New lens needed with Nikon D3300 kit?

[Designer]

It seems as if you are taking landscapes in low light, you are pretty much forced to use a tripod in order to be able to use longer shutter speeds. Correct me if I am wrong on this.

For hand-held shots, you try to keep the shutter speed at about the reciprocal of the focal length of the lens (or faster). So for example; your focal length is at 55mm, then your shutter speed for a hand-held shot should be 1/60 of a second or faster. And BTW; that is with GOOD camera-holding skills. If you're naturally shaky, or there is a strong wind, then make the shutter even faster. And that should be considered the minimum, not the normal.

 

[oFUNGUSo]

I got a lot of landscape (cityscape) pictures im very happy with at the wide end of a couple different nikon kit lenses.

but when i got a sigma 10-20 i got results i like even better. Id probably rather have the tokina 11-16 ( i think it is). Either way, both lenses are accessibly priced IMO.

 

[James W.]

Re3iRtH,

I too am new to the DSLR game. I got a Nikon D5200 with the 18-55mm kit lens on sale this past fall and have been working with it for a few months now. To be honest, I haven't found a need for anything better or a different focal range. The only thing that I could see justifying a new lens would be if the optics are killer in a new lens AND I'm wanting to submit to contests, magazines, or be something more than a hobbyist. But even then, focus, f/stop, ISO, everything else needs to be practiced and perfected to enjoy those better optics, something that can only be had after hundreds, if not thousands of photos and a commitment to learning the technical side of photography. (I'm in the middle of that right now, so I can't be of much help beyond absolute basics)

Someone told me that it's better to buy a decent camera and then save money for really, really great lenses, so rather than go for the "great for the price" lenses my plan of attack is to wait until I can buy one or two high quality pieces of glass.

And BTW, I have an old vanguard tripod (it was my father's) and it works very well. Vanguard seems to be great at making good tripods.

Hope that brought a little perspective from another newcomer.

Thanks.

--James

 

[Re3iRtH]

Cool, thanks for your reply. My tripod is supposed to arrive today (3 days late from original scheduled arrival date!). What type of photography are you doing?

Re3iRtH,

I too am new to the DSLR game. I got a Nikon D5200 with the 18-55mm kit lens on sale this past fall and have been working with it for a few months now. To be honest, I haven't found a need for anything better or a different focal range. The only thing that I could see justifying a new lens would be if the optics are killer in a new lens AND I'm wanting to submit to contests, magazines, or be something more than a hobbyist. But even then, focus, f/stop, ISO, everything else needs to be practiced and perfected to enjoy those better optics, something that can only be had after hundreds, if not thousands of photos and a commitment to learning the technical side of photography. (I'm in the middle of that right now, so I can't be of much help beyond absolute basics)

Someone told me that it's better to buy a decent camera and then save money for really, really great lenses, so rather than go for the "great for the price" lenses my plan of attack is to wait until I can buy one or two high quality pieces of glass.

And BTW, I have an old vanguard tripod (it was my father's) and it works very well. Vanguard seems to be great at making good tripods.

Hope that brought a little perspective from another newcomer.

Thanks.

--James

 

[Re3iRtH]

I thought I would piggyback off of my original thread here. I attached my first ever photo with a tripod. This is the issue I am running into already. My buddy who has been a hobbyist for about 6 years, lets me play around with his D750 and D810. I just assumed that all DSLRs "see" a similar field if view as the human eye. I had no idea that my Nikon D3300 uses some silly cropping of what you would actually see.

Please look at the pic I attached. This is using the kit 18-55mm lens, at I believe a 18mm focal length, and already I am not getting as wide a view of view in the shot as I would want. What I am asking is, is there any reason to mess around with such a limiting (in my short experience) camera? I envisioned the camera "seeing" a similar field of view to what my eye does.

 

[killerseaguls]

Well, the d3300 isn't a full frame camera. So, yes it does crop a bit off compared to the full frame cameras


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[killerseaguls]

I thought I would piggyback off of my original thread here. I attached my first ever photo with a tripod. This is the issue I am running into already. My buddy who has been a hobbyist for about 6 years, lets me play around with his D750 and D810. I just assumed that all DSLRs "see" a similar field if view as the human eye. I had no idea that my Nikon D3300 uses some silly cropping of what you would actually see.

Please look at the pic I attached. This is using the kit 18-55mm lens, at I believe a 18mm focal length, and already I am not getting as wide a view of view in the shot as I would want. What I am asking is, is there any reason to mess around with such a limiting (in my short experience) camera? I envisioned the camera "seeing" a similar field of view to what my eye does.

I also have the same camera and I don't find it limiting at all. I use a 35mm prime lens as it has a nice angle to it and is very sharp. It's definitely an entry level dslr but it's a great camera. Lost to learn about photography and you're only limited by your creativity.

This is with my 35mm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Re3iRtH]

What's a 35mm prime lens.. fixed lens? Beautiful photo.

In my attached picture, you can easily tell that the composition would have benefited immensely just with a full-frame lens with the same focal length.

