My long exposure picture is too bright

[hamlet]

To really understand the DOF concept, I found it best to purchase a 50mm - f / 1.8 lens.
That lens really made it plainly visible the DOF concepts. But your pictures show it, you just have to recognize it.

Its all coming together now. I am beginning to understand a lot now.

 

[astroNikon]

That monument is to honor science. Personally i would have gone with a cute lab rat.


I actually tried to lower my aperture number, but it won't go lower than f5. Also i actually didn't know that the lens dictated the apertures range. It makes sense though now that i think about it.

On professional lens they will allow and focal length (say, from 35 to 70) to use an aperture of 2.8 throughout the entire range

On more consumer oriented lenses they do not do that.
They "adjust" the aperture usually smaller as you get to a longer focal length.

So if you have a 18-55 f/3.5-5.6
at 18mm it's 3.5 maximum
and at 55 it's 5.6
and in between it adjusts between those apertures

 

[hamlet]

I was thinking of buying the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 for all my general hamtography. Is the AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G a better fit for me for general hamtography?

 

[Devinhullphoto]

This one i was experimenting with blurring the background. After 20 minutes of trying to figure out how to adjust my aperture, i failed to blur the background and only keep this tree in focus. I don't really know how to do that in manual mode.

Smaller the number, (f2.8) the more blurry things will be in the background.

 

[Devinhullphoto]

That monument is to honor science. Personally i would have gone with a cute lab rat. I actually tried to lower my aperture number, but it won't go lower than f5. Also i actually didn't know that the lens dictated the apertures range. It makes sense though now that i think about it.

If you are using a kit lens, the aperture may be 3.5-5. That 5 is when it's zoomed in. That's why a lot of nice lenses have a constant aperture. Like my 50mm 1.8.

 

[astroNikon]

If you are using a kit lens, the aperture may be 3.5-5. That 5 is when it's zoomed in. That's why a lot of nice lenses have a constant aperture. Like my 50mm 1.8.

Your constant 1.8 aperture 50mm is also a static focal length of 50mm

A better example would be the 80-200/2.8 which allows a constant aperture of 2.8 from 80mm up to 200mm, or many others
AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED from Nikon

I know nothing about the Sigma

But keep in mind, check how Close you can be with the lens to the subject. which is 11 inches. So if you were within 11 inches everything would be out of focus (like your original problem if I recall with the 18-55).

Looks like it has good reviews but costs alot of $$$
It costs more than I spent for my Nikon 80-200/2.8

 

[Devinhullphoto]

Your constant 1.8 aperture 50mm is also a static focal length of 50mm A better example would be the 80-200/2.8 which allows a constant aperture of 2.8 from 80mm up to 200mm, or many others AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED from Nikon I know nothing about the Sigma But keep in mind, check how Close you can be with the lens to the subject. which is 11 inches. So if you were within 11 inches everything would be out of focus (like your original problem if I recall with the 18-55). Looks like it has good reviews but costs alot of $$$ It costs more than I spent for my Nikon 80-200/2.8

Oh yeah... DUH! I sound slightly dumb. Forgive my blond moment.

 

[hamlet]

If you are using a kit lens, the aperture may be 3.5-5. That 5 is when it's zoomed in. That's why a lot of nice lenses have a constant aperture. Like my 50mm 1.8.

Your constant 1.8 aperture 50mm is also a static focal length of 50mm

A better example would be the 80-200/2.8 which allows a constant aperture of 2.8 from 80mm up to 200mm, or many others
AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED from Nikon

I know nothing about the Sigma

But keep in mind, check how Close you can be with the lens to the subject. which is 11 inches. So if you were within 11 inches everything would be out of focus (like your original problem if I recall with the 18-55).

Looks like it has good reviews but costs alot of $$$
It costs more than I spent for my Nikon 80-200/2.8

I can see the appeal of the affordable compact and fixed AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G. But i prefer the impersonal zoom lens. If i'm at a place where my feet are incapable of helping my fixed 50mm lens zoom manually or a bunch of unsavory hooligans are between me and my shot, i like to have the idea that i can reach toward my target and get my shot. What general purpose with zoom lens would be the equivalent of the 50mm? The Sigma as of now is a very strong contender.

 

[astroNikon]

Any zoom lens that has 50 in it's Zoom ... such as a 35-70/2.5 - which 50 is in there, 24-70/2.8
and I'm sure dozens more.

