LENSES...................(AGAIN)

[stepollard1]

Very wise words there mate, all taken on board.

 

[country boy]

I started with the same lenses that you have, and got good results, but i wanted something bigger for taking wildlife and landscapes, so i bought a 150-500 sigma, with stablizer, the results are amazing, :thumbup:

 

[stepollard1]

Are you using that one lens for both subject, wildlife and landscape ?

 

[country boy]

Are you using that one lens for both subject, wildlife and landscape ?

yes, i am getting great results for wildlife, deer's birds etc, because you can take them from a distance without disturbing them, the same for landscapes, but like you i am a beginer and still learning, but i am delighted with the results.

 

[stepollard1]

Are you using that one lens for both subject, wildlife and landscape ?

yes, i am getting great results for wildlife, deer's birds etc, because you can take them from a distance without disturbing them, the same for landscapes, but like you i am a beginer and still learning, but i am delighted with the results.

I would like to see a few of your pics with the 18-55mm and your new lens if that's possible???

 

[Boomn4x4]

Thanks for the advice but I find it a little to sarcastic to be honest, all i am doing is trying to join a community to gain knowledge...Think about it if I had money like that wouldn't i get something a little better that a D60

No, I wasn't being sarcastic at all. Those are pretty much the best lens for thsoe scenarios. What I think you are failing to understand what exactly the lens does and that no 1 lens can do it all....no 2 lenes can do it all... no 3 lenses can do it all. Those scenarios all require specialty lenes and those lenses are expensive.

Example:

I started with the same lenses that you have, and got good results, but i wanted something bigger for taking wildlife and landscapes, so i bought a 150-500 sigma, with stablizer, the results are amazing,

... very good advice, but if you google it, you will be quick to find that that particual lens is about $1,000.

I hate to sound discouraging, but when you use the terms "best quality" in regards to photography... you need to understand that that also means "expensive". As a beginnner, the hard reality to things is that even when you buy two decent versitle lenses, you are going to be quick to find out that you are limited with what you can do with those lenses.

I'm not a whole lot more experienced than you are... but I have spent enough time to grow out of the two lenes that I originally bought, the 18-55mm and the 55-200mm lenses. Neither lens has a near enough focal range to do great macro work, neither lens has the aperture to do low light / high speed photography, and the 200mm may be enough to get a candid shot of my son playing in the back yard, but its not nearly enough reach to get onto a mallard resting on a marsh.

Like I said, the kit lenses will take good pictures with whatever you point them at, but they won't do what you are asking out of them with all of your scenarios. In order to get out of them all of what you are asking, you are going to have to shell out thousands of dollars.

 

[stepollard1]

Thanks for the advice but I find it a little to sarcastic to be honest, all i am doing is trying to join a community to gain knowledge...Think about it if I had money like that wouldn't i get something a little better that a D60

No, I wasn't being sarcastic at all. Those are pretty much the best lens for thsoe scenarios. What I think you are failing to understand what exactly the lens does and that no 1 lens can do it all....no 2 lenes can do it all... no 3 lenses can do it all. Those scenarios all require specialty lenes and those lenses are expensive.

Example:

I started with the same lenses that you have, and got good results, but i wanted something bigger for taking wildlife and landscapes, so i bought a 150-500 sigma, with stablizer, the results are amazing,

... very good advice, but if you google it, you will be quick to find that that particual lens is about $1,000.

I hate to sound discouraging, but when you use the terms "best quality" in regards to photography... you need to understand that that also means "expensive". As a beginnner, the hard reality to things is that even when you buy two decent versitle lenses, you are going to be quick to find out that you are limited with what you can do with those lenses.

I'm not a whole lot more experienced than you are... but I have spent enough time to grow out of the two lenes that I originally bought, the 18-55mm and the 55-200mm lenses. Neither lens has a near enough focal range to do great macro work, neither lens has the aperture to do low light / high speed photography, and the 200mm may be enough to get a candid shot of my son playing in the back yard, but its not nearly enough reach to get onto a mallard resting on a marsh.

Like I said, the kit lenses will take good pictures with whatever you point them at, but they won't do what you are asking out of them with all of your scenarios. In order to get out of them all of what you are asking, you are going to have to shell out thousands of dollars.

Thanks for the reply, as you both have mentioned lenses that are around the 200mm region. I am guessing that are quite good tools to have, so i need to look at my budget and see what the best one is i can afford.

 

[Overread35]

My advice - having followed a very similar pattern (though from the canon side rather than the nikon) and starting off from nothing (not even a point and shoot ) I would say this;

Get the camera body and the kit lens and a Sigma 70-300mm APO macro as well as a cheap tripod from any big department store (just remember never ever fully unscrew the locking arm).

