The Professional Photography and Photoshop Thread

[MacrossMan]

take *everything* he says with a huge grain of salt... he's almost universally not respected.

really rangefinders like that are more for serious, experienced photographers than for the casual shutterbug/guy just getting into photography. that said, I'd sell my soul and take out an advance on the souls of my future children to get my hands on one.

also, Ken Rockwell is an arrogant, self-righteous tool.

I could sense the guy's arrogance in reading some of his reviews. Not knowing much about photography, the information seemed "good" to me as a source for it. Do you guys know of any reputable and reknowned photographers with similar websites?

[eugimon]

I could sense the guy's arrogance in reading some of his reviews. Not knowing much about photography, the information seemed "good" to me as a source for it. Do you guys know of any reputable and reknowned photographers with similar websites?

What sort of information are you looking for? I prefer community sites like photo.net. Most of the posters are either professionals or serious hobbyists and if you avoid the flame wars (which is better, X or Y?) then you'll get some great information.

[MacrossMan]

What sort of information are you looking for? I prefer community sites like photo.net. Most of the posters are either professionals or serious hobbyists and if you avoid the flame wars (which is better, X or Y?) then you'll get some great information.

I was initially looking for some assistance on making the best selection of camera. I actually got that here from you guys as well as going into a local store and getting my hands on some bodies. When I see you guys mention stuff like depth of field or suggest lenses I have to go and look these things up and see what they are and they affect photos. Stuff like ISO settings, exposure, f ratings and what not. I'm completely ignorant to the field so I am really just trying to learn all the lingo. I plan on registering for a beginner's photography course at my local Bedford Camera and Video store. I think that will give me a nice foundation to build on.

By the way, I picked up the Nikon D90 and hope to have it next week some time.

[eugimon]

I was initially looking for some assistance on making the best selection of camera. I actually got that here from you guys as well as going into a local store and getting my hands on some bodies. When I see you guys mention stuff like depth of field or suggest lenses I have to go and look these things up and see what they are and they affect photos. Stuff like ISO settings, exposure, f ratings and what not. I'm completely ignorant to the field so I am really just trying to learn all the lingo. I plan on registering for a beginner's photography course at my local Bedford Camera and Video store. I think that will give me a nice foundation to build on.

By the way, I picked up the Nikon D90 and hope to have it next week some time.

http://photo.net/learn/making-photographs/exposure

and check out the other "learning" articles off of the front page of photo.net

I would also recommend a good book:

Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson is a great resource for beginners

and I also like

Perfect Exposure by Michael Freeman

[MacrossMan]

http://photo.net/learn/making-photographs/exposure

and check out the other "learning" articles off of the front page of photo.net

I would also recommend a good book:

Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson is a great resource for beginners

and I also like

Perfect Exposure by Michael Freeman

Thanks eugimon! Excellent information on this forum. I now know about aperature and how it affects depth of field. Now on to ISO settings. D90 is en route and has a scheduled arrival for Tuesday the 15th.

[eugimon]

Thanks eugimon! Excellent information on this forum. I now know about aperature and how it affects depth of field. Now on to ISO settings. D90 is en route and has a scheduled arrival for Tuesday the 15th.

your welcome! I learned a lot from that site and I like to browse their member submitted photos, some of them are spectacular.

I hope you enjoy the D90! What lenses did you end up getting for it?

[MacrossMan]

your welcome! I learned a lot from that site and I like to browse their member submitted photos, some of them are spectacular.

I hope you enjoy the D90! What lenses did you end up getting for it?

Still enjoying the forum man. I only purchased the body. I'm still undecided on the lens. I'm really leaning towards the 35mm f1.8 (if I entered that right). It runs for a couple hundred bucks and has the internal moving parts that I am seeing is a better quality to have vs. extending parts. My next lens is probably going to be something with internal focusing, but more powerful for what i plan on shooting.

