Lense help

[shev76]

hi, i am going to start taking photos for a used car website and was wondering what lenses would be reccomended for it...a shop has suggested 17-50 tamron but was also wondering what people on here think too

at the moment ive got a D5100 with kit lenses


thanks

 

[raventepes]

I'd go for the Nikon 16-85, or if you want really wide, Tokina 11-16 Pro II.

 

[SCraig]

hi, i am going to start taking photos for a used car website and was wondering what lenses would be reccomended for it...a shop has suggested 17-50 tamron but was also wondering what people on here think too

at the moment ive got a D5100 with kit lenses


thanks

If you have the kit lenses then you should already have an 18-55 or something similar that should work fine. I'd worry more about lighting than I would the lens.

 

[Braineack]

I always tend to shoot wide when taking car pics; especially when taking photos to sell it.

 

[cbarnard7]

hi, i am going to start taking photos for a used car website and was wondering what lenses would be reccomended for it...a shop has suggested 17-50 tamron but was also wondering what people on here think too

at the moment ive got a D5100 with kit lenses


thanks

If you have the kit lenses then you should already have an 18-55 or something similar that should work fine. I'd worry more about lighting than I would the lens.

I agree with SCraig- the 18-55 is already enough wide for what you want to shoot. Just work on technique and how to take pictures of cars in a way that people will want to buy them. Take a look at other websites and try to mimic their compositions.

 

[shadowlands]

Did you decide on anything yet?
Check out the prices on the Nikon AF-S 18-70. Just sayin'

 

[PaulWog]

hi, i am going to start taking photos for a used car website and was wondering what lenses would be reccomended for it...a shop has suggested 17-50 tamron but was also wondering what people on here think too

at the moment ive got a D5100 with kit lenses


thanks

Take a look at the Sigma 17-50mm. Personally I wish I went with that lens (or the Nikon 17-55) as my first lens.

I got the 16-85mm VR, which is also a lens I would recommend. I don't plan on selling the 16-85 even though I plan to also pick up a 17-50.

Some people will tell you that you need more range than 17-50 for your walk-around, but it's going to depend on what you want. Since you have a kit lens, you can decide for yourself: Do you want more reach? The 17-50 will basically be a sharper version of your current kit lens (if it's the 18-55 kit lens), and it will have an aperture of f2.8 across the board when you want it to be that wide.

 

[Braineack]

I would gladly sacrifice 5mm of reach to be able to shoot f/2.8 at 50mm vs. ~5.6

 

[JaronRH]

Take a look at the Sigma 17-50mm.

I agree. I have the Sigma 17-50 OS on my backup body and it is a very good lens.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I would gladly sacrifice 5mm of reach to be able to shoot f/2.8 at 50mm vs. ~5.6

Not sure 2.8 would give the DOF for an object the size of a car. Off camera (fill) flash,wide and f5.6-8 gives great results with that kinda subject.

 

[JaronRH]

I would gladly sacrifice 5mm of reach to be able to shoot f/2.8 at 50mm vs. ~5.6

Not sure 2.8 would give the DOF for an object the size of a car. Off camera (fill) flash,wide and f5.6-8 gives great results with that kinda subject.

I agree. Although, shooting a 2.8 lens at f/5.6-8 would probably be that lenses sweet spot as opposed to shooting a variable aperture lens that is "wide open" at f/5.6.