Quick question about WHAT LENSES ARE GREAT?

shopgurl · Mar 9, 2007

I have a Nikon D50 with a 50mm lens. I am limited to shooting with this lens! I love shooting outdoors so what size lens should I look into purchasing for this camera? Your advice is greatly appreciated!!

Sw1tchFX · Mar 9, 2007

well it depends. Do you find yourself needing to go out wider than 50mm? or longer?

EOS_JD · Mar 9, 2007

No matter the lens you'll be restricted.

gizmo2071 · Mar 9, 2007

Do you need a wider angle lens or a larger telephoto lens?

xfloggingkylex · Mar 9, 2007

EOS_JD said:
No matter the lens you'll be restricted.

unless you get a super zoom 28-200 or something of that effect. but then the sacrafice is quality.

Don Simon · Mar 9, 2007

Well I guess a 10-500mm f/1.4 would suit most situations I can think of... but if it existed it would probably be the size of a car so again you'd be limited

Basically what we're saying is that there are many lenses which might be described as "great". At the same time there is no single lens that is perfect for every conceivable use. "Outdoors" covers quite a lot of potential subjects and environments... what kind of shots do you think you would be mostly taking? What lenses/cameras have you previously used and what focal lengths did you find yourself using the most?

Eric Piercey · Mar 9, 2007

Sounds like you might like a zoom lense. That said there are still a lot of options. This lense is pretty decent for all around shooting. Granted, it's far from a professional lense, but it's a decent value and you could get one cheap on ebay.

xfloggingkylex · Mar 9, 2007

28-200 is a large zoom
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...215&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...590&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

or if that isn't enough

28-300
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...309&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

the only problem with these is that the more of a zoom it is (the 28-200 is a 7X zoom, max focal length divided by min focal length = 200/28=~7) the more the optical quality suffers. Most large zooms like that, you'll find that the higher focal lengths get soft, so for the 300mm focal length, your pictures are going to have a natural softness and not be sharp. Also lenses like that introduce distortion, barrel distortion at the wide end, pincusion at the high end.

but, you have to make a sacrafice somewhere.

MACollum · Mar 9, 2007

Sorry to go OT but...Eric, your avatar is a riot! I had a friend in jr. high that had a Himalayan and she shaved it. It was never right in the head after that. LOL.

shopgurl · Mar 11, 2007

Wow, all your advice is great! So the more zoom there is, the more distortion in the quality of images? Thank you for your advice. I was looking at an 18-70mm and it seemed just right for me (for now). Thank you!

Ramesses · Mar 11, 2007

shopgurl said:
Wow, all your advice is great! So the more zoom there is, the more distortion in the quality of images? Thank you for your advice. I was looking at an 18-70mm and it seemed just right for me (for now). Thank you!

Hi:

Im going through the same dilemma you are going through. Telephoto lenses, particularly in the price range that we are looking at, distort especially above 90mm (135mm-film.) However, in my humble opinion, that should not be the deciding factor between one lens and the other.

The 18-70 goes up to 70mm. Period. If the 18-135 distorts beyond 70mm, do not use it. On the other hand, you always have the ability, distortions or not, to go beyond 70mm. The 18-70 does not, even if you need it.

To me the most important consideration is aperture. The 18-70 is at f/4.5 (70mm) while the 18135 is at f/5.6. Is the difference worth sacrificing the great focal range that the 18-135 provides? I simply do not know or can make up my mind. One thing is that I hate to change lenses because of the dust that gets inside. With the 18-135 you can change lenses in a controlled environment like indoors because of the focal range that gives you. Very seldom, in my opinion and experience, you go beyond 135mm (205mm-film,) ithat is provided you have a lens that goes beyond 135mm.

Best regards,

Ramesses

simonkit · Mar 11, 2007

I'm currently considering a move to DSLR & researching wide angle lenses as Landscape photography is pretty much 100% of my interest.

The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens seems to get excellent reviews, although it costs as much as some bodies

simon

Garbz · Mar 11, 2007

I second the 18-70mm I own one and it is a fantastic lens for the money. Check out the reviews at www.photozone.de they come complete with lab tests and example images.

Jeremy Z · Mar 11, 2007

What kind of outdoor photography do you find yourself missing with the 50mm lens? More landscapes? If so, go with something wider. (the 18-70 would do) More wildlife? Something much longer, like at least 200mm. Close-ups of flowers & fauna? Get a proper macro.

A lot of people here find that they can do just about everything they want with a 50mm prime (like you have) and two kit zooms, such as an 18-55 or 70 and a 50-200. That covers all your basic focal lengths, and from there, you will find what you really like, and buy specialized lenses one by one.

Tolyk · Mar 11, 2007

Jeremy Z said:
What kind of outdoor photography do you find yourself missing with the 50mm lens? More landscapes? If so, go with something wider. (the 18-70 would do) More wildlife? Something much longer, like at least 200mm. Close-ups of flowers & fauna? Get a proper macro.

A lot of people here find that they can do just about everything they want with a 50mm prime (like you have) and two kit zooms, such as an 18-55 or 70 and a 50-200. That covers all your basic focal lengths, and from there, you will find what you really like, and buy specialized lenses one by one.

Right now I have a 28 to 90 mm that came with my camera, and a 50 prime I bought seperate.

I very much like my 50 prime, as it gives me more aperture control, however I still find myself using the 28 to 90 far more frequently, as it allows me to get closer to my subject when I need.

My next purchase is more than likely going to be a 75 to 300 with macro capabilities.. not a true macro I know, but it'd still be handy for wildlife and flora shots I think.