[anime52k8]

Still enjoying the forum man. I only purchased the body. I'm still undecided on the lens. I'm really leaning towards the 35mm f1.8 (if I entered that right). It runs for a couple hundred bucks and has the internal moving parts that I am seeing is a better quality to have vs. extending parts. My next lens is probably going to be something with internal focusing, but more powerful for what i plan on shooting.

for a first lens I'd recommended one of these.

http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Produc...5.6G-IF-ED.html

http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Produc...5.6G-ED-VR.html

they're slower and more expensive than a prime, but the versatility of a zoom lens in that range is really good for starting out.

[eugimon]

for a first lens I'd recommended one of these.

http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Produc...5.6G-IF-ED.html

http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Produc...5.6G-ED-VR.html

they're slower and more expensive than a prime, but the versatility of a zoom lens in that range is really good for starting out.

bah, for that much money just get the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

Better build then those other two lenses and better IQ then the 18-105

Plus, with the relatively short focal length it will "work" as a macro lens of sort

Edited December 12, 2009 by eugimon

[anime52k8]

bah, for that much money just get the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

Better build then those other two lenses and better IQ then the 18-105

Plus, with the relatively short focal length it will "work" as a macro lens of sort

I don't trust anything with over 6x optical zoom. and I don't trust anything with a plastic mount (so I wouldn't be buying the 35mm)

[eugimon]

I don't trust anything with over 6x optical zoom. and I don't trust anything with a plastic mount (so I wouldn't be buying the 35mm)

35mm has a metal mount and an O ring.

and the 18-105 has a plastic mount, it's a kit lens like the 18-50 and the 50-200 lenses.

the 18-200 gets pretty much universal praise though (for what it is)

Edited December 12, 2009 by eugimon

[anime52k8]

35mm has a metal mount and an O ring.

and the 18-105 has a plastic mount, it's a kit lens like the 18-50 and the 50-200 lenses.

the 18-200 gets pretty much universal praise though (for what it is)

I remember reading somewhere that it was plastic, guess I was wrong. but what do I know, I don't shoot nikon.

[Lynx7725]

Still enjoying the forum man. I only purchased the body. I'm still undecided on the lens. I'm really leaning towards the 35mm f1.8 (if I entered that right). It runs for a couple hundred bucks and has the internal moving parts that I am seeing is a better quality to have vs. extending parts. My next lens is probably going to be something with internal focusing, but more powerful for what i plan on shooting.

Internal vs. External is not a big issue -- the only time it really makes a difference is when your working distances are so small that the extrusion matters (the Nikkor 60mm Macro is a prime example of this). Other than this, a lot of the difference is really about convenience, which can be catered for with your SOP with the lens. IF/ EF can be a deciding factor when it gets down to a lens, but it shouldn't be that high on your list.

I would like to ask what do you expect to shoot? A 35mm on a digital body (with crop factor) is roughly equivalent to a 50mm normal, which makes it ideal for a walkabout lens. (A 50mm on a digital makes to 75mm, which isn't that great.) It can be a starting point, but that depends on what your intended subjects are.

An issue I have specifically with the 35mm f/1.8 is that (IIRC) it's a DX lens. But let's put it one side for now...

for a first lens I'd recommended one of these.

AF-S-VR-Zoom-NIKKOR-24-120mm-f/3.5-5.6G-IF-ED

AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-18-105mm-f/3.5-5.6G-ED-VR

they're slower and more expensive than a prime, but the versatility of a zoom lens in that range is really good for starting out.

I won't really recommend the 24-120mm as a starter. It translate to a 36mm to 180mm lens on a digital body -- the short end is not quite short enough, the long end not quite long enough, so it suffers from being in a range easily covered by other lens. 36mm isn't a "natural" feel, and a lot of times you want wider, to capture a wider field of vision while being close in. There is also this issue with the f/3.5 to f/5.6, constraining the long end (IMO quite a bit).

The 18-105mm is a decent place to start though. The digital 27mm-155mm isn't quite ideal, but the short end is wide enough and the long end is good for medium range work. It's a convenience lens, good to learn some habits on, and it's flexible enough to be a walkabout lens. Pity about the DX, but it does help to bring costs down.

eugimon's suggestion of the 18-200mm also has merits, but to be perfectly honest, I started with a 18-70mm, and that's a great range to start learning from. Telephotos have a different skillset to learn (breath control/ posture becomes much more important, for one), which you might not want to bring into the picture yet.

