lens question

copper · May 12, 2010

I own a d90 and currently all i have is the kit lens, i want to know what would what be my best upgrade..Im doing photos for friends and family...such as family pictures, and they've all been outside shots/natural lights, mainly because i dont have my own studio and prefer natural light. Im also doing my best friends wedding in june, which will be an outside wedding, any suggestions welcomed there as well.

I dont want to go out and spend a ton of money for a lens i wont have the use for, must less understand what its for..haha..im also looking into taking some photography classes this summer, any recommendations/suggestions on what classes I should look into for just starting off?

feel free to look at my site and offer comments or edits as well!

http://copper.smugmug.com

Vinny · May 12, 2010

If it's the 18-105 then it will serve some usefulness. Since it is going to be outside you have the fortune of probably not needing a very fast lens which is why the zoom is going to be OK. If you plan on taking portraits then a prime lens in the 85mm range will be great. If you plan on taking potos at night - you need a flash unit.

As far as classes - what do you already know about photography? I would build from there. If you are real newbie then I suggest a reading up on photography before the wedding.

flea77 · May 12, 2010

I would still recommend a fast lens, not for the speed, for the bokeh. Since you will be shooting people, and weddings (whole new can-o-worms) getting the subject isolated from the background would be way more important to me. Maybe a 24-70 2.8?

Allan

KmH · May 13, 2010

flea77 said:
I would still recommend a fast lens, not for the speed, for the bokeh. Since you will be shooting people, and weddings (whole new can-o-worms) getting the subject isolated from the background would be way more important to me. Maybe a 24-70 2.8?

Allan

Bokeh and the DOF (depth-of-field) used to separate a subject from the background, are not the same thing.

Using a large aperture and the resulting shallow DOF can be problematic for a neophyte photographer using a camera that has rather limited auto focus capabilities (only 1 cross-type focus point for the D90).

Care must be taken to ensure the image sensor plane is parallel to the intended focus plane.

The 24-70 f/2.8 ($1740, new) Allan mentioned is a popular lens with professional wedding photographers. An alternative would be the 24-85 f/2.8-4, at $700 if any were currently available new.

The 70-200 f/2.8 VR ($2300, new) is also popular with pro wedding photographers. Many shoot using 2 bodies so both lenses are already mounted. The alternative to the 70-200 is the 80-200 f/2.8, at $1100 new.

Using an unfamiliar lens usually entails a learning curve.

Lastly, lenses can be rented either locally or online at places like www.LensRentals.com or www.LensProToGo.com.

I would recommend renting for the wedding and getting more experience before investing in upgrading your lens(s).

If you go the rental route you should practise with the rental lens(s) for a couple of days before you try to shoot your best friends wedding with them.

santacruz · May 13, 2010

I do agree with 24-70 f/2.8 but it is very expensive.
Alternative is Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II which is cost around $500

-Santacruz

IgsEMT · May 13, 2010

If you have no clue what you're doing, you shouldn't be shooting a wedding. It might be a great practice for you BUT for B&G there will be no redos - if you F'up, IT IS DONE. So again, if you have no clue what you're doing, DON'T DO IT, for their sake.

18-105, not a fastest or sharpest lens in the lineup but nonetheless a decent enough lens that. On number of occasions, I've easily shot a whole wedding with it and at other time with 18-200. In the picture controls, boost the sharpness to about 5-6 and it should be fine.
You're next purchase should be a flash. Photography (w/o light) is NO photography. So, if you're willing to spend $500+ get SB900 but keep in mind that b/c of the thermosensor is has a tendance to shut off when overheats - so you have to use as little as power possible on it when shooting to prevent the oopsy

if ALL you're willing to spend is about $500 then sb600 + TTL cord + bracket. If you're wondering why the bracket -> for one, get that flash OFF your camera, plus with bracket flipping ability you can play wit direction of your light thus adding glamor to your images. Again, photography means drawing with light - LEARN how to use light.

supraman215 · May 13, 2010

I love my 35mm 1.8 Nikkor. It's cheap and produces great pics. All I seem to do is portraits.

myfotoguy · May 13, 2010

I agree with IgsEMT. You will quite possibly need a flash unit for fill light, even if the event is outside.

