$150 budget to expand equipment

manaheim · Jul 6, 2008

I cannot recommend strongly enough buying an external flash. IMO it's one of the most critical things to have in your toolkit. If you can swing an extra ~$30 you can pull of an SB600, which is great. It's not going to be the be-all-end-all for portrait work, but it's a start and can be used as a slave flash as you expand your equipment later.

gundy74 · Jul 6, 2008

ive had an 18-55mm and a 70-300mm for 2 yrs and i bought a 50mm f/1.8 a few months ago and it was well worth the purchase. if you look around you can probably find it for less than $129.

Then again, i kinda wish i had a speedlite...

Bifurcator · Jul 6, 2008

"cause the 50 is kick butt" and "it was well worth the purchase" still doesn't answer it for me tho. If a beginner or intermediate user already has 55mm what advantage would be obtained by spending their last money on a 50mm prime?

Mav · Jul 6, 2008

Depth of field and ability to isolate subjects better. And the nifty 50 is one of the sharpest, contrastiest, and most colorful lenses that Nikon makes for a whopping $100.

icassell · Jul 6, 2008

I see what Bifurcator is saying. No one is suggesting there is no role for the 50mm. The question in my mind is whether that is the most sensible use of his next $150. You can do a hell of alot with that combination of 18-55 and 55-200. I would actually suggest putting the money back into your pocket and spending some time taking pictures and learning for a while.

It is so easy to get hung up on equipment and to forget what you bought it for to begin with (I'm as guilty of this as anyone). Photography has been around for quite a while now and some amazing images have come out of very simple equipment. We're fortunate to live at a time where there are all these fancy conveniences, but the basic idea of using light to make an image is the same. It just takes practice, practice, and more practice -- those gorgeous photographs you see on the cover of magazines reflect drawers (disk drives) full of bad images by the same photographers.

I'd consider saving that 150 until you can afford a good tripod. It will do more to improve your photography than another lens.

Bifurcator · Jul 6, 2008

Mav said:
Depth of field and ability to isolate subjects better. And the nifty 50 is one of the sharpest, contrastiest, and most colorful lenses that Nikon makes for a whopping $100.

OK. I just looked and his other two lenses are f5.6 and f4 at 55mm so I take your point.

I'm still kinda with icassell's considerations here tho. I guess it would be different if he had a few thousand to spend.

--
<wanders off grumbling something about inexpensive consumer grade lenses... grrr... F5.6 grrr... F4 grr>

jteknet · Jul 6, 2008

I'm just not sure what to say in response.

(thought I'd let you know I'm reading and taking all your advice into consideration)

Thanks a million for it too. You're debating with each other is going to make me better at what I do and I see no reason to say anything right now.

As of right now I'm still leaning toward the 1.8 just for the sheer fact of the things I've heard about it. Only reason I'd need a 50mm prime @ f/1.8 is just for photography in dim situations, correct? If that's really the only reason for it, I don't know that I can justify buying it.

Bifurcator · Jul 6, 2008

Well, kinda/not-really/yes.

I assume you know what DOF is and how it works? If not search here for that or on google. There are some great interactive web applets and tutorials with examples and etc. on the topic. Anyway, yes the 1.8 will allow you to shoot a little faster in low light but more importantly it'll give you (the ability to achieve) dramatic DOF blur. This same principle additionally allows you to isolate a subject (good for all kinds of stuff but people always mention portraiture 1st) by blurring the BG and FG elements. Something like this maybe:

Mav is also saying that the glass and design are optically superior to the zooms you now posses which I believe is true. Actually most primes are "optically superior" to most zooms but... Anyway that's the short of it I guess.

On the other hand with a flash unit and a $30 AC close-up lens you can do this http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=126794 with the lenses you have now. It all depends what you wanna do.

Emerana · Jul 6, 2008

Yeah what mav said

The OP was talking about doing portrait work, and work in natural settings. The 50 is a great portrait lens, where kit lenses fall short in that area. Making a reflector, using natural light (which in my humble opinion is way better place to start then worry about lamps and flashes, etc) and a 50 would really give him a good set up for what he stated he wanted to work on.

Also, my thought, was he will likely want to keep his 50mm f/1.8 for a long time because it does have several uses, where a cheepo flash might limit you and need to be replaced in short time.

That was my thoughts.

And no, the 50 is a great lens for portrait work. Actually very versatile too. I use mine alot.

jteknet · Jul 6, 2008

Bifurcator said:
Well, kinda/not-really/yes. I assume you know what DOF is and how it works? If not search here for that or on google. There are some great interactive web applets and tutorials with examples and etc. on the topic. Anyway, yes the 1.8 will allow you to shoot a little faster in low light but more importantly it'll give you (the ability to achieve) dramatic DOF blur. This same principle additionally allows you to isolate a subject (good for all kinds of stuff but people always mention portraiture 1st) by blurring the BG and FG elements. Something like this maybe:

Mav is also saying that the glass and design are optically superior to the zooms you now posses which I believe is true. Actually most primes are "optically superior" to most zooms but... Anyway that's the short of it I guess.

On the other hand with a flash unit and a $30 AC close-up lens you can do this http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=126794 with the lenses you have now. It all depends what you wanna do.

This can't be untouched with no post processing... that's freaking incredible. What camera was this taken with and can my d80 do it with the f/1.8? If so, that image alone just sold me on the lens.

Battou · Jul 6, 2008

jteknet said:
This can't be untouched with no post processing... that's freaking incredible. What camera was this taken with and can my d80 do it with the f/1.8? If so, that image alone just sold me on the lens.

That looks to be more along the lines of f/2.8 or f/4 with the camera positioned on a peice of glass with the objects beneith it at a considerable distance making the bokeh look that much smoother.

In other words yeah it should.

*Mike* · Jul 6, 2008

A flash is an essential part of any camera kit. Buy a flash. It'll open up whole new avenues for you...

And if you're really on a budget and can't swing a Nikon, pick up a Metz, or a generic sunpak or vivitar.

icassell · Jul 6, 2008

Well, actually the reason to have an f1.8 in addition to the dim-light application is to be able to reduce your depth of field in brighter light (otherwise you would have to use a larger f-stop/smaller aperture to avoid overexposing your image -- or use ND filters).

Bifurcator · Jul 7, 2008

icassell said:
Well, actually the reason to have an f1.8 in addition to the dim-light application is to be able to reduce your depth of field in brighter light (otherwise you would have to use a larger f-stop/smaller aperture to avoid overexposing your image -- or use ND filters).

Hey that's what I said.

Oh, wait, you said it directly and to the point.

hehe...

jteknet said:
This can't be untouched with no post processing... that's freaking incredible. What camera was this taken with and can my d80 do it with the f/1.8? If so, that image alone just sold me on the lens.

There was post. I sharpened it some and upped the saturation a tiny bit if I remember right. (also I selectively removed all the noise and then added my own [1.5% Add Noise in PS].)

There's no funky setup tricks here and you can do it with the lenses you have now by screwing on a $35 No.3 AC Close-Up lens. (EDIT: It may have been a No.4 I have 15 or 20 of these things and forget just now which I used. I can look it up if you need me to.) I used my LCD screens displaying white at 80% (?) brightness tilted down and angled like a roof for the lighting. I think you can get close to that with an f1.2 though. The camera that took this pic is this one. Use the mouse to rotate the QT VR animation. Mostly I just used the image as an example of dramatic DOF effects like icassell and I are talking about.