[MacrossMan]

Internal vs. External is not a big issue -- the only time it really makes a difference is when your working distances are so small that the extrusion matters (the Nikkor 60mm Macro is a prime example of this). Other than this, a lot of the difference is really about convenience, which can be catered for with your SOP with the lens. IF/ EF can be a deciding factor when it gets down to a lens, but it shouldn't be that high on your list.

I would like to ask what do you expect to shoot? A 35mm on a digital body (with crop factor) is roughly equivalent to a 50mm normal, which makes it ideal for a walkabout lens. (A 50mm on a digital makes to 75mm, which isn't that great.) It can be a starting point, but that depends on what your intended subjects are.

An issue I have specifically with the 35mm f/1.8 is that (IIRC) it's a DX lens. But let's put it one side for now...

I won't really recommend the 24-120mm as a starter. It translate to a 36mm to 180mm lens on a digital body -- the short end is not quite short enough, the long end not quite long enough, so it suffers from being in a range easily covered by other lens. 36mm isn't a "natural" feel, and a lot of times you want wider, to capture a wider field of vision while being close in. There is also this issue with the f/3.5 to f/5.6, constraining the long end (IMO quite a bit).

The 18-105mm is a decent place to start though. The digital 27mm-155mm isn't quite ideal, but the short end is wide enough and the long end is good for medium range work. It's a convenience lens, good to learn some habits on, and it's flexible enough to be a walkabout lens. Pity about the DX, but it does help to bring costs down.

eugimon's suggestion of the 18-200mm also has merits, but to be perfectly honest, I started with a 18-70mm, and that's a great range to start learning from. Telephotos have a different skillset to learn (breath control/ posture becomes much more important, for one), which you might not want to bring into the picture yet.

Thanks Lynx7725. I plan on shooting my Macross stuff with some tabletop lighting and a box. I also plan to take family photos which most events will be indoors with basic indoor lighting. Some events might be outdoors, but they will mainly be on the inside. When my son starts back playing football I also plan to shoot his ball games. I'm looking for a good, general purpose, all around lens that I can use to learn, grow, and develop my skills.

[eugimon]

Thanks Lynx7725. I plan on shooting my Macross stuff with some tabletop lighting and a box. I also plan to take family photos which most events will be indoors with basic indoor lighting. Some events might be outdoors, but they will mainly be on the inside. When my son starts back playing football I also plan to shoot his ball games. I'm looking for a good, general purpose, all around lens that I can use to learn, grow, and develop my skills.

Before you start dumping big money on non DX glass, you need to figure out what you're gonna shoot. A non cropped sensor has benefits, wider shots (good for environmental and landscape photography), better low light performance (if you're talking the same megapixels, if you're talking 12 versus 21 then you get less performance). On the other hand, a cropped sensor gives you better zoom performance and generally smaller, lighter bodies. It's always tempting to buy the uber camera but if you're not going to be taking advantage of those capabilities or if it's stuff that's just not important to you then what use is it?

To me, the 18-200 sounds like your best bet. At 18mm it's a decent wide angle and it will give you the reach to be able to snap some shots of the kid playing ball. Or get a short fast lens for the toys and indoor stuff and a longer lens like the 70- 300mm for the football games, depending on the intensity of the light the D90 will give you clean images up to ISO 1600-2000, that plus using spot metering should let you keep your shutter speed up... unless you want to drop 4k on the new 300mm f/2.8

[MacrossMan]

Before you start dumping big money on non DX glass, you need to figure out what you're gonna shoot. A non cropped sensor has benefits, wider shots (good for environmental and landscape photography), better low light performance (if you're talking the same megapixels, if you're talking 12 versus 21 then you get less performance). On the other hand, a cropped sensor gives you better zoom performance and generally smaller, lighter bodies. It's always tempting to buy the uber camera but if you're not going to be taking advantage of those capabilities or if it's stuff that's just not important to you then what use is it?

