What lens to purchase next

[terilynne]

Hi there! I have a Nikon D3000 and only have the kit lens thus far (18-55). I want a lens with a smaller aperture so I can get better blur in my images with my DOF....does this make any sense at all? I am new as you can most likely tell:er:

 

[ulrichsd]

I have the 35mm f1.8 and love it. If you are looking more for a portrait lens, something longer might be more appropriate, but if you're new I think you'll enjoy the 35mm and get what you're looking for. Unfortunately, they are pretty much sold out most places, so you'll have to order and wait most likely...

 

[terilynne]

I have the 35mm f1.8 and love it. If you are looking more for a portrait lens, something longer might be more appropriate, but if you're new I think you'll enjoy the 35mm and get what you're looking for. Unfortunately, they are pretty much sold out most places, so you'll have to order and wait most likely...

Thank-you so much!!

 

[ausemmao]

What do you like to shoot?
What kind of budget do you have?
Which focal lengths do you tend to shoot at right now? (You can find this out by putting the card with your picture files on in the camera, pressing the up button on the dial on the back, and looking at the number quoted in mm if it's like the D3100, which I assume it is)

With those it'll be much easier to make a considered suggestion. The instant suggestion would be a 35mm f/1.4 or a 50mm f1.8 (if you're ok with manually focusing) or 1.4.

That said, you can get decent blur with the lens you have now. It's not just aperture that makes a difference to blur. Your distance to the subject, the focal length you choose, and I think the most easily ignored by beginners - the distance between the subject of the photo and the background - all make a difference. I'm sure someone can explain much better than I have

 

[terilynne]

OK this is what it said (I did what you told me, thank-you I didnt know I could do that) A 1/60 F5.6 ISO400 55mm---it just dont seem like enough blur to me---also in order to get the little bit of blur that I am getting I have to get super close to the subject that I am focusing on---does this sound right??

 

[flyin-lowe]

I know the 50 mm 1.8 is a very common second lens for a lot of Cannon owners and it can be purchased for around $100.00 new, I am sure Nikon has a similar lense.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

You can either replace the kit lens with something like a 16-50mm f/2.8 or get a 50mm 1.4, 1.8 or even the Tamron 60mm f/2 macro. This is without knowing what you most like to shoot.

 

[itf]

It's bigger aperture o.o

Smaller is f/22 and bigger is f/1.8 etc.

You can get dof with your 18-55 if your subject is close to you and the background is very far away.

 

[terilynne]

You can either replace the kit lens with something like a 16-50mm f/2.8 or get a 50mm 1.4, 1.8 or even the Tamron 60mm f/2 macro. This is without knowing what you most like to shoot.

I shoot newborns, children, seniors, weddings, maternity things like that---any suggestions help! Thanks to all who reply! I would like to know your opinion on what lens to buy next--I dont think I am good enough to focus on my own so I would most likely need an auto focus--I would like the next step up from what I have. DO they have cheaper brands that will work as an auto focus lens for a Nikon D3000?

 

[terilynne]

It's bigger aperture o.o

Smaller is f/22 and bigger is f/1.8 etc.

You can get dof with your 18-55 if your subject is close to you and the background is very far away.

Your right that is what I meant Thanks for clarifying that!

 

[Vinny]

If for a group shot a lower focal length is good; if for portraits then a somewhat longer one is needed. The typical focal length for portraits used to be about 105 mm or the crop sensor equivalent but many people say to buy a short focal length lens ... not sure what has changed and I don't shoot portraits and only use zooms.Too short of a focal length gives distortions to a photo. There's the 35mm as mentioned and the 50mm as well, both have people swear by them. Not sure how much better a zoom with a 2.8 maximum vs a 3.5 maximum (assuming you're shooting at the lowest focal length) will give you bokeh wize but it will be much more expensive than the 50mm 1.8. But first you need to know what you want the lens for.

 

[benhasajeep74 72]

If your on a budget a 35mm f/1.8G or 50mm f/1.8 G lens are very budget minded and good lenses. Since your D3000 is a crop body a 35mm will be close to what is considered normal view (what your eyes see). The 50mm would be close to what is considered to be portrait length.