You've not mentioned a budget thus far and so the above setup is cheap and affordable, whilst also giving you a wide range of subject coverage that will cover (to some degree or another) most of your interest areas. Some people advise buying only the right lens once - but I hasten to add that in order to make that choice you need to have prior experiences to know which lens to choose - and even in what order to get them (eg are you more addicted to landscape macro or wildlife).
I think that at this stage whilst you can most certainly research and see what others are using and get an idea of your level of interest and financial input into the hobby its hard to impossible to make the choices on the higher end gear.

The sigma lens will do the telephoto work you need for the wildlife and birds - strapped to the tripod and with good fieldcraft and shooting methods you can get decent shots. Mounted to the tripod you can also do good close up photography (its not true macro, but it will get you into the rough area at least and give you a chance to play around).
Note there is a cheaper none-APO version of this lens, which I advise you avoid as it is softer than the APO version - noticably so at the longer end.

 

[doziergraphic]

Thanks for the advice but I find it a little to sarcastic to be honest,

Then you might want to shy away from posting here, especially if you start posting photos for CC. EVERY post has something to be learned whether it's 'sarcastic' or not. He was trying to make a point that you likely missed.

Keep trying, it'll come. And loosen up a bit, it's a forum board!

 

[stepollard1]

Thanks for the advice but I find it a little to sarcastic to be honest,

Then you might want to shy away from posting here, especially if you start posting photos for CC. EVERY post has something to be learned whether it's 'sarcastic' or not. He was trying to make a point that you likely missed.

Keep trying, it'll come. And loosen up a bit, it's a forum board!

Fair point but his answer was more of a riddle than straight forward advice.
Everybody else have given me really good, informative answers. So its my personal opinion that it was a little sarcastic.

 

[stepollard1]

My advice - having followed a very similar pattern (though from the canon side rather than the nikon) and starting off from nothing (not even a point and shoot ) I would say this;

Get the camera body and the kit lens and a Sigma 70-300mm APO macro as well as a cheap tripod from any big department store (just remember never ever fully unscrew the locking arm).

You've not mentioned a budget thus far and so the above setup is cheap and affordable, whilst also giving you a wide range of subject coverage that will cover (to some degree or another) most of your interest areas. Some people advise buying only the right lens once - but I hasten to add that in order to make that choice you need to have prior experiences to know which lens to choose - and even in what order to get them (eg are you more addicted to landscape macro or wildlife).
I think that at this stage whilst you can most certainly research and see what others are using and get an idea of your level of interest and financial input into the hobby its hard to impossible to make the choices on the higher end gear.

The sigma lens will do the telephoto work you need for the wildlife and birds - strapped to the tripod and with good fieldcraft and shooting methods you can get decent shots. Mounted to the tripod you can also do good close up photography (its not true macro, but it will get you into the rough area at least and give you a chance to play around).
Note there is a cheaper none-APO version of this lens, which I advise you avoid as it is softer than the APO version - noticably so at the longer end.

Thanks for the advice.
I have been looking at the Sigma 70-300mm, and comparing it with the nikon 55-200mm which is VR...Will i benefit more from having the VR on the nikon, do you think ?

 

[Overread35]

I have no idea which of the two lenses has the overall superior optics - on the VR front first understand what VR does. It counters shake at the camera end of the shot - so your hands as they hold the setup. This lens you use a slower shutter speed and still be able to get a sharp shot without your body affecting it.
The typical rule for shutter speeds is 1/(focal length of the lens (*1.5/1.6 if you are using a crop sensor camera) ). So with VR you can shoot just under this value for your lens. As you can see its thus far more beneficial at the longer focal lengths than at short ones.
VR will also work whilst you focus the shot so in addition provides a smoother viewfinder image to view (again because its countering the minor shake in your hands)

However you also have to realise that it won't do anything for subject motion blur - so if you're shooting a fast moving subject you'll still need a fast shutter speed to freeze its motion otherwise it will blur - the VR won't affect this.

 

[orb9220]

Many like myself started out with the 18-55 kit and the 55-200vr which in my opinion is the best bang for the buck starting out zoom. Gives you the extended range need for wildlife,nature,etc... Not the best build but optics are quite good for the monies. But only the VR version as there is a cheaper non-VR that is quite a step down in usability.

My Nikon 55-200vr Set and is a great complement to the 18-55 kit lens.

Closeup'ish of lens.


Exposed to the Core by orb9220, on Flickr

To maximum reach.


A Day at the Portland Zoo - 01 of 36 - "Open the Gates!...I Dare You!" by orb9220, on Flickr

And picked mine up used on craigslist for $125 and seen refrub's for $140 range.
.

 

[stepollard1]

Cheers guys,

Its a total minefied isnt it...Im going to use my 18-55mm for a couple of months and then decide what kind of pics i find myself taking the most of.