Beginner Photographer Looking At Next Steps

[tlturn]

I can see that by some of the interesting conversations that I have read. I want to be practical about purchases, I'm not one who needs the latest greatest in order to make myself feel good. I care more about functionality, vs. added value. I love the ancronym by the way .

I don't think that the kit telephoto is good enough to shoot crisp photos when I zoom in. To your point, I also doesn't think that it can't reach far enough (Say if I wanted to frame a Goose waded in water and I was 50 feet away). So maybe I can start there? Im not sure how if a lower f/stop helps in this scenario.

Thanks for weighing in!

If your looking for a bit more reach, I'd consider a 70-300 mm zoom lens. I've used both a Tamron 70-300 mm 4.5-5.6 VC and as well as the Nikkor 70-300 mm 4.5-5.6 VR, both are fantastic lenses. I actually prefer the Tamron of the two, the Nikkor is an outstanding lens and has a higher build quality but I love the way the Tamron renders. This was shot with my Tamron 70-300 mm:

20140927t 396 by Todd Robbins, on Flickr

Thanks! This shot looks great! This is the type I would like if I was out taking a stroll through the woods by the lake and wanted to shoot some wildlife. That's the right price point as well (for the Tameron).

I wonder how much your body played a part in this render though. The D7000 is quite a few steps ahead of the D3000.

 

[robbins.photo]

Thanks! This shot looks great! This is the type I would like if I was out taking a stroll through the woods by the lake and wanted to shoot some wildlife. That's the right price point as well (for the Tameron).

I wonder how much your body played a part in this render though. The D7000 is quite a few steps ahead of the D3000.

I shot the D5100 and D5200 before upgrading to the D7100. The 7100 does have a bit better AF system, but this shot like many of my others was taken using a single focus point rather than allowing the camera to select from multiple focus points - so you should be able to get shots like this out of your D3200 without too much difficulty.

 

[tlturn]

Terminology - Start here => Digital Photography Tutorials

F/stop helps "DOF" Depth of Field ... in that link above as you go through it.
Shutter speed helps to keep subjects "sharp". The more a subject moves the faster a Shutter Speed you need.
ISO helps you maintain your exposure traingle for a proper exposure.

So you could have different settings for a duck standing there (somewhat slow), versus wading in the water (fast), versus flying/landing in the water (fastest) all dependent upon your cameras/lens /weather / lighting capabilities.

Thanks for the suggestion! Motion blur, and freezing motion of birds...not my forte. I want go get better though. Outdoors is my thing. I'm never out when the lighting is best, so that doesn't help either.

 

[KmH]

The D40, D40x, D60, D3x00 line and the D5x00 line are 'compact' entry-level Nikon's that don't have an auto focus motor and screw-drive system in them to make them compact.

So if you want to use auto focus instead of manually focusing you need to buy lenses that have an auto focus motor in the lens for your D3x00.
Nikon AF-S lenses have an auto focus motor in the lens.
Nikon AF lenses do not have an auto focus motor in the lens. But the AF lenses do have a CPU in them and they do send AF info to the compact Nikon DSLRs (D40, D40x, D60, D3x00, D5x00) so when the photographer turns the AF ring on the lens manually the camera will turn on the In Focus indicator in the camera's viewfinder. The compact Nikons even have an additional manual focusing aid called Rangefinder mode.
Rangefinder mode uses the exposure indicator scale to show the photographer which direction, and about how much, to turn the focus ring on an AF lens to achieve focus.
In other words, the photographer only has to act as an AF motor for the lens. The rest of the AF system is there and available to help.

Now that I am retired, I get by with 3 camera bodies, none of them a compact Nikon without the AF motor.
• 6.2 MP (CCD) D50
• 10.2 MP (CCD) D200
• 12.3 mp (CMOS) D300s

For lenses I have:
• Nikon AF-S 18-55 mm 3.5-5.6G VR II (consumer grade) I rarely use it.
• Nikon AF 24-85 mm f/2.8-4D w/1:2 macro - walk around/everyday lens.
• Nikon AF 80-200 mm f/2.8D - need-more-reach lens

I also have 2 Yongnuo YN-560 II manual speedlights, radio triggers for off camera flash use, 2 lights stands, an assortment of convertible umbrellas from 40 to 60 inches, and a 5-in-1 reflector and stand.

