.6 VR cant open up to f1.8 at 50mm.

Not sure but I think the 24-120VR at 50mm can only go as wide as f4. This means it allows in less than a quarter as much light, meaning a much slower shutter speed is required which is likely to result in blurred pictures.

The vibration reduction will counter this to a certain extent.

I do think that the 24-120VR will serve you well for most of your architechtural shots but won't be suitable in really dark places like cathedrals.

wendellt wrote:Well for my first lens i can afford a versatile item like the 24-120mm VR, since it has the range of 24-120 does that mean the it can do '50 f1.8' ?
.

Hi Wendel,
Unfortunatly no, as the 24-120VR has f/3.5 at the 24mm end and f/5.6 at the 120mm tele end.
If it did there would proberly be no need for a 50mm f/1.8 in the market.
Just my 2cents worth.
Paul

Depends how wide you want to go Wendell, if you want wide for architectural shots, consider the Sigma 12-24, around mid-$9xx. The 24-120 VR is a very versatile lens, but not as fast (wide aperture) or sharp as primes or the 'pro' zooms (17-35 2.8, 17-55 DX 2.8, 28-70 2.8 etc). As a walk around lens though it's pretty hard to beat IMO due to its flexibility.

Paul wrote:

wendellt wrote:Well for my first lens i can afford a versatile item like the 24-120mm VR, since it has the range of 24-120 does that mean the it can do '50 f1.8' ?
.

Hi Wendel,
Unfortunatly no, as the 24-120VR has f/3.5 at the 24mm end and f/5.6 at the 120mm tele end.
If it did there would proberly be no need for a 50mm f/1.8 in the market.
Just my 2cents worth.
Paul

Hi paul,

how's things?

thanks for the advice paul, well i guess my best bet is the 50/f1.8 is anything when your in a museum or art gallery they don't like cameras I have to be descreet, so the 50mm fixed lens seems like the winner, i will get both, i still need a versatile 24-120mm for walking around

Nice shot Wendell, Different and yeh thats what makes it a good shots, the lights make these pictures.

MCWB wrote:Depends how wide you want to go Wendell, if you want wide for architectural shots, consider the Sigma 12-24, around mid-$9xx. The 24-120 VR is a very versatile lens, but not as fast (wide aperture) or sharp as primes or the 'pro' zooms (17-35 2.8, 17-55 DX 2.8, 28-70 2.8 etc). As a walk around lens though it's pretty hard to beat IMO due to its flexibility.

Hi MCWB are we talking nikon lenses or sigma ones? pro' zooms (17-35 2.8, 17-55 DX 2.8, 28-70 2.8 etc)

the 17-55 DX 2.8 sounds sweet for wide shots, any fisheye distortion around the edges?

thankyou

Wendell - the shot on the right is excellent, especially for the sharpness.

Wendell

Just to clear up a few things. When you see a lens described (or read the lens barrel) you'll see a size in mm and an F value (eg 50/1.4 or 70-200/2. This tells you the zoom range and the maximum aperture size respectively.

Aperture sizes get smaller as the f value goes up (since the value is actually 1/F value so an F of 8 = 1/8 and an F of 2 = 1/2)

So a 50/1.4 is better than a 50/1.8 because it has a bigger max aperture (and so can deal with lower light situations). This means a 50/1.4 lens can be set to any F value down to 1.4, but a 24-120/4 can only go down to F4.

A 50mm lens at F4 and a 24-120 zoomed to 50mm and set at F4 both let in the same light (same aperture size), but are NOT equivalent since the optical quality also comes in to play. The 50mm has better optical quality than the 24-120.

Bottom line is for low light you should get the best prime (non zoom) lens you can afford - either the 50/1.4 (best) or the 50/1.8 (cheapest) or maybe a 28/1.4 if you have lots of money. There aren't any zoom lenses that can go below F2.8 AFAIK.

wendellt wrote:------------------------------
I'm not sure what you mean by a 1:1 lens.
------------------------------
I mean a 50mm lens what you see in is what you get
------------------------------

I guess you mean that you want a "normal" focal length lens? AFAIK, the 50mm was considered "normal" on 35mm film. I've read that on Nikon's dslrs with a 1.5x crop factor, that 25 to 35mm is considered "normal" for field of view.