I thought I would piggyback off of my original thread here. I attached my first ever photo with a tripod. This is the issue I am running into already. My buddy who has been a hobbyist for about 6 years, lets me play around with his D750 and D810. I just assumed that all DSLRs "see" a similar field if view as the human eye. I had no idea that my Nikon D3300 uses some silly cropping of what you would actually see.

Please look at the pic I attached. This is using the kit 18-55mm lens, at I believe a 18mm focal length, and already I am not getting as wide a view of view in the shot as I would want. What I am asking is, is there any reason to mess around with such a limiting (in my short experience) camera? I envisioned the camera "seeing" a similar field of view to what my eye does.

I also have the same camera and I don't find it limiting at all. I use a 35mm prime lens as it has a nice angle to it and is very sharp. It's definitely an entry level dslr but it's a great camera. Lost to learn about photography and you're only limited by your creativity.

This is with my 35mm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

Re3iRtH, yes, from that close-up vantage point, something like a 12-24mm or a 10-20mm lens would have given you the option of a significantly wider angle of view...and that's precisely why such lenses exist for APS-C sensor cameras. You camera uses a 1.5x Field of View crop type sensor, so the 18mm shortest length of the 18-55 is more like a 27mm or 28mm lens (actual FOV factor I think is 1.53 on your body), so the 18-55 kit zoom lens sold with so many APS-C camera behaves roughly like a 28-85mm lens used to on full-frame 35mm film cameras. For MANY situations, the old 28-85mm zoom lens was a fantastic all-in-one lens for most users. However, the 28mm length is not really "all that wide" in its angle of view, and therefore the 18mm shortest length of the 18-55 kit zoom is "not all that wide" when used on an APS-C sensor camera.

If you want wider-angle views, you'll need to get a lens that offers shorter length options. Tamron and Tokina and Sigma all make some affordable wide zooms.

 

[Re3iRtH]

Thanks Derrel. I wanted to spend about $1000 for a starter cam and lens(es), but I saw a guy picking up a D3300, so I just went with that kit even though I was about to pick up a D7200. I wonder if there is any full frame cam + lens combo for around $1000 worth considering? I believe they told me I still have until the end of January if I want to return this kit

Re3iRtH, yes, from that close-up vantage point, something like a 12-24mm or a 10-20mm lens would have given you the option of a significantly wider angle of view...and that's precisely why such lenses exist for APS-C sensor cameras. You camera uses a 1.5x Field of View crop type sensor, so the 18mm shortest length of the 18-55 is more like a 27mm or 28mm lens (actual FOV factor I think is 1.53 on your body), so the 18-55 kit zoom lens sold with so many APS-C camera behaves roughly like a 28-85mm lens used to on full-frame 35mm film cameras. For MANY situations, the old 28-85mm zoom lens was a fantastic all-in-one lens for most users. However, the 28mm length is not really "all that wide" in its angle of view, and therefore the 18mm shortest length of the 18-55 kit zoom is "not all that wide" when used on an APS-C sensor camera.

If you want wider-angle views, you'll need to get a lens that offers shorter length options. Tamron and Tokina and Sigma all make some affordable wide zooms.

 

[Ido]

What determines the field of view you get is the focal length of the lens, in relation to / in combination with the size of the sensor. Sure, 18mm on a camera like the Nikon D3300 isn’t as wide as 18mm on a camera like the Nikon D610 — but why make that comparison in the first place? If you want a wider angle of view, you need a shorter focal length, not a bigger sensor!

There are many, many options for wider-angle lenses with a DX sensor. You could opt for standard zoom lenses with the nice and very useful 16mm short end, like the Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 or Nikon 16-80mm f/2.8-4. and sell the kit lens (or let it collect dust, that’s up to you). Another option is to keep the kit lens, and add an even wider-angle lens, such as the Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5, Tokina 11-16mm (or 11-20mm) f/2.8, or Sigma 10-20mm (I believe there are two versions, one is f/4-5.6, the other a constant f/3.5).
These will let you go a whole lot wider. With a full-frame camera like the D610, you’d have to use a 15mm lens to get the same field of view as with 10mm on the Nikon/Sigma, or roughly a 16mm lens to get the same as the 11mm on the Tokina. Do you know what those lenses cost? Quite a lot in comparison. Well, the Nikon 10-24 is definitely expensive, but the others I mentioned can be had for under $500, often well below that in the used market, while lenses for FF cameras in that range are at least around $1,000.

 

[Re3iRtH]

For those 3 lenses you mentioned, is the f stop(s) you mentioned the only one available.. or is it just the largest aperture size that you can set? I didn't know that lenses for FF cameras as that much more! I just feel way more natural when I look through the FF cameras' viewfinders.

What determines the field of view you get is the focal length of the lens, in relation to / in combination with the size of the sensor. Sure, 18mm on a camera like the Nikon D3300 isn’t as wide as 18mm on a camera like the Nikon D610 — but why make that comparison in the first place? If you want a wider angle of view, you need a shorter focal length, not a bigger sensor!

