Triple threat

[PaulWog]

I will think about it some more, i am still pretty sure i want an aperture of f1.8 or less.

Remember that photography is about lighting. It seems you want to brute-force past that; the idea of brute-forcing through poor lighting conditions is at odds, and often incompatible, with good photography. You have to work with light, not against it. When you compromise and shoot with a high ISO or faster aperture when you should be shooting with a tripod at a longer exposure, you're compromising & getting worse quality. The same thing is true when you should be shooting with a quicker lens and with a faster shutter speed in other situations. But you need to pick your settings AND your equipment accordingly. You're basically saying that you want to dig ditches with a tooth brush: You can do it, sure, but you won't get the job done very efficiently, and the results won't be nearly as good as with proper tools (you won't get very deep). Plus you'll have a hell of a time when you get around to brushing your teeth.

Another thing to remember is that focus accuracy reduces significantly in low light. A fast lens that doesn't get its focus on correctly isn't going to do you any good.

I think you have been presented with all of your options. It really comes down to what advice you choose to take.

 

[hamlet]

So its all about the light. That makes sense now that i think about it. To tell you the truth, i have a certain type of photography in mind that i cant put into words. Perhaps when i become noligible, i can translate that into pictures. And you are absolutely right about the toothbrush analogy, i just don't have the right tools yet, but by having the option to get apertures as high as f1.8 i will have far greater creative freedom, because i don't want to do what someone else is already doing.

 

[PaulWog]

So its all about the light. That makes sense now that i think about it. To tell you the truth, i have a certain type of photography in mind that i cant put into words. Perhaps when i become noligible, i can translate that into pictures. And you are absolutely right about the toothbrush analogy, i just don't have the right tools yet, but by having the option to get apertures as high as f1.8 i will have far greater creative freedom, because i don't want to do what someone else is already doing.

I don't know if you quite get what I mean. Using the aperture of f1.8 for what you want to do is like using the toothbrush to dig. If your job is to dig graves and brush teeth, you're not being unique by brushing teeth with a shovel and digging with a tooth brush: You're just doing things incorrectly. Whatever your photography style or approach is, you have to adhere to certain techniques, otherwise photos don't turn out well. Again, it isn't a matter of style: style is something entirely different. Otherwise we'd have people shooting photos with potatoes because they don't like the style of using a camera with a sensor. Hahaha.

What will give you creative freedom is mastering the exposure triangle: aperture, exposure time / shutter speed, and ISO. Getting the correct exposure by using correct techniques is not an indicator of style. Shooting late-night images at a quick aperture of f1.8 or lower & bumping your ISO really high isn't indicative of a style: it just means you're not willing to get shots exposed as best as possible with the best technique possible.

I don't like being black-and-white about it, but that's pretty much how it is. If you want to do night photography of landscapes, you need a tripod. If you want to do night photography of people and closer things, flash photography & a quick aperture are great. No matter what, having a lens that can manage a quick aperture and has vibration reduction *WILL* be highly useful to you. If you refuse to use a tripod, you absolutely HAVE to get a vibration reduction lens of some sort if you don't want to get frustrated to no end.

To give a good example, if I have my 16-85mm VR with me at night and I'm shooting landscapes, and I also had my 35mm 1.8G, I'd likely have my 16-85mm on my camera at all times. I also would have my aperture at f5.6 and up. I would have a tripod with me at all times shooting night landscapes. If my 16-85mm dropped to f0.9, I wouldn't be using that aperture at all.

 

[hamlet]

So its all about the light. That makes sense now that i think about it. To tell you the truth, i have a certain type of photography in mind that i cant put into words. Perhaps when i become noligible, i can translate that into pictures. And you are absolutely right about the toothbrush analogy, i just don't have the right tools yet, but by having the option to get apertures as high as f1.8 i will have far greater creative freedom, because i don't want to do what someone else is already doing.

I don't know if you quite get what I mean. Using the aperture of f1.8 for what you want to do is like using the toothbrush to dig. If your job is to dig graves and brush teeth, you're not being unique by brushing teeth with a shovel and digging with a tooth brush: You're just doing things incorrectly. Whatever your photography style or approach is, you have to adhere to certain techniques, otherwise photos don't turn out well. Again, it isn't a matter of style: style is something entirely different. Otherwise we'd have people shooting photos with potatoes because they don't like the style of using a camera with a sensor. Hahaha.

What will give you creative freedom is mastering the exposure triangle: aperture, exposure time / shutter speed, and ISO. Getting the correct exposure by using correct techniques is not an indicator of style. Shooting late-night images at a quick aperture of f1.8 or lower & bumping your ISO really high isn't indicative of a style: it just means you're not willing to get shots exposed as best as possible with the best technique possible.

I don't like being black-and-white about it, but that's pretty much how it is. If you want to do night photography of landscapes, you need a tripod. If you want to do night photography of people and closer things, flash photography & a quick aperture are great. No matter what, having a lens that can manage a quick aperture and has vibration reduction *WILL* be highly useful to you. If you refuse to use a tripod, you absolutely HAVE to get a vibration reduction lens of some sort if you don't want to get frustrated to no end.

