is there a different lens out there that will achieve this?

[n.hubb22]

Hey all -

I recently did a shoot in my backyard at night, with a subject burning some stuff in my fire pit. Very low light, quick shutter speeds due to the fire, and i had two lights i was using as well. What I noticed when using my friends AF-S Nikkor 50mm 1:1.4G lens, is that that lens is amazing in low light conditions. The thing i was having difficulty with was the lack of zoom. So, what i did (and i regret it immensely now) is switched to my 18-55 kit lens so i could zoom. I really wish i wouldn't have done so.

Is there a lens out there that is as good in low light conditions as the one referenced above, that zooms? if there is, its goona be mine very soon!!! i shoot with a nikon d3000 (yes i know its an entry level cam with really crapy ISO). Just throwing that out there. I want to upgrade in the coming months ..maybe d7000? but thats a different beast.

Thanks

 

[dxqcanada]

Hmm, I do not think that there are any wide angle zooms with an aperture down to f/1.4 ... f/2.8 -> AF-S Zoom-NIKKOR 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED from Nikon

 

[tirediron]

You can always get a zoom adaptor for the 50mm 1.4, but failing that, there are no 1.4 zooms that I am aware of. There are lots of 2.8 zooms; they usually start at $1000 new, and $750 used.

 

[KmH]

is there a different lens out there that will achieve this?

You bet!

How much money do you have to spend?

Zooms rarely have a max aperture wider than f/2.8.

There is the $1800 AF-S 35 mm f/1.4 but that's not a lot different than a 50 mm focal length.

Or for about $1200 you can pick up a used AI-S manual focus only Nikon 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor AI-S Manual Focus Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

You might consider the $670 Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF AF Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

But even better is the $1770 Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens

Fast glass (wide max aperture) is not inexpensive.

Here are the 76 lenses Nikon currently offers: Camera Lenses | All NIKKOR Lenses for Digital SLR Cameras| Nikon

 

[djacobox372]

A f2.8 zoom is the fastest you'll find. The nikon examples are very expensive, so you might want to consider the tamron 28-75mm 2.8, the tamron 17-50mm 2.8, or the sigma 24-70mm 2.8--these lenses can be had for between $300 and $500.

 

[radiorickm]

I guess you have now found one of the advantages of using a PRIME lens, the ability to have a wider aperture.

We have became a ZOOM society. It may seem impossible, but there was a time when any photographer worth his weight in (anything) would be caught using a ZOOM. Why? because of the loss of IQ, and aperture.

In the old days, back in my photo journalism days I carried 3 lens: a 50mm, a 28mm, and a 135mm. You have to move around a bit, but you learned to compose the photo so that it could be made with one of the three lenses in your kit. The advantage is of course the low light capability. The disadvantge is loss of zoomability.

Let you feet be your zoom and enjoy the enhanced capabilities of the lens.

 

[n.hubb22]

A f2.8 zoom is the fastest you'll find. The nikon examples are very expensive, so you might want to consider the tamron 28-75mm 2.8, the tamron 17-50mm 2.8, or the sigma 24-70mm 2.8--these lenses can be had for between $300 and $500.

Right on, thanks for the heads up. Without opening an entirely new can of worms, are any of these lenses going to perform anywhere near the quality of the 50mm f1.4? Ive read so much from people who like/dislike tamron lenses. I guess I should just try them out eh?

 

[n.hubb22]

I guess you have now found one of the advantages of using a PRIME lens, the ability to have a wider aperture.

.

I sure have!!!! Now I want to re-do the entire shoot!!!!

Lets just say this has been quite the learning experience for me!

 

[unpopular]

... I think the biggest problem with zoom lenses is the word "zoom" which I think has de-emphasized other qualities of focal length, like spacial compression and distortion, making focal length something purely of convenience, rather than a compositional tool. People think "I need to get closer" and so they just "zoom" in without considering how a longer focal length will affect the composition.

I shoot 50mm 95% of the time. The rest I'm using enlarging lenses for closeup. Once I get an adapter, my Canon FD 35/2 Concave will likely be my primary lens. I'd like to get something in the 75-80mm range and in the 15-20mm range. But this isn't about getting closer, but about rather compressing space or widening field.