To me, the 18-200 sounds like your best bet. At 18mm it's a decent wide angle and it will give you the reach to be able to snap some shots of the kid playing ball. Or get a short fast lens for the toys and indoor stuff and a longer lens like the 70- 300mm for the football games, depending on the intensity of the light the D90 will give you clean images up to ISO 1600-2000, that plus using spot metering should let you keep your shutter speed up... unless you want to drop 4k on the new 300mm f/2.8

Damn eugimon! Just when I'm starting to understand some of the lingo you mash my brain I'm gonna go check out the forum again to see if I can decipher what you're talking about. I think the 18-200 should be a good starting point. Trying to stay within my budget. By the time my son starts football in July I'll probably be ready to invest in a lens better suited for sports.

Really appreciate all the info you guys are providing. As long as you guys are answering I'll keep asking. Many thanks!

EDIT:

Just realized the 18-200 cost more than what I paid for the body! I understand this is not uncommon, but I am in no way prepared to shell out that kind of dough for a lens just yet. I'm trying to stay under $250 and achieve all of the above or at least one of the above very good.

Edited December 12, 2009 by MacrossMan

[anime52k8]

I won't really recommend the 24-120mm as a starter. It translate to a 36mm to 180mm lens on a digital body -- the short end is not quite short enough, the long end not quite long enough, so it suffers from being in a range easily covered by other lens. 36mm isn't a "natural" feel, and a lot of times you want wider, to capture a wider field of vision while being close in. There is also this issue with the f/3.5 to f/5.6, constraining the long end (IMO quite a bit).

I use a 28-135mm on my camera and I find it works out quite well as a general lens. It probably has a lot to do with how I like to take pictures, but I shoot a lot of the same things he plans to and I find having a standard-to-short telephoto lens works out better than a wide angle to standard lens. between the 18-70mm on my old Sony and my current 28-135 on my canon, I find the 65mm on the long end is a lot more useful than the 10mm at the wide end. I just prefer a narrower field of view and greater working distance I guess.

and an f/5.6 at 120 isn't THAT bad, between good high iso performance and VR it's good enough for most situations.

Or get a short fast lens for the toys and indoor stuff and a longer lens like the 70- 300mm for the football games, depending on the intensity of the light the D90 will give you clean images up to ISO 1600-2000, that plus using spot metering should let you keep your shutter speed up... unless you want to drop 4k on the new 300mm f/2.8

this. you'll overall get better performance out of 2-3 lenses covering a wide range than getting one lens that tries to do to much.

[eugimon]

Damn eugimon! Just when I'm starting to understand some of the lingo you mash my brain I'm gonna go check out the forum again to see if I can decipher what you're talking about. I think the 18-200 should be a good starting point. Trying to stay within my budget. By the time my son starts football in July I'll probably be ready to invest in a lens better suited for sports.

Really appreciate all the info you guys are providing. As long as you guys are answering I'll keep asking. Many thanks!

EDIT:

Just realized the 18-200 cost more than what I paid for the body! I understand this is not uncommon, but I am in no way prepared to shell out that kind of dough for a lens just yet. I'm trying to stay under $250 and achieve all of the above or at least one of the above very good.

If you ever have any questions on what we're saying, please ask. If you're trying to stay around 250 you'll probably need to stick with either the kit lenses like the 18-55mm and the 50-200 (you'll still be around 300 bucks if you get both new) or just get one good prime lens (the 35mm f/1.8 runs around 200$ new)

or you can try ebay... I have the tamron 28-75 which I'm pretty happy with:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Tamron-28-75-F2-8-XR-A...#ht_1601wt_1029

[MacrossMan]

If you ever have any questions on what we're saying, please ask. If you're trying to stay around 250 you'll probably need to stick with either the kit lenses like the 18-55mm and the 50-200 (you'll still be around 300 bucks if you get both new) or just get one good prime lens (the 35mm f/1.8 runs around 200$ new)

or you can try ebay... I have the tamron 28-75 which I'm pretty happy with:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Tamron-28-75-F2-8-XR-A...#ht_1601wt_1029

Okay, so I think this is more what I am wanting. I'd rather pay a little more on the front end and have a prime lens I can use for everyday shooting and develop my skills. Once I've done all I can with the lens and ready to step up, I'll still have a nice piece of glass in my arsenal. So let me ask you this. With the 35mm f/1.8 I'll basically have to phycially get closer or further away from my subjects right? There's no zoom; just focus? I can deal with this as long as I am able to get nice group shots of family members. I know this lens will more than likely be my primary lens for my tabletop studio shots of my toys.