There are many, many options for wider-angle lenses with a DX sensor. You could opt for standard zoom lenses with the nice and very useful 16mm short end, like the Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 or Nikon 16-80mm f/2.8-4. and sell the kit lens (or let it collect dust, that’s up to you). Another option is to keep the kit lens, and add an even wider-angle lens, such as the Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5, Tokina 11-16mm (or 11-20mm) f/2.8, or Sigma 10-20mm (I believe there are two versions, one is f/4-5.6, the other a constant f/3.5).
These will let you go a whole lot wider. With a full-frame camera like the D610, you’d have to use a 15mm lens to get the same field of view as with 10mm on the Nikon/Sigma, or roughly a 16mm lens to get the same as the 11mm on the Tokina. Do you know what those lenses cost? Quite a lot in comparison. Well, the Nikon 10-24 is definitely expensive, but the others I mentioned can be had for under $500, often well below that in the used market, while lenses for FF cameras in that range are at least around $1,000.

 

[weepete]

Its the largest aperture available on those particular lenses. Personally I got a 10-22mm that I use for most of my landscape shots, I like the fov that ultrawides provide.

 

[Ido]

For those 3 lenses you mentioned, is the f stop(s) you mentioned the only one available.. or is it just the largest aperture size that you can set?

Whenever an f-number is quoted in the name of the lens, it always just the maximum aperture of that lens. The lenses can be stopped down — the minimum aperture is usually written in the full specifications of the lens. I believe all lenses I mentioned can be stopped-down to f/22; maybe an oddball can be stopped-down further, but even if that option is available, you’re probably better off using the widest aperture that gives you the depth of field you want, due to diffraction kicking in at small apertures.

I didn't know that lenses for FF cameras as that much more!

Well, now you know ;~)
The reason? The lens is obviously what directs light onto the sensor, and it has to direct the light in a way that it hits all of the pixels on the sensor. When you have a bigger sensor, the lens has to “cover more ground” — get light onto a larger area. That in turn means the lenses are bigger. And the simple rule applies here: bigger = more expensive.

I just feel way more natural when I look through the FF cameras' viewfinders.

As a general rule, when you have a bigger sensor inside the DSLR, the viewfinder is also bigger. So that may be what you noticed when you tried a full-frame DSLR — it probably had a bigger and brighter viewfinder than the D3300. That being said, there are bigger and brighter viewfinders still with the APS-C sensor size. I see that as one of the biggest advantages to the D7200 over a D3300 or D5500.
The entry-level Nikon models have what is called a pentamirror viewfinder, while the D7200 and higher-end bodies have a pentaprism viewfinder. Without going into detail as to why, the pentaprism viewfinders are brighter, but more expensive. If you try a D7200, you should see that its viewfinder is definitely nicer than the D3300’s. If the viewfinder in the D3300 feels too small and dim to you, then you may very well return it and buy a camera with a better viewfinder.
While you’re at it, also try out some good electronic viewfinders, like that of the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II or Fujifilm X-T10. The Sony α6000 — while it’s a very capable and very popular camera — doesn’t really have a great electronic viewfinder.

 

[Re3iRtH]

It wasn't just the viewfinder it was also the actual photos on those cams - the D750 and D810. It seemed like composition was more effortless. Maybe there is a mirrorless + lens combo for around ~<$1000 that could give me the practicality I am looking for. I don't need 3 lenses laying around if I could just use 1 or 2. Appreciate the feedback as always!

For those 3 lenses you mentioned, is the f stop(s) you mentioned the only one available.. or is it just the largest aperture size that you can set?

Whenever an f-number is quoted in the name of the lens, it always just the maximum aperture of that lens. The lenses can be stopped down — the minimum aperture is usually written in the full specifications of the lens. I believe all lenses I mentioned can be stopped-down to f/22; maybe an oddball can be stopped-down further, but even if that option is available, you’re probably better off using the widest aperture that gives you the depth of field you want, due to diffraction kicking in at small apertures.

I didn't know that lenses for FF cameras as that much more!

Well, now you know ;~)
The reason? The lens is obviously what directs light onto the sensor, and it has to direct the light in a way that it hits all of the pixels on the sensor. When you have a bigger sensor, the lens has to “cover more ground” — get light onto a larger area. That in turn means the lenses are bigger. And the simple rule applies here: bigger = more expensive.

I just feel way more natural when I look through the FF cameras' viewfinders.

As a general rule, when you have a bigger sensor inside the DSLR, the viewfinder is also bigger. So that may be what you noticed when you tried a full-frame DSLR — it probably had a bigger and brighter viewfinder than the D3300. That being said, there are bigger and brighter viewfinders still with the APS-C sensor size. I see that as one of the biggest advantages to the D7200 over a D3300 or D5500.
The entry-level Nikon models have what is called a pentamirror viewfinder, while the D7200 and higher-end bodies have a pentaprism viewfinder. Without going into detail as to why, the pentaprism viewfinders are brighter, but more expensive. If you try a D7200, you should see that its viewfinder is definitely nicer than the D3300’s. If the viewfinder in the D3300 feels too small and dim to you, then you may very well return it and buy a camera with a better viewfinder.
While you’re at it, also try out some good electronic viewfinders, like that of the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II or Fujifilm X-T10. The Sony α6000 — while it’s a very capable and very popular camera — doesn’t really have a great electronic viewfinder.