To give a good example, if I have my 16-85mm VR with me at night and I'm shooting landscapes, and I also had my 35mm 1.8G, I'd likely have my 16-85mm on my camera at all times. I also would have my aperture at f5.6 and up. I would have a tripod with me at all times shooting night landscapes. If my 16-85mm dropped to f0.9, I wouldn't be using that aperture at all.

That's fair. If i don't take criticism then i won't ever get better.

 

[hamlet]

After testing the aperture more in-dept, i can see why people recommend a moderate amount of aperture for large structures. :study: But then i looked into the quality of the glass and how it affects the pictures. Here are the usual suspects: Nano Crystal Coat, AS and ED. These things were never considered when buying a lens. That's probably because we went ahead on the assumption that everyone understood what is important here.

 

[hamlet]

Looking into more expensive lenses right now

landscape
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
Nikon AF-S Zoom Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED

versatile
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED



I'm pulling the trigger on one of these lenses. These are the finalists of the nikon brand lenses, but i am having serious reservations about the 16-35mm.

 

[astroNikon]

After testing the aperture more in-dept, i can see why people recommend a moderate amount of aperture for large structures. :study: But then i looked into the quality of the glass and how it affects the pictures. Here are the usual suspects: Nano Crystal Coat, AS and ED. These things were never considered when buying a lens. That's probably because we went ahead on the assumption that everyone understood what is important here.

Small steps at a time.

There's a reason pro glass is "pro" glass.

All my lenses are nicer FX lenses (but not the latest and greatest) except for my kit lens. This includes a 80-200 AF-D/2.8, 24/2.8 AF, 85/1.8 AF-D, 50/1.8 AF-D, 24-85/2.8-4 AF-D. even my 18-105 DX VR kit lens is pretty sharp in the details.

BUT Be wary of what you buy. For instance. My AF-S 55-200 ED (not listed above because I don't use it) has ED glass. but it's a 4.5-6 max aperture AND is a lowly consumer lens. Even with the ED glass the picture quality stinks by comparison to all of the lenses I listed. This is the first lens that I bought after I got my camera, and the photos stink by comparison once you know what you are looking for. They look nice if you are generally into photography and have the 18-55 and 55-200 as your only two lens with your dSLR that you will never change for years to come.

There's still ALOT to learn.

But those all are nice lenses


Let me guess .. you don't like the 16-35 because it is a f/4 lens ?
You should also read more about perspectives and how those are skewed in wide angles lenses.

 

[PaulWog]

Looking into more expensive lenses right now

landscape
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
Nikon AF-S Zoom Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED

versatile
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

I'm pulling the trigger on one of these lenses. These are the finalists of the nikon brand lenses, but i am having serious reservations about the 16-35mm.

You need to pick up a fast prime to learn with... :-( I mean we sort-of argued over aperture for pages, and now at page 6 you finally figured out what aperture is (even though we spelled it out clearly over and over). If you're still figuring out aperture, then you've got lots to learn, and you simply do not have the experience or capacity to make a good decision on a super expensive lens purchase. When I didn't know the basics, I also had difficulties discerning what I needed & wanted.

To be honest all I've seen you do so far is pull up random technical aspects, and say "Hey, these exist, I just saw them! It's what I need." Nano crystal coating can help reduce lens flare, which can help improve colors & contrast in an image... it's useful for pros. However, it's not a necessity: It's just a pleasant feature that tops off already-great lenses. To go from just realizing that f1.8 isn't good for shooting buildings to saying you need nano-crystal coating isn't really a good thing. Not to mention that each of the lenses you're linking has a distinctly different purpose.

Remember at the start of the thread you stated that you plan to stick with your D3200 for a long time coming? Now you're looking at $2000+ lenses that are designed for FX...

I won't be back in this thread to help anymore since I think you've got the information laid out for a good initial purchase. I'm just going to leave you with the one piece of advice: Get the 35mm 1.8G, and then figure out what you want from there.

 

[astroNikon]

Yup, my first real lens was a 50mm / 1.8 (excluding that 55-200 ED POS) ... learned alot and still learning (think I said that before too). A 35 or 50/1.8 would be great as a first lens. 35 since you are liking landscape.

FYI .. I couldn't find my 18-55 to do those test shots I said I was going to do .... it's somewhere roaming around the basement.

 

[hamlet]

After testing the aperture more in-dept, i can see why people recommend a moderate amount of aperture for large structures. :study: But then i looked into the quality of the glass and how it affects the pictures. Here are the usual suspects: Nano Crystal Coat, AS and ED. These things were never considered when buying a lens. That's probably because we went ahead on the assumption that everyone understood what is important here.

Small steps at a time.

There's a reason pro glass is "pro" glass.