 

[Derrel]

So, here is what *I found* was most helpful to me from 1976 to 2000 in my film SLR era, and the many customers I sold cameras to years ago, at the beginning of the 35mm autofocusing film SLR craze. A medium telephoto lens with an f/2.8 maximum f/stop: the 135/2.8 in the 1970's and 80's: on a DX NIkon the modern mostly-equivalent lens would be the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 AF-S G, at just under $400 brand new. A reallllllllllllllllly good "first telephoto". Easy to afford, easy to carry, easy to envision the look of, and very sharp and crisp, and at 127mm e-View on DX Nikon, a really useful, moderately narrow-angle lens.

A 28mm f/2.8 moderately wide-angle lens; on DX the modern mostly-equivalent would be a 20mm prime lens, and the new Nikon 20mm G-series would be a good one. On a budget, the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens would be a VERY nice lens...it has nice bokeh, and good speed of f/1.4 and it is designed for DX...I have seen used ones as low as $125 here locally. The new plastic fantastic Nikon G-series f/1.8 lenses are very good for the money. The 50mm and 85mm are the lowest cost models, and the others are more expensive.

A 90 to 105mm macro lens, or a 180mm macro lens. This is a great tool. Tamron 90mm AF-SP would be my suggestion, make sure it is a newish one that has the in-lens focusing motor, so your current camera can focus it. The longer, the better, in my book. Skip the 60mm macro, and go for a 90 or 100 or 105mm on DX.

A 12mm or a short extension tube. Kenko AF tube...you WANT an externsion tube that has AF contacts in it for use with that camera. The 12mm tube is the handiest.

A GOOD speedlight and a Nikon SC-28 or SC-29 flash connecting cord. The Nikon SB 800 is my favorite. A speedlight and a 1-meter pigtail connecting cord is super-handy.

You can do a HUGE amount with a semi-wide-angle lens, a medium telephoto of fast aperture like the 85mm f/1.8, and an extension tube for close-ups with it, and then a speedlight used on an SC-28 or SC-29 TTL remote cord, for both close-ups, for bounce flash portraits, and for flash in left-hand-on-cord-and camera-in-right-hand flash work where you can lift up and angle down the flash, so its beam creates a bit of directionality to the bare flash light, and throws the shadows down and to the right of people.

The idea is this: get THREE good, fast prime lenses that are easy to learn to see with, and which are not of limited use, and which do not make BORING images. The MOST-boring crap comes out of ultra-wide and wide-angle lenses used by intermediate or new shooters, trust me (10-20,10-22,10-24,11-16,12-24mm lenses....ugggh,please, no)...it takes a LOT of discipline, and training, to use lenses with wider than 90 degree diagonal angular view. The drop-off in size of things beyond 5 meters with the wide-angle lenses make for HUGELY boring images in many situations. Your 18-55 is an okay normal lens.

Try learning to SEE and compose with a semi-wide, a normal, and a medium telephoto, as well as to see close-in, small scenes, using the 50 or 85mm lenses and a 12mm or 13mm extension tube, and very often, a speedlight flash on an SC-28 cord.

TO recap: A medium telephoto lens; moderately wide-angle lens;macro lens;short extension tube;GOOD speedlight and flash connecting cord. That is six things.

A 35mm lens is the normal, and a 50mm/1.8 AF-S G would be a short telephoto. I find "normal" to be boring, and prefer the semi-wide or the short tele or medium tele options.

Leave the macro lens for last if you want to, and pair the extension tube with the 85mm lens as a substitute.

 

[Gary A.]

From my personal experience and at your level of photography ... Equipment will only delivered small improvements ... Enchancement in operator skill and experience will deliver big improvement in your photography. I suggest you use what you have until you harmonize with your present equipment. Until your lenses are an extension of your eyes, the camera an extension of your hands, when you know/visualize the focal length and DOF you desire before bringing the viewfinder up to your eye. Learn the strengths and weaknesses of the lenses you have, the sweet spots of focal lengths and aperture for your zooms ... Harmonize to the point where you feel uncomfortable leaving the house without a camera. When you have harmonized with your len(s) you'll know what your next lens should be, where the gap is in your system or at what focal length(s) you desire the ultra sharpness or creamy bokeh from a premium lens.

This isn't what you want to hear/read. It isn't nearly as much fun as acquiring new hardware ... But it is a very good way to best an exceptional photographer and a proven path for improvement. Adding new equipment before harmonizing with what you have just prolongs the learning curve and dilutes your focus on what you already have.

 

[tlturn]

So, here is what *I found* was most helpful to me from 1976 to 2000 in my film SLR era, and the many customers I sold cameras to years ago, at the beginning of the 35mm autofocusing film SLR craze. A medium telephoto lens with an f/2.8 maximum f/stop: the 135/2.8 in the 1970's and 80's: on a DX NIkon the modern mostly-equivalent lens would be the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 AF-S G, at just under $400 brand new. A reallllllllllllllllly good "first telephoto". Easy to afford, easy to carry, easy to envision the look of, and very sharp and crisp, and at 127mm e-View on DX Nikon, a really useful, moderately narrow-angle lens.