Dao · May 13, 2010

Agree with flash. It is useful especially outdoor sunny day.

copper · May 13, 2010

thanks for your responses.

for the one if i dont know what im doing, i shouldnt do it, im not completely clueless. also, as far as not doing it goes, she told me she loves my work, and would love to know her best friend did her wedding. i've mentioned not being completely comfortable with it, but the photographer who did her bridal portraits already had a wedding booked for that day. she's also trying to bring in another photographer she knows, per my suggestion.

im comfortable with the lens i own, just was curious for upgrades in the future.

but again, thank you all.

Czar · May 13, 2010

Did not want to create an another thread for pretty much the same question.

I have the the exact same initial setup as the OP, a D90 with the 18-105mm kit lenses. After using the d90 for a while, and getting used to it, i figured there are two areas in terms of hardware that could be significantly improved. The Flash and the Lens. The flash was more or less a easy decision, i am going to go with the sb-600 unit.

As for the lenses, i am just overwhelmed. As of right now, i just do general photography, if i had to break it down, i would say 40% sports, 25% Macro, 25% Landscapes, 10% people.

Money is not a issue, but at the same time since i am not a professional by any means, and this new lens will still be a learning lens, i put the limit at 1000$ max. I am currently leaning towards the 18-200 mm lens, i read a few reviews, and they all seem favorable. I have no issue with switching out lenses either, just that i wouldn't have to on the 18-200 is just a added bonus i suppose.

My question is, for under 1000$ is there any other lens setup i could have that is better than the 18-200mm? And can anyone from personal experience tell me the difference in quality between the 18-105 mm and the 18-200 mm, especially in terms of Macro.

Thank you.

Dao · May 13, 2010

Czar said:
My question is, for under 1000$ is there any other lens setup i could have that is better than the 18-200mm?

You may need to tell us what you really mean by better.

There are a lot of criteria and different person weight each differently.

Czar · May 13, 2010

Dao said:
You may need to tell us what you really mean by better.

There are a lot of criteria and different person weight each differently.

I understand, I just wanted something better than the 18-105 mm kit lenses for general purpose use, and i don't mind carrying around a few lenses. I am looking specifically to improve macro performance, and sharpness when it comes to landscapes, two things i am not completely happy with the 18-105mm. I am sure low light performance will not be a big concern when i get the sb-600 flash unit.

I was looking at three options, 18-70mm+70-300mm, 18-55mm+55-200mm, and the 18-200mm lenses. I am just unsure which is a better setup(which may be subjective), and wanted to know, if there are any specific advantages/disadvantages to to getting any one of the setups.

Thanks.

Dao · May 13, 2010

For macro, you may want to take a look at a dedicated macro lens. What type of macro shots are you planning to take? bugs or just stationary object such as coins or some others.

As far as general lens goes, optical performance of a "super zoom" type lens usually is not as good as the zoom lens that covers less focal range. So I expect 18-55mm + 55-200mm is optically better than the 18-200mm lens.

Are they better? yes optically. But 18-200mm is better if someone is looking for convenience.

Czar · May 13, 2010

Dao said:
For macro, you may want to take a look at a dedicated macro lens. What type of macro shots are you planning to take? bugs or just stationary object such as coins or some others.

As far as general lens goes, optical performance of a "super zoom" type lens usually is not as good as the zoom lens that covers less focal range. So I expect 18-55mm + 55-200mm is optically better than the 18-200mm lens.

Are they better? yes optically. But 18-200mm is better if someone is looking for convenience.

As of now, mostly stationary. Eventually i will get a dedicated macro lens, like the 105mm micro-Nikkor. But at this point, where i am still learning, i do not want to spend that kind of money on a dedicated lens. A good general purpose lens with a decent macro performance would be ideal.

I honestly did not realize the point about optical performance, seems like if convenience is not a issue, 18-70mm+70-300mm, would be a good choice.