What lens do I need to overcome my limitations?

HerkFE · Mar 27, 2013

So I just got my D7000 and have been shooting with my 18-105mm kit lens and I am already finding a couple of areas that it is not giving me what I need.

When I am wide and trying to do portraiture the lens doesn't have a wide enough aperture for low light shooting and my 50mm 1.8D doesn't work well in tight spaces.

Here is an example

Took this of my wife and in a smaller room I couldn't get far enough back with my 50mm

So I broke out my 18-105mm

As you can see it's pretty underexposed and at 3.5mm with decent ambient light it struggled. I am thinking maybe a 24 or 35mm 1.8 prime may do the trick to help me in these situations.

My other issue is when I shoot the moon or nature I just don't have the reach and end up with tiny cropped images that while allow me to isolate my subject are so tiny they fail to be dramatic.

Here is the moon from tonight as you can see lots of wasted space and cropped down to a tiny pic

Just to show how much wasted space I have

This is exacerbated on wildlife pics where I have captured some great subjects that just end up being tiny cropped images.

So what do I need to start saving for?

My thoughts are a 35mm or lower prime and a 70-300 VRII?? Would those do the trick or do I need to save for something better?

2WheelPhoto · Mar 27, 2013

You may not find it desirable to shoot people with less than 50mm length lens

HerkFE · Mar 28, 2013

2WheelPhoto said:
You may not find it desirable to shoot people with less than 50mm length lens

Can you give me a bit more detail in that answer I don't understand why.

2WheelPhoto · Mar 28, 2013

Here you go: Perspective distortion (photography) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HerkFE · Mar 28, 2013

On a APS-C sensor isn't a 35mm = to a 50mm on a FX body due to the crop or does the distortion still occur?

2WheelPhoto · Mar 28, 2013

HerkFE said:
On a APS-C sensor isn't a 35mm = to a 50mm on a FX body due to the crop or does the distortion still occur?

50mm is 50mm no matter what size sensor it hits (in regards to lens distortion)

HerkFE · Mar 28, 2013

So basically I just need to invest in a longer telezoom and to use spaces large enough to frame my subject with my 50mm?

Based on the images above would a 300mm give me enough reach to make those shots work or do I need something longer?

2WheelPhoto · Mar 28, 2013

HerkFE said:
So basically I just need to invest in a longer telezoom and to use spaces large enough to frame my subject with my 50mm?

Based on the images above would a 300mm give me enough reach to make those shots work or do I need something longer?

That would be my suggestion, yes sir

tirediron · Mar 28, 2013

2Wheel is correct - you really want >50mm for portrait work. I do most of mine with either an 85mm or a 105, and have been known to break out the 200 on occasion. What this really means is that you need to find a bigger space in which to work. Which lens(es) you should look to totally depends on your budget, but one of the best (IMO) budget portrait lenses is the 85mm f1.8D; this can often be had used for $350-400 and is an excellent piece of glass. The 70-300 will definitely get you more reach, and is probably the best option as far as quality vs. cost. If you happen to have a spare $11,000.00, then of course the 600mm f4 is a pretty decent piece of glass too...

HerkFE · Mar 28, 2013

Are there any options that people recommend that are semi wallet friendly other then the 70-300 VR?

Benco · Mar 28, 2013

HerkFE said:
Are there any options that people recommend that are semi wallet friendly other then the 70-300 VR?

Second hand, or a prime telephoto rather than zoom maybe.

amolitor · Mar 28, 2013

50mm on an APS sensor should be about right for portraits, what are you guys on about? It's on the short end of the normal portrait length, but it'll work.

You need a bigger space so you can get farther back, and you need a better grasp on lighting. The first one is moderately nice, really, but the second one has those nasty harsh shadows.

You also want to get farther away from the background, which will help with the nasty shadows. This means, yup, an even BIGGER space. You might be able to find a space in your home that works, though, think in terms of shooting through doorways, down hallways, and so on. It's surprising how much stuff there can be around the camera, as long as the subject herself is in a relatively open space.

Place her near a window for more appealing but directional light. Ideally WITHOUT the sun streaming in through the window, but with the sky visible. The sky throws out a lot of good light, the window will direct it so you get some shadows (which you need so she doesn't look "flat") but will keep the edges of the shadows soft.

Mike_E · Mar 28, 2013

Try looking into a ~28-70mm f2.8. It doesn't have to be Nikon; Sigma, Tamron or Tokina will get you there.

I don't own a Sigma or a Tamron but I do own a Tokina (280 AT-X Pro) that does a fine job. The larger apertures are great for portraits and as you get smaller it's as sharp as you want it to be.

hirejn · Mar 28, 2013

Your pictures could benefit more from understanding lighting and exposure than new lenses. Whatever lenses you have I could use to get professional images with a little light and composition. If you're too close with a telephoto, there's an old trick called backing up. If you want less depth of field, put more distance between the subject and the background and use backgrounds that are dark. For wildlife you don't technically need more glass. If you understand the animal you can get physically close to it. A 300 mm wouldn't hurt, but the job of getting great images is still up to you, not the lens.

HughGuessWho · Mar 28, 2013

Bottom line is, Don't Blame The Equipment.
Without a doubt, all lenses have obvious limitations. However, the answer is in your title... "my limitations".
You can do amazing things with ANY lens, even an el cheapo.