A 28mm f/2.8 moderately wide-angle lens; on DX the modern mostly-equivalent would be a 20mm prime lens, and the new Nikon 20mm G-series would be a good one. On a budget, the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens would be a VERY nice lens...it has nice bokeh, and good speed of f/1.4 and it is designed for DX...I have seen used ones as low as $125 here locally. The new plastic fantastic Nikon G-series f/1.8 lenses are very good for the money. The 50mm and 85mm are the lowest cost models, and the others are more expensive.

A 90 to 105mm macro lens, or a 180mm macro lens. This is a great tool. Tamron 90mm AF-SP would be my suggestion, make sure it is a newish one that has the in-lens focusing motor, so your current camera can focus it. The longer, the better, in my book. Skip the 60mm macro, and go for a 90 or 100 or 105mm on DX.

A 12mm or a short extension tube. Kenko AF tube...you WANT an externsion tube that has AF contacts in it for use with that camera. The 12mm tube is the handiest.

A GOOD speedlight and a Nikon SC-28 or SC-29 flash connecting cord. The Nikon SB 800 is my favorite. A speedlight and a 1-meter pigtail connecting cord is super-handy.

You can do a HUGE amount with a semi-wide-angle lens, a medium telephoto of fast aperture like the 85mm f/1.8, and an extension tube for close-ups with it, and then a speedlight used on an SC-28 or SC-29 TTL remote cord, for both close-ups, for bounce flash portraits, and for flash in left-hand-on-cord-and camera-in-right-hand flash work where you can lift up and angle down the flash, so its beam creates a bit of directionality to the bare flash light, and throws the shadows down and to the right of people.

The idea is this: get THREE good, fast prime lenses that are easy to learn to see with, and which are not of limited use, and which do not make BORING images. The MOST-boring crap comes out of ultra-wide and wide-angle lenses used by intermediate or new shooters, trust me (10-20,10-22,10-24,11-16,12-24mm lenses....ugggh,please, no)...it takes a LOT of discipline, and training, to use lenses with wider than 90 degree diagonal angular view. The drop-off in size of things beyond 5 meters with the wide-angle lenses make for HUGELY boring images in many situations. Your 18-55 is an okay normal lens.

Try learning to SEE and compose with a semi-wide, a normal, and a medium telephoto, as well as to see close-in, small scenes, using the 50 or 85mm lenses and a 12mm or 13mm extension tube, and very often, a speedlight flash on an SC-28 cord.

TO recap: A medium telephoto lens; moderately wide-angle lens;macro lens;short extension tube;GOOD speedlight and flash connecting cord. That is six things.

A 35mm lens is the normal, and a 50mm/1.8 AF-S G would be a short telephoto. I find "normal" to be boring, and prefer the semi-wide or the short tele or medium tele options.

Leave the macro lens for last if you want to, and pair the extension tube with the 85mm lens as a substitute.

Thank you for this nugget Derrel!

 

[tlturn]

From my personal experience and at your level of photography ... Equipment will only delivered small improvements ... Enchancement in operator skill and experience will deliver big improvement in your photography. I suggest you use what you have until you harmonize with your present equipment. Until your lenses are an extension of your eyes, the camera an extension of your hands, when you know/visualize the focal length and DOF you desire before bringing the viewfinder up to your eye. Learn the strengths and weaknesses of the lenses you have, the sweet spots of focal lengths and aperture for your zooms ... Harmonize to the point where you feel uncomfortable leaving the house without a camera. When you have harmonized with your len(s) you'll know what your next lens should be, where the gap is in your system or at what focal length(s) you desire the ultra sharpness or creamy bokeh from a premium lens.

This isn't what you want to hear/read. It isn't nearly as much fun as acquiring new hardware ... But it is a very good way to best an exceptional photographer and a proven path for improvement. Adding new equipment before harmonizing with what you have just prolongs the learning curve and dilutes your focus on what you already have.

No, I'm open to that...thanks for the constructive criticism. I went back through and looked at some of my shots last night, and while I think that they are "ok" for a beginner, I think that they could be better. that could also be the perfectionist in me also

 

[tlturn]

A few shots that I took. Lighting wasn't ideal, but I think that they came out ok.

Decent Shots

 

[Gary A.]