All my lenses are nicer FX lenses (but not the latest and greatest) except for my kit lens. This includes a 80-200 AF-D/2.8, 24/2.8 AF, 85/1.8 AF-D, 50/1.8 AF-D, 24-85/2.8-4 AF-D. even my 18-105 DX VR kit lens is pretty sharp in the details.

BUT Be wary of what you buy. For instance. My AF-S 55-200 ED (not listed above because I don't use it) has ED glass. but it's a 4.5-6 max aperture AND is a lowly consumer lens. Even with the ED glass the picture quality stinks by comparison to all of the lenses I listed. This is the first lens that I bought after I got my camera, and the photos stink by comparison once you know what you are looking for. They look nice if you are generally into photography and have the 18-55 and 55-200 as your only two lens with your dSLR that you will never change for years to come.

There's still ALOT to learn.

But those all are nice lenses


Let me guess .. you don't like the 16-35 because it is a f/4 lens ?
You should also read more about perspectives and how those are skewed in wide angles lenses.

That is such a peculiar thing because i was about to buy the 55-200mm, just when everyone on this forum told me that was a bad idea. This is why the 70-300mm is in my wishlist. The 16-35 is said to produce distortion, so that is definitely a major reason why have doubts about that lens. Right now i am leaning towards the 24-70mm because it gives me so much freedom, but the 14-24 is the best choice for landscaping.

 

[astroNikon]

read # 1 Nature and Wildlife Photography Articles

Read # 2 Using Wide Angle Lenses

Read # 3 How to Use Ultra-Wide Lenses

Video !!


If you must buy a lens, I think the 24-70/2.8 would give you diversity that you need while learning before jumping to either the wide angle or zoom extremes.

 

[hamlet]

Looking into more expensive lenses right now

landscape
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
Nikon AF-S Zoom Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED

versatile
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

I'm pulling the trigger on one of these lenses. These are the finalists of the nikon brand lenses, but i am having serious reservations about the 16-35mm.

You need to pick up a fast prime to learn with... :-( I mean we sort-of argued over aperture for pages, and now at page 6 you finally figured out what aperture is (even though we spelled it out clearly over and over). If you're still figuring out aperture, then you've got lots to learn, and you simply do not have the experience or capacity to make a good decision on a super expensive lens purchase. When I didn't know the basics, I also had difficulties discerning what I needed & wanted.

To be honest all I've seen you do so far is pull up random technical aspects, and say "Hey, these exist, I just saw them! It's what I need." Nano crystal coating can help reduce lens flare, which can help improve colors & contrast in an image... it's useful for pros. However, it's not a necessity: It's just a pleasant feature that tops off already-great lenses. To go from just realizing that f1.8 isn't good for shooting buildings to saying you need nano-crystal coating isn't really a good thing. Not to mention that each of the lenses you're linking has a distinctly different purpose.

Remember at the start of the thread you stated that you plan to stick with your D3200 for a long time coming? Now you're looking at $2000+ lenses that are designed for FX...

I won't be back in this thread to help anymore since I think you've got the information laid out for a good initial purchase. I'm just going to leave you with the one piece of advice: Get the 35mm 1.8G, and then figure out what you want from there.

I respect seniority and the fact that you are far more noligible about the lenses and their uses, but you confuse my inexperience for lack of critical faculties. I go where the facts take me, that is why i agreed to go with the 35mm at that time with the knowledge i had, but as you can see, i am changing my choices as i learn more and more. I've scrutinized the 35mm to no end and its not the lens for me and i thank you for your input. However, this does not mean that i won't change my mind if the circumstances change.

 

[hamlet]

Yup, my first real lens was a 50mm / 1.8 (excluding that 55-200 ED POS) ... learned alot and still learning (think I said that before too). A 35 or 50/1.8 would be great as a first lens. 35 since you are liking landscape.

FYI .. I couldn't find my 18-55 to do those test shots I said I was going to do .... it's somewhere roaming around the basement.

That's alright, i tested the aperture on my 18-55 in my garden. I set my lens to 35mm and then i used different apertures to see how different each was. While the aperture doesn't go down to f1.8, i was kind of wanting to use my zoom. After that it was right back to the nikon website to compare lenses. The 14-24 coupled with the 24-70 coupled with the 70-300 seems like the right mix to me. But as of now its the choice between the 14-24 and the 24-70. I am really liking the last one.

 

[astroNikon]

After my 50mm I wanted a wider lens too. So I bought a 24mm (the 20/2.8 and especially the 18/2.8 that I wanted was too expensive for the "general" learning that I wanted them for.

Your 18-55 is kinda a sharp lens. So I would stick with that one for wide right now. And the 24-70/2.8 fits the bill with much more diversity.

I'm not really feeling limited by a 2.8 versus a 1.8. Really 2.8 is where it's at in a sense for total subject in focus (such as a person) and subject isolation from the background. But then I'm still learning that with my 80-200/2.8

1.8 was fun to play with but in the real world (and I'm no where near a great photographer) the 2.8 is more real world usage.

 

[hamlet]

I've learned that i've got to sacrifice some things in order to get the lens that i want. There is no one perfect lens that covers one type off style.