The fastest lenses, under f/2, in that focal length are rather expensive. The 35mm f/1.4 is manual focus and about $600USD. The 35mm f/2.0d is about $260USD. The others are at f/2.8 or higher, which wouldn't be a big deal. You could get the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 EX or the Nikkor 35-70 f/2.8d for decent prices and both are excellent lenses, IMO.

what pro lenses are analagous to the 24-120 VR - if this is a consumer grade lens? I need a lens that will last in snow and desert conditions

Pro lenses are usually very expensive, which is about all I can tell you. The 35-70 f/2.8d is a pro class lens. Whether or not it or many other lenses would last in snow and desert conditions, I dunno... Like any mechanical device, they're subject to failure.

also my main lens should be fast enough to capture the moment without me having to play with the manual settings too much, i just want instant results

Well, I have a number of fast lenses and some of them are pro class, but all of them are capable of taking bad photos, if I don't do my part. Every lens has a learning curve associated with it. They'll do what you tell them to do and give you instant results, but they may not be the results that you want.

[quote="stubbsy"]Wendell


A 50mm lens at F4 and a 24-120 zoomed to 50mm and set at F4 both let in the same light (same aperture size), but are NOT equivalent since the optical quality also comes in to play. The 50mm has better optical quality than the 24-120.

Hi Peter

I think at the minimeet i kept on calling you 'joe' I meant no disrespect, im not good at remembering names, i suggest next time we wear nametags

thanks for your invaluable insight

optical quality is important to me as well as versatility
why isn't the optical quality of the 24-120mm not as good as a prime 50mm?
the 24-120 is a newer lens

thanks

wendellt wrote:...thanks for your invaluable insight

optical quality is important to me as well as versatility
why isn't the optical quality of the 24-120mm not as good as a prime 50mm?
the 24-120 is a newer lens

thanks

The optical quality of a prime lens is generally better for a number of reasons:

• Less glass therefore less places for the light to be distorted
• better build quality - the glass is machined better and perhaps made from optically purer glass, the lens has better non reflective coatings
• there are fewer moving parts - hence less places where the optics can get out of whack

So far as newness is concerned, there are plenty of "old" lenses design wise and also manufacturing wise that are superb. Porbably the best example I can think of is birddog's nokt lens - quite old, but can take shots in exceptionally low light (this lens is hand ground!) PS If you called me Joe I didn't notice. Just don't call me Pete

This is Joe:



and this is me:

Hi Stubbsy

thanks again for the legacy insight, I will go for a 50mm f1.4 prime for my first lens, birddog says he can get me one for AU$40, then i will move steadfast to a more versatile lens like the 'Nikon AFS DX 17-55mm' which is wide angle.

Stubbsy what is joe's Username on this forum?

thanks to everyone for yur comments & advice!

wendellt wrote:Hi Stubbsy
I will go for a 50mm f1.4 prime for my first lens, birddog says he can get me one for AU$40,

Hmm a 50mm f/1.4 for AU$40, sounds like a real bargain!
I'm sure your missing a "0"
Good luck with your lens purchase, you'll love this beastie!

Paul wrote:

wendellt wrote:Hi Stubbsy
I will go for a 50mm f1.4 prime for my first lens, birddog says he can get me one for AU$40,

Hmm a 50mm f/1.4 for AU$40, sounds like a real bargain!
I'm sure your missing a "0"
Good luck with your lens purchase, you'll love this beastie!

Yeah Birddog quoted me AU$40 for that 50mm f1.4 from Hong Kong
it could be a typo or in fact i could have snapped up a bargain without realising it, maybe i should buy 10 and re-sell them.

Wendell, Joe is joet here.

Hmm a 50mm f/1.4 for AU$40, sounds like a real bargain!
I'm sure your missing a "0"
Good luck with your lens purchase, you'll love this beastie!

Hi paul you were right it costs AU$400 + 10%GST, birddog did a typo when he quoted me AU$40

still a good price

Just a note for your future reference, wendell.

When using the "quote" command, you need to keep the first section "[ quote ]" or "[ quote = "name" ]", obviously without the spaces, to actually make the quote function work.

For example, just ending the quotes with "[/quote]" obviously won't work because you haven't actually started the function...