I took a look. I appreciate the two on the upper right best. The first tells me that you're looking at the light and the second says that you're open for images where ever they may appear. If I was your mentor I would recommend you get a 50mm f/2 or f/1.8. Cheap but make sure it is sharp, (most are). Only shoot with that lens for a spell. Fill the frame with your images. Take your time, try to capture images which require no cropping in post. Zoom with your feet. Don't be afraid to get dirty or wet in order to fill the frame, (take a plastic bag for the camera). There will be a point, as you harmonize with the lens and your creativity kicks in capturing interesting images with only one focal length, that you'll know what the next lens should be ... either long, or wide or even a macro.

Art and perfection go hand in hand ... can't have exceptional art without perfection.

 

[Derrel]

Gary's suggested 50mm f/1.8 lens would mean for you would be the 50mm f/1.8 AF-S G Nikkor: that is the lower-cost of the two current Nikon-made 50mm lenses that will autofocus with your camera.

50mm on APS-C Nikon is 50mm x 1.53, or a 76.5mm lens equivalent on 35mm film or FX Nikon. Let's round it to the closest traditional equivalent....the Leica 75mm.
I have a 75mm Color-Heliar from Cosina for 35mm film....it's an interesting lens length...it's a short telephoto lens, and was common as the short end of the 70-210 or 70-150, or 75-150mm zoom lens category we had for about 20 years, from the later 1970's to the 1990's.

I am suggesting the 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor AF-S G series prime lens, for a 127mm equivalent....a little bit looser framing than the 135mm lens length gave. More of a "telephoto look"...more background magnification than a 50mm, a narrower angle of view BEHIND the subject matter in the foreground, and frankly much,much better grade optics than the 50/1.8 AF-S G lens.

Either way...the 50/1.8 or the 85/1.8 G would get you into fast-aperture capability, fast focusing, and this is the thing that Gary and I are sort of approaching from different perspectives: the basic tools teach you how to SEE things, how to shoot things, using a semi-selective point of view. That's what the single focal length lenses do--they make you change your location to get the composition you want, they force you to move your feet, to get the changes in the pictures, and while that might sound like a net negative, it's a net positive. The semi-wide angle (20mm on APS-C), the short telephoto on APS_C (the 50mm) and the medium telephoto on APS-C (85mm or 90mm) are probably the three easiest to master types of lenses. They work on many subjects, in many real-world situations.

I think learning to see is easiest by approaching things from the telephoto end,not the wide-angle end, and also, the telephoto range LIMITS the picture to fewer elements, and to less physical space, and it tends to provide a sort of built-in cropping effect that makes the pictures more concentrated, onto a smaller area of the world, and tends to magnify things. A lot of beginners flounder, zooming in, zooming out, etc.etc.. The 50 or 85mm 1.8 AF-S G lenses will nip that bad habit right in the bud.

Having a short telephoto lens, like a 50/1.8 means you have selective focus options that the 18-55 takes from you by way of its f/5.6 maximum aperture value. The 85/1.8 is such a high-performance lens that you could leave the 55-200 behind, and just crop the images, and still have a better image than the slow 55-200 could yield--ESPECIALLY in marginal lighting conditons, or on action subjects. I've shot the 55-200 for a few thousand frames, and it is a very mediocre performer, with slow AF, refusal to focus at times, focus hunts, etc,etc...the 85/1.8 on the other hand goes "Zzt!" and locks on.

 

[The_Traveler]

Do you want to be a better photographer or do you want to buy stuff?
Equating more equipment with improvement as a photographer is just plain wrong.
I use one lens for about 95% of my shots.
Do you think that buying that lens is the key to success?

I totally agree with Gary and want to add this: 11 Tips for Beginning Photographers - How to Start Taking Pictures

There are no shortcuts, no tricks, no tips - there is only learning, experience and skills.

 

[Derrel]

Do you want to be a better photographer or do you want to buy stuff?
Equating more equipment with improvement as a photographer is just plain wrong.
I use one lens for about 95% of my shots.
Do you think that buying that lens is the key to success?

I totally agree with Gary and want to add this: 11 Tips for Beginning Photographers - How to Start Taking Pictures

There are no shortcuts, no tricks, no tips - there is only learning, experience and skills.

I seldom even see what a select few posters write here, let alone respond to them, but when I see nonsense, I feel compelled to respond.

There's a commonly held prejudice that beginning and intermediate practitioners do not deserve to have anything even remotely "good" as far as equipment. The idea is that it's the man, not the tool, that does all of the work. The idea is that the beginner and intermediate need to hone their skills on the absolute bottom-of-the-barrel stuff, and only after they are journeymen, do they then need to worry about getting some mid- or even high-grade equipment.

