which camera lens?

[jaomul]

OP said in first post kit Lens was ok but having issues with it now.

My post in #3 might have have been different knowing what we all know now. But it unclear that even happened before or after the OP.

Ya it is easy to overlook something on a post. The first post did say there was issues with the kit lens. I saw that straight away but I know it could easily be missed or even taken in a way that looked liked the issues were user error.

However I also noticed the OP has very few posts, and say whatever you want but you were trying to undermine them. There was no need for it.

 

[Braineack]

However I also noticed the OP has very few posts, and say whatever you want but you were trying to undermine them. There was no need for it.

not really: I said the 18-55 should suffice.

my other post was not intended to be directed at the OP or suggest anything about the OP's abilities. I was only really undermining solarflare's suggestion about using tools like PS or LR as a solution.

If I also say I don't even think the 35mm or 50mm is a good idea either, am I still undermining the OP?

 

[yioties]

Thinking the 35 or 50 isn't a good idea is an opinion and i personally value someones opinion if they explain their reasoning. The rest I don't even pay attention to it!

 

[Braineack]

I don't necessarily think the ability to shot at a lower f-stop at the expense of having to shoot much further away from the subject in order to frame an entire mannequin, on a crop-sensor, is a good trade off.

I think the photos the OP posted were quite nice and well exposed. Any real DOF benefits from a fast prime would be found in shots like the up close bracelet, but the DOF looks pretty good on that shot, probably done at f/3.5.

The third shot I can see where the lens isn't achieving focus, but it's still a pretty good shot. I'd say any improvements here would be made from staging the shot and working on composition. I've taking much worse pictures.

If I were to recommend a fast lens, it might be something like the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8. So you still have a wide angle for full length shots, with the versatility to zoom and frame in tight quarters and a pretty fast f-stop when you want to use DOF creatively for selective focus or background separation. Although, maybe something that can shoot macro as well, might be beneficial for close-up details, like the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4, which can shoot at 1:2.7 at 70mm.

Edit: I just went and looked at a bunch of shots I took of my wife in various outfits she was selling online, and they were primarily taken at 20-35mm on a Nikon Crop sensor; I was in a medium sized bedroom without any furniture and I had no more room to backup, and I was cropping out her head.

this was done at f/5.6 yet the wall about 1 foot behind her is out of focus:

1/160, 42mm, f/5.6, iso 125. Two speedlights. This was using the Sigma 17-70.

 

[yioties]

Now that's an opinion I can value! I would have recommended the tamron 17-50 non vc but the OP said he was on a budget which to me means the cheaper the better. That's why I recommended the primes

 

[Braineack]

Understandable. I just don't quite think they are the go-to lens here. I sold that Sigma 17-70 for $275 in Dec. The Tamron could be had for about the same.

 

[yioties]

I seriously love my 50mm 1.8g but i take images of my kids with it.

 

[nick001]

Guns holstered...No hard feelings. Ps. I didn't vote for Obama and never really thought you resided in your parents basement. I learned not to 'presume' a long time ago. Your right this is the internet. Have a good one bud.

 

[nick001]

Thanks for all the info guys....greatly appreciated. Sending the kit lens back to nikon for repair...meanwhile I looked at sample shots from the 35mm f1.8..very nice. I have quite a lot of room to move around so maybe that should work (I wanted a back up lens anyway) The sigma is a bit out of my price range.
Again, thank you so much for your replies.

 

[Braineack]

the 35mm is a nice little lens. one thing you can do is set the 18-55 to 35mm while you have it and get a feel for being stuck at that focal length. But being able to open the aperture up an extra stop or so really opens up a bunch of creative direction.

The 18-55 can also be found for really really cheap as a replacement. It might be cheaper to just get a used replacement over repairing yours. We are taking in the $40-75 range depending.

 

[nick001]

Just a continuation of this thread with another question.....how far away could i stand using the 35mm for it to still have sharp focus ( I use a tripod). As i know nothing about lenses or come to think of it photography in general this may seem like a trivial question to the photography guru.

 

[bc_steve]

my 5 year old somehow got hold of the camera and dropped it. It did take really sharp photos before, but not anymore. There is a rattle sound inside the lens. View attachment 71251View attachment 71252View attachment 71253.....The camera focus is ok closer up but as I move away about 5' to 7' the clothing becomes slightly unfocused. Before I could slightly zoom in on the photos and they would still hold their sharpness. Now they become out of focus.

A (working) kit lens should be able to do everything you need here. Regardless of what lens you use, there are some things you could do to take a better picture.

The main thing go me is that the backgrounds are quite distracting. Show off the clothing, not your flower pot or your hardwood floor.

I don't know much about artificial lighting but I'm sure someone could give you some tips on that as well.

 

[bc_steve]

And as long as you are beyond the minimum focusing distance (about 30cm for a 35mm or kit lens), it will be sharp.

 

[nick001]

Yes I agree about the distraction. I just reintroduced the plant pot..it is now retired again...lol. It's hard not to get the floor in the photo though as I'm showing the pants also. Thanks for the advice and the lens info.