I have my 24-80/2.8-4.0 (not a constant aperture though) which is covered by my primes of 24/2.8, 50.1.8 and 85/1.8
And as you mentioned, you can just grab your subjects, or move forward or back from them.

but generally I'm finding moving forwards to a subject indoors isn't good as you can block the lighting.

 

[astroNikon]

Basically the question is
what are you NOT getting from your 18-55 right now?

can't get up close like you want --> solution could be a macro which is designed to be used up close
can't get far enough ?

just want a better, sharper lens?
better at lower light ?

 

[Devinhullphoto]

I can see the appeal of the affordable compact and fixed AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G. But i prefer the impersonal zoom lens. If i'm at a place where my feet are incapable of helping my fixed 50mm lens zoom manually or a bunch of unsavory hooligans are between me and my shot, i like to have the idea that i can reach toward my target and get my shot. What general purpose with zoom lens would be the equivalent of the 50mm? The Sigma as of now is a very strong contender.

With the lens hood on, the 50mm is as large as the kit lens.

 

[hamlet]

Basically the question is
what are you NOT getting from your 18-55 right now?

can't get up close like you want --> solution could be a macro which is designed to be used up close
can't get far enough ?

just want a better, sharper lens?
better at lower light ?

Those are some excellent questions. Lighting isn't a problem with the 18-55 for me as of now, but what i am having a problem with getting close and far shots. Now i have never used a macro lens and am aware that it is intended for close up shots. If i could find a macro lens that covers the length from your hand to your nose and also provide nice macro shots while having a great depth of field, that lens would be something that could cover my close range shots. The telephoto lens i have already decided on getting the Nikon AF-S VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED due to overwhelming support for this lens by many users infinity more experienced than me. So i think that your question of "what are you NOT getting from your 18-55 right now?" puts my need to get a mid range lens to rest. I should focus on a macro lens now and any suggestions would be welcome.

 

[astroNikon]

so
you want upclose (not necessarily macro - "true" macro provides a 1:1 image on a FF sensor)
and you need it to cover up to 70mm, as that is your choice for your other lens.

For example, and example only as this lens does NOT (AF) AutoFocus on your camera.
I have a 24-85 lens that does macro (read as "close ups") really good and sharp. I can get up to 0.21m or 8.3 inches
Nikon | Imaging Products | AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF (3.5x)

but it has 2 newer versions which will work with your camera but they are NOT as good in low light as they are f/3.5 - 4.6 versus my lens which is f / 2.8 - 4.0. but the below ones are NOT macro/closeup (I read it some more)
AF-S Nikon 24-85mm AF-S G Review
AFS VR Nikon 24-85mm VR Review


another thing .. just because a lens is f /2.8 doesn't mean it is nice and sharp/detailed at that aperture. Alot of lenses get sharper/more detailed stopped up to, say, 4.6 or higher and some have a particular "sweet spot". You have to do your research. but generally the higher the price of the lens and more professional the better overall they can be. But then I've only researched specific Nikon lenses, I don't look into the SIgma, Vivitar, Tokina, Tamron, etc. But I have nearly bought a few Tokina/Vivitar (older made by Tokina) lenses.

Overall, let's see what people recommend, because I have only a small experience in a small number of lenses.

But this would be a great lens to have if it didn't $$$ so much - and it fits into your other lens min focal length, but you can only get to 1.2 feet with it.
Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 Review

confused ?
======
OR
maybe stick with your 18-55
AND get a real macro lens
Macro Photography Lenses | Close Up Lenses

for instance the first one AFS DX 40mm f/2.8 gets as close as 0.53 feet .. or 6 inches

but I think your 18-55 lets you get to 0.9 feet or 9 inches.

so is 3 more inches worth the additional $$

 

[astroNikon]

by the way,
here's another perspective on Macro work
How to Shoot Macro

 

[astroNikon]

to confuse you even more .. and much more technical
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-photography-intro.htm
and
Macro Camera Lenses

I've been looking at getting a macro lens for myself
But truthfully, until I use my 24-85 (and other lenses) much more better, and improve my photography much more, I'm trying to hold off on getting one.
I have looked at the 90 to 105 focal length macro lenses so when I do bugs they don't get scared or fly up my nose. But I realize it's alot of GAS too (Gear Acquisition Syndrome).