Beginning and intermediate practitioners in ANY hobby or sport or activity benefit the most, by percentage of improvement, by having access to the good tools the "experts" tell us that those beginners have no need for, or have not 'earned" yet. The 50/1.8 G is a carpenter's tape measure. The 85/1.8 G is a carpenter's level. Are you seriously gonna listen to somebody who tells you, "You don't deserve to have a tape measure OR a bubble level?" Sometimes the degree of ridiculousness on this forum shocks me. Just so much ill-considered advice.

It's just like my grandfather said to my dad when my dad wanted to get me started in fishing. He said, "Richard, you can't give a kid junk like that spinning reel. I tried the thing out, and it's garbage. That reel will be nothing but a nightmare. Go back to the store and get him a Mitchell 300 spinning reel, something that'll work and not this cheap junk reel you bought him."

Stop wasting your time with an awful lens like the 55-200. I've used one on a consumer Nikon body, mostly in Hawaii. It's designed for one thing: to be sold at $199 to $139.

 

[Gary A.]

Gary's suggested 50mm f/1.8 lens would mean for you would be the 50mm f/1.8 AF-S G Nikkor: that is the lower-cost of the two current Nikon-made 50mm lenses that will autofocus with your camera.

50mm on APS-C Nikon is 50mm x 1.53, or a 76.5mm lens equivalent on 35mm film or FX Nikon. Let's round it to the closest traditional equivalent....the Leica 75mm.
I have a 75mm Color-Heliar from Cosina for 35mm film....it's an interesting lens length...it's a short telephoto lens, and was common as the short end of the 70-210 or 70-150, or 75-150mm zoom lens category we had for about 20 years, from the later 1970's to the 1990's.

I am suggesting the 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor AF-S G series prime lens, for a 127mm equivalent....a little bit looser framing than the 135mm lens length gave. More of a "telephoto look"...more background magnification than a 50mm, a narrower angle of view BEHIND the subject matter in the foreground, and frankly much,much better grade optics than the 50/1.8 AF-S G lens.

Either way...the 50/1.8 or the 85/1.8 G would get you into fast-aperture capability, fast focusing, and this is the thing that Gary and I are sort of approaching from different perspectives: the basic tools teach you how to SEE things, how to shoot things, using a semi-selective point of view. That's what the single focal length lenses do--they make you change your location to get the composition you want, they force you to move your feet, to get the changes in the pictures, and while that might sound like a net negative, it's a net positive. The semi-wide angle (20mm on APS-C), the short telephoto on APS_C (the 50mm) and the medium telephoto on APS-C (85mm or 90mm) are probably the three easiest to master types of lenses. They work on many subjects, in many real-world situations.

I think learning to see is easiest by approaching things from the telephoto end,not the wide-angle end, and also, the telephoto range LIMITS the picture to fewer elements, and to less physical space, and it tends to provide a sort of built-in cropping effect that makes the pictures more concentrated, onto a smaller area of the world, and tends to magnify things. A lot of beginners flounder, zooming in, zooming out, etc.etc.. The 50 or 85mm 1.8 AF-S G lenses will nip that bad habit right in the bud.

Having a short telephoto lens, like a 50/1.8 means you have selective focus options that the 18-55 takes from you by way of its f/5.6 maximum aperture value. The 85/1.8 is such a high-performance lens that you could leave the 55-200 behind, and just crop the images, and still have a better image than the slow 55-200 could yield--ESPECIALLY in marginal lighting conditons, or on action subjects. I've shot the 55-200 for a few thousand frames, and it is a very mediocre performer, with slow AF, refusal to focus at times, focus hunts, etc,etc...the 85/1.8 on the other hand goes "Zzt!" and locks on.

Oops, my 50mm recommendation was based upon a FF camera. For landscapes and hiking shots and to help you up the photographic learning curve, I suggest a 35mm f/2 or f/2.8 ... whatever Nikkor makes. (I'm not a Nikon digital guy.) I think a normal-ish FOV (around FF 50mm) is a very good starting point.

G

 

[The_Traveler]

I seldom even see what a select few posters write here, let alone respond to them, but when I see nonsense, I feel compelled to respond.

I think it is amusing that Derrel, in an attempt at a subtle ad hominem, finds a way to say he doesn't read what I write and then misquotes me.
I didn't say that he shouldn't buy anything but that he should understand the relationship between equipment and improvement.

BTW, I also stated that I agree with Gary about a short fast lens.

I will pay more attention to Derrel when he actually starts taking and posting pictures.