[eugimon]

Okay, so I think this is more what I am wanting. I'd rather pay a little more on the front end and have a prime lens I can use for everyday shooting and develop my skills. Once I've done all I can with the lens and ready to step up, I'll still have a nice piece of glass in my arsenal. So let me ask you this. With the 35mm f/1.8 I'll basically have to phycially get closer or further away from my subjects right? There's no zoom; just focus? I can deal with this as long as I am able to get nice group shots of family members. I know this lens will more than likely be my primary lens for my tabletop studio shots of my toys.

right, with a prime lens, you have to move closer or farther away to get the shot you want. I have to say, I LOVE my copy of the 35mm f/1.8. Even though I have a decent zoom (the tamron), I usually just end up with the 35mm on the camera.

Just remember to get a good quality UV filter for it.

[MacrossMan]

right, with a prime lens, you have to move closer or farther away to get the shot you want. I have to say, I LOVE my copy of the 35mm f/1.8. Even though I have a decent zoom (the tamron), I usually just end up with the 35mm on the camera.

Just remember to get a good quality UV filter for it.

Cool deal! I know this is going to sound stupid, but what are those filters for? Is it to protect against UV light? I see all sorts of filters available and I assume they are for filtering something out you don't want, but is UV bad for lenses or something?

Also, I see you mention Tamron in some of your suggestions for a lens. Part of my reason for choosing the Nikon is because from research, and I may be wrong, is because they have a reputation for making some of finer lenses available on the market today. I assume Tamron is a generic brand that makes lenses for both Nikon and Cannon. Of the generic brands, would you say Tamron is one you would highly reccommend if you are not going to buy a Nikon lens? I saw where you said in another post that things get off and you have to reset some things some times, but it wasn't a big deal for you. Don't think I want to deal with that type of thing early on.

Lastly, the LCD on the back on the D90 is not the typical LCD used for taking pictures right? I'm going to have to go back to the old school and use the viewfinder right? I think I read that the LCD can be used as a viewfinder so to speak, but its main purpose is to provide playback for your images and that the quality is so good you just about rest assure the image is an accurate interpretation of what the photo will look like. Thanks again!

[MacrossMan]

Okay, I have another question. I notice that aperature or the "f" setting means that a smaller number means that the camera will allow for more lighting to enter the lens effectively corrupting depth of field, but making images that the camera is focused on a lot sharper. So am I to assume that the low "f" number means the camera will then go in reverse and allow for less light to enter the camera? Just want to make sure I have this right. Thanks!

[eugimon]

Okay, I have another question. I notice that aperature or the "f" setting means that a smaller number means that the camera will allow for more lighting to enter the lens effectively corrupting depth of field, but making images that the camera is focused on a lot sharper. So am I to assume that the low "f" number means the camera will then go in reverse and allow for less light to enter the camera? Just want to make sure I have this right. Thanks!

Re: filters:

There are a variety of filters that do different jobs but a UV filter is a must. UV creates haze when shooting outdoors but more importantly can affect the coating on the lens elements themselves and degrade them, ruining your IQ over time. There are various filter manufacturers but I would suggest not cheaping out. A good quality filter is going to have a metal mounting ring which is important as you will be screwing on and off other filters like a polarizing filter and the optics will be clear and not affect the IQ. A cheaper filter will affect the sharpness and/or affect the color reproduction. And look at it this way, it's just a little added protection for the lens in case something bumps into it.

re: Tarmon:

Right, tamron is a 3rd party manufacturer but they make some good glass that's comparable to what Nikon and Canon make at that price range. That is, Nikon makes a lens equivalent to the 28-75 tamron but it costs 1200 dollars. Tamron lenses have pretty good build quality and feature qualities like metal mounts which many nikkor kit lenses lack. If you can afford the nikkor version, go for it but if you're thinking about a lower end nikkor lens, there's usually an equivalent tamron that's only a little bit more but significantly less then the higher end nikkor offering.