 

[ausemmao]

OK this is what it said (I did what you told me, thank-you I didnt know I could do that) A 1/60 F5.6 ISO400 55mm---it just dont seem like enough blur to me---also in order to get the little bit of blur that I am getting I have to get super close to the subject that I am focusing on---does this sound right??

Yeah, that's about right - the closer you are to your subject the narrower your DoF becomes.

I think it'd be best illustrated with examples.


That was shot with the same kit lens you have, at 40mm and f5.3 (I forgot how quickly the f-stop shrinks on that lens). The background is pretty blurred, though it's not smears of colour. The subject was about a metre away (other side of a couch) and that back wall about 8-10m.


That was shot with a 17-50mm f/2.8 lens at 24mm and f2.8. Subject about 6m away, background in the tens and hundreds. Almost the entire shot is in focus.


Same lens, but shot at 50mm with the subject 4m away, background in the high tens.

It was just something I thought I should bring up to bear in mind while you are shooting - there are other things besides aperture that affect what the DoF will be. Besides that, there's what you do. For example, I got the 17-50 because I needed the constant 2.8 to be able to shoot in low light, and because I shot in that range - just a 50mm or 35mm would have restricted me too much. On the other hand, some people put a 50mm prime on and never take it off.

That's why I said take a look at the pictures you have taken - if most were at 40-50mm then you'd be best off getting one of the 50mm primes, if they were at 30-40 then the 35 might be best, if they were spread all over then one of the constant 2.8 zooms (Sigma 18-50, Tamron 17-50, Tokina 16-50 or Nikon 17-55 if you're feeling flush) would be best.

 

[ausemmao]

Not sure how much better a zoom with a 2.8 maximum vs a 3.5 maximum (assuming you're shooting at the lowest focal length) will give you bokeh wize but it will be much more expensive than the 50mm 1.8. But first you need to know what you want the lens for.

You don't buy the 2.8 zooms for the aperture at the wide end - while half a stop is nice, it isn't that nice. It's for the mid and tele end - by 24mm you're already a stop ahead (2.8 vs 4) and at 50mm it's 2.8 vs 5.6. That's the deceptive thing about the kit zooms. It's rarely mentioned just how quickly the f stop shrinks (I assume because the aperture diameter maximum is near constant) as focal length increases.

 

[KmH]

OK this is what it said (I did what you told me, thank-you I didnt know I could do that) A 1/60 F5.6 ISO400 55mm---it just dont seem like enough blur to me---also in order to get the little bit of blur that I am getting I have to get super close to the subject that I am focusing on---does this sound right??

Sounds like your shooting indoors with those settings.

At Online Depth of Field Calculator and plugging in f/5.6, 55 mm focal length, and a focal point 10 feet from the plane of the image sensor the total DOF is only 2.27 feet deep, with 1.01 feet of the total DOF in front of the focal point, and 1.26 feet of the total DOF behind the focal point.

The near limit of the DOF is 8.99 feet from the image sensor and the far limit is the 10 feet to the focal point plus the 1.26 feet behind the focal point already mentioned, ot 11.3 feet from the image sensor.

So you would want the background 20 feet or more behind your focal point which means 30 feet from the image sensor to the background. That would be tough to pull off in a house.

Getting 2 feet closer to the focal point reduces the total DOF by 0.83 feet (10", 4.3" front of the focus point, 5.7" behind the focus point. )

But, you start getting to f/1.4 and f/1.8 lenses and the DOF starts getting real shallow and it gets hard to get everything you want in focus, inside that razor thin, narrow DOF.

At f/4 and 8 feet the total DOF is only 12". At f/2.8 and 8 feet the total DOF drops to just 8.5" and it's hard to have the eyes, ears, and the nose of just one person all in focus, and that's if they are facing straight on to the camera so all those features are in a plane parallel to the image sensor.

In other words all these recommendations to be using 35 mm and 50 mm lenses have to be considered carefully.

The better way to go is a longer focal length, because the longer focal length has the same DOF if image sacle is maintained but you have to move back from the focal point, and because of what happens to perspective when you us a longer focal length, that makes the background seem closer to the focal point. In other words the blurry background gets magnified.

Check this out: Eye Shutter 2 Think: Photography Lesson 3