 

[n.hubb22]

... I think the biggest problem with zoom lenses is the word "zoom" which I think has de-emphasized other qualities of focal length, like spacial compression and distortion, making focal length something purely of convenience, rather than a compositional tool. People think "I need to get closer" and so they just "zoom" in without considering how a longer focal length will affect the composition.

I shoot 50mm 95% of the time. The rest I'm using enlarging lenses for closeup. Once I get an adapter, my Canon FD 35/2 Concave will likely be my primary lens. I'd like to get something in the 75-80mm range and in the 15-20mm range. But this isn't about getting closer, but about rather compressing space or widening field.

When you are talking about focal length and the lenses referenced towards the end of your post, will the focal length of say a 20mm lens be "shallower" (and by shallower i mean the length of the area that will be in focus) than say a 80mm?

 

[unpopular]

The longer the lens, typically the more shallow the depth of field - the distance that will be in focus will be less with a longer lens. So an 80mm lens will have a shallower in focus field than a 20mm lens. However, working distance also plays a roll here, the closer the focus, the more shallow the field - if you focus at infinity you might have several hundred yards in focus from the horizon, whereas if you focus at 1' you might only have a few inches. This is why larger formats produce shallow DOF with similar lenses, because you have to get in closer due to cropping.

Specifically, what I was referring to though was the appearance that objects seem closer together in depth when you use longer lenses. Say you have two objects, one 10 feet from you and another 30 feet from you. If you shot the scene a wide angle lens, the two objects would appear further apart than if you shot it with a 200mm lens.

Obviously, if the space between the two objects is important to the image, then you'd want to choose the the 20mm lens. However, if you are juxtaposing the two forms you may want to choose the 200mm lens - provided that you have enough space to back up to get the whole shot. Make sense?

 

[n.hubb22]

The longer the lens, typically the more shallow the depth of field - the distance that will be in focus will be less with a longer lens. So an 80mm lens will have a shallower in focus field than a 20mm lens. However, working distance also plays a roll here, the closer the focus, the more shallow the field - if you focus at infinity you might have several hundred yards in focus from the horizon, whereas if you focus at 1' you might only have a few inches. This is why larger formats produce shallow DOF with similar lenses, because you have to get in closer due to cropping.

Specifically, what I was referring to though was the appearance that objects seem closer together in depth when you use longer lenses. Say you have two objects, one 10 feet from you and another 30 feet from you. If you shot the scene a wide angle lens, the two objects would appear further apart than if you shot it with a 200mm lens.

Obviously, if the space between the two objects is important to the image, then you'd want to choose the the 20mm lens. However, if you are juxtaposing the two forms you may want to choose the 200mm lens - provided that you have enough space to back up to get the whole shot. Make sense?

Yeaup!!! Thanks for the clarification!! Much appreciated.

 

[KmH]

Actually, if subject scale and f-stop is kept constant, the DOF of a longer focal length is the same DOF as a short focal length.

However, with the long focal length the camera is further from the subject, to maintain the same subject scale the short focal length gives, but the longer focal length compresses the background making OOF background elements larger in the frame relative to subject scale in the image.

 

[unpopular]

After I posted, I started to kind of second guess myself. Thank Keith for your eloquent clarification.

 

[Destin]

I guess you have now found one of the advantages of using a PRIME lens, the ability to have a wider aperture.

We have became a ZOOM society. It may seem impossible, but there was a time when any photographer worth his weight in (anything) would be caught using a ZOOM. Why? because of the loss of IQ, and aperture.

In the old days, back in my photo journalism days I carried 3 lens: a 50mm, a 28mm, and a 135mm. You have to move around a bit, but you learned to compose the photo so that it could be made with one of the three lenses in your kit. The advantage is of course the low light capability. The disadvantge is loss of zoomability.

Let you feet be your zoom and enjoy the enhanced capabilities of the lens.

With today's greatly improved optics, and insanely good high iso performance the need for apertures wider than 2.8 has greatly decreased. Sure, it's still great to have a few fast primes, but gone are the days when pros will use nothing but primes. The optics in high end zoom lenses have gotten to the point that it is VERY hard to tell the resulting images apart from a good prime lens.