Another popular brand is Sigma, but out of the two, Tamron is much more respected. Personally I wouldn't suggest Sigma at all.. their lenses often have problems focusing and build quality issues leading to fogging or mold.

re D90 "live view":

Right, the LCD on the back can be used as the view finder in live view mode. However, it's slow, limits the AF ability and drains batteries. It's the mode you shoot with when taking a video recording, however.

re: F

So, the lower the F stop is, the more open the iris of the lens can go. This allows more light into the camera allowing a faster shutter speed or lower ISO in low light situations. The effect it has on depth of field is that it narrows the DoF.

for example:

This was taken with f/1.8. Notice only the middle row is focus, the foreground and background are blurred as a result.

same shot at f/11

now there's slight blurring to the foreground figures but they're mostly in focus as is the figure in the back. The iris is now closed more, increasing the depth of field but limiting the amount of light in and having the effect of slowing the shutter speed.

This is something you want to consider when purchasing a long or zoom lens. Sure that 300mm sounds nice but if it's only f/5.6, it's a pretty slow lens and really only useful under daylight or under bright lights. You can still get results but you'll need practice and a steady hand:

f/5.6 200mm ISO 3200

[anime52k8]

Re: filters:

There are a variety of filters that do different jobs but a UV filter is a must. UV creates haze when shooting outdoors but more importantly can affect the coating on the lens elements themselves and degrade them, ruining your IQ over time. There are various filter manufacturers but I would suggest not cheaping out. A good quality filter is going to have a metal mounting ring which is important as you will be screwing on and off other filters like a polarizing filter and the optics will be clear and not affect the IQ. A cheaper filter will affect the sharpness and/or affect the color reproduction. And look at it this way, it's just a little added protection for the lens in case something bumps into it.

really, a UV filter does almost nothing to improve the IQ of a photo. Many of them will have the effect of reducing contrast and color saturation while adding flare unless you buy a very expensive one ($50-100 depending on filter diameter).

filters serve 3 functions all related to protecting the lens. first they protect coatings as is mentioned (although how important that is depends on the lens, cheaper lenses may not even have coated elements). the also protect the front element from dings/scratches, and are often needed to complete a weather seal. again, if you're lens is cheap it won't be weather sealed anyways so really all you have it for is to protect the front of the lens. Personally, I find that a lens hood works just as well for protecting the lens and also cuts down on glare. there also a hell of a lot cheaper.

Now a Good Polarizing filter is something great to have: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews...ter-Review.aspx

the improve image quality significantly, but they are PRICEY, also you need a lens where the front element does not rotate (having a front element that doesn't extend isn't that big a deal unless you do super-closeup photography, but a non-rotating element is a must so filters will work properly.)

re: Tarmon:

Right, tamron is a 3rd party manufacturer but they make some good glass that's comparable to what Nikon and Canon make at that price range. That is, Nikon makes a lens equivalent to the 28-75 tamron but it costs 1200 dollars. Tamron lenses have pretty good build quality and feature qualities like metal mounts which many nikkor kit lenses lack. If you can afford the nikkor version, go for it but if you're thinking about a lower end nikkor lens, there's usually an equivalent tamron that's only a little bit more but significantly less then the higher end nikkor offering.

Another popular brand is Sigma, but out of the two, Tamron is much more respected. Personally I wouldn't suggest Sigma at all.. their lenses often have problems focusing and build quality issues leading to fogging or mold.

here's a review from a site I like of the Tamron 28-75. (it's for the canon version, but the Nikon is exactly the same other than the mount.)

Of note is that there can be compatibility issues with third party lenses.

Since Tamron reverse engineers (vs. licenses) manufacturer AF routines, there is always the possibility that a new body might not support an older third party lens. There have been examples of this happening in the past. Sometimes a lens can be rechipped to be made compatible, sometimes not. Second, there is the risk of a problem that results in the lens and body manufacturers pointing blame at each other.

[eugimon]

Er, no... UV haze is a real concern if you're shooting outdoors and if the subject is in the distance. Like shooting a vista or mountain range, the UV haze can really affect the colors and details. If you're shooting indoors, then yeah, it's not going to do anything for you other that act as a physical barrier in front of your lens.

a polarizing filter is nice and if you're shooting at the beach, lake, in the snow, anywhere were glare is an issue it's a must.

[anime52k8]

Er, no... UV haze is a real concern if you're shooting outdoors and if the subject is in the distance. Like shooting a vista or mountain range, the UV haze can really affect the colors and details. If you're shooting indoors, then yeah, it's not going to do anything for you other that act as a physical barrier in front of your lens.

a polarizing filter is nice and if you're shooting at the beach, lake, in the snow, anywhere were glare is an issue it's a must.

I Just don't find that you get that much of an improvement unless you're using fairly expensive filters. I know first hand that cheap filters do more harm than good in terms of overall IQ, and unless you have an expensive lens I don't think the price is really worth it for a high quality filter. (compared to how inexpensive a lens hood is)

[eugimon]

I Just don't find that you get that much of an improvement unless you're using fairly expensive filters. I know first hand that cheap filters do more harm than good in terms of overall IQ, and unless you have an expensive lens I don't think the price is really worth it for a high quality filter. (compared to how inexpensive a lens hood is)

Yes, which is why I recommended he get the good stuff and not the cheap twin pack crap they sell at best buy. The cheap stuff *will* lower your IQ and introduce distortion and color issues compared to a naked lens. some are crappy enough to cause problems with focusing.

A hood will help with glare but it's not going to do anything to help you deal with haze if you're trying to shoot a mountain range or even if you're just at the zoo trying to get a bead on animal that's out in full summer sun.

And considering a good UV filter is still much cheaper than any decent lens, why not get it? Protect the coating, protect the glass.

[Lynx7725]

Uhm, do you guys live on the forums or something? :lol: So many replies...

Thanks Lynx7725. I plan on shooting my Macross stuff with some tabletop lighting and a box. I also plan to take family photos which most events will be indoors with basic indoor lighting. Some events might be outdoors, but they will mainly be on the inside. When my son starts back playing football I also plan to shoot his ball games. I'm looking for a good, general purpose, all around lens that I can use to learn, grow, and develop my skills.

Here's my rule of thumb for the various scenarios:

Miniature/ toy shoots -- prime or decent small zoom. You'll also need a remote, a tripod, and depending how crazy you go, a lighting system. Miniature/ toy shoots are more about planning and you have most of the situation under heavy control, so you don't need to have great glass to work it... just a LOT of patience and fiddling.

Indoor shoots -- quick prime, but most likely small zoom with a good flash. The flash is more critical, because the situations won't be under your control and the lighting would probably suck. A 35mm prime would probably be ok but less versatile.

Sports shoots -- good tele, maybe tele-zoom. Sports tend to be done in good weather, so lighting is less of an issue.

Given your description, and the time frame implied as to when your child would be gaming, I'll suggest a mid-range zoom, something wide on the short end and a mid range zoom in the long end. Certainly no more than a 105mm on the long, since you will end up paying a lot for longer. The mid-range would have ample things for you to learn about, so it serves as a good starting point.

The other thing I'll suggest you get is a remote flash. The SB-600 is a good starting point, and is powerful enough for most of your purposes. (And no, the on-board flash cannot compare...)

A decent tripod also, no need for the ball head etc. yet, just go for a solid model first. You'll hate the weight, but having a stable platform capable of holding the weight of the camera and lens is more important. Lastly, a remote shutter release. These would be cheap.

anime52k8: Agreed that the 28-135mm do work (otherwise Nikkor won't sell it... ) but it won't really work for me (I shoot short or long, rarely in-between... 'sides, my 70-200 can cover some of the in-between). That said, I don't quite like it as a starting lens -- most beginners don't get the long end business well, and tend to use the short end more, so they end up paying for range that they might not want to use in the future.

I do heartily agree on using 2 or 3 lens instead of hoping for an all singing and dancing lens.. A good mid level zoom for convenience, then best to specialize. However, my shoulder loves generalist lens.

eugimon: Sad to say, I also find UV more as a "protective device" then a filter. My environments don't have that long to shoot, so the UV factor's not that big. I'll still recommend having a UV filter though, since they do protect against random knocks and sprays.. better the filter than the lens.

[anime52k8]

Uhm, do you guys live on the forums or something? :lol: So many replies...

it's finals week, lots of late nights... and time on the computer.

Edited December 13, 2009 by anime52k8

[ruskiiVFaussie]

less talky more piccy lol j/k drooling over the quality..............

[eugimon]

eugimon: Sad to say, I also find UV more as a "protective device" then a filter. My environments don't have that long to shoot, so the UV factor's not that big. I'll still recommend having a UV filter though, since they do protect against random knocks and sprays.. better the filter than the lens.

It all depends on how and where you shoot. Most of my stuff is outdoors, at the zoo, parks, etc with the family and I need a UV filter for that. If you're shooting close up, indoors, etc, yeah, you won't need one. But yes, it's a nice protective element and it's better to be cleaning your replaceable UV filter rather than your thousand dollar lens...

[MacrossMan]

It all depends on how and where you shoot. Most of my stuff is outdoors, at the zoo, parks, etc with the family and I need a UV filter for that. If you're shooting close up, indoors, etc, yeah, you won't need one. But yes, it's a nice protective element and it's better to be cleaning your replaceable UV filter rather than your thousand dollar lens...

I'll most definitely be getting one for any lens that will be used for outdoors, but anything I do indoors I probably won't have the filter on them. So here's my next question. It appears that the higher the aperature the more expensive the lens is. Am I correct in making this assumption?

[anime52k8]

I'll most definitely be getting one for any lens that will be used for outdoors, but anything I do indoors I probably won't have the filter on them. So here's my next question. It appears that the higher the aperature the more expensive the lens is. Am I correct in making this assumption?

Not always. an f/1.8 prime will cost a lot less than an f/2.8 zoom lens and an f/2 35mm will cost a lot less than a f/2 200mm.

the closest thing to a general rule about lens costs is that the heavier it is, the more expensive it is. the number of parts, material used and amount of glass all determine the price of a lens. since a lens with a high f-stop has a wider aperture, it's going to need more glass than an otherwise similar lens. (an f/4 200mm will be cheaper than an f/2.8 200mm because the f/4 uses smaller diameter elements). of course sometimes a slower lens with the same focal length will cost more because it's made of better materials.

so for similar lenses, the faster the more expensive. for very disparate lenses, not always.

[MacrossMan]

Not always. an f/1.8 prime will cost a lot less than an f/2.8 zoom lens and an f/2 35mm will cost a lot less than a f/2 200mm.

the closest thing to a general rule about lens costs is that the heavier it is, the more expensive it is. the number of parts, material used and amount of glass all determine the price of a lens. since a lens with a high f-stop has a wider aperture, it's going to need more glass than an otherwise similar lens. (an f/4 200mm will be cheaper than an f/2.8 200mm because the f/4 uses smaller diameter elements). of course sometimes a slower lens with the same focal length will cost more because it's made of better materials.

so for similar lenses, the faster the more expensive. for very disparate lenses, not always.

Okay that seems to make sense. Gotta read it a few more times for it to fully absorb...

[MacrossMan]

I understand the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR is a full frame lens (not even sure what full frame is, except that it is expensive). Curious to know if this lens is compatible with the D90. I've been seeing it paired with the D700 and that it is a pro lens. I am only considering it because I have located one for a very good deal. I believe this would be a great lens for shooting my son's sporting events and should fair well with potraits as well??? What do you guys think?