Help with good lens
Wed 2010/09/08 07:11 JST
Okay, I own a Nikon D3000 and I love photography, but I need a good lens for macro shots of my figures.
What lens do you recommend, as well, please try to keep it under $1000.
What exactly is it that the kit lens doesn't do that you want? I've been using my 18-55mm lens on my D5000 for figure pictures and they come out really good.
Yeah, I totally have to agree with you. I've had a macro lens on my 'get' list for the longest time, but I'm starting to wonder how much I really need one. My standard 55mm lens can get really nice pictures of my figures, even the 4-inch ones. Just get the camera as close as you can, set it to the maximum resolution, low ISO, and zoom in all the way. It's probably too much zoom already, since when you get that close you can start to see all the paint flaws, and molding lines on the figure.
Here's my tips for better figure pictures with no macro: crank down the aperture as low as you can, to get the max depth of field (say, f20). With this you can get pretty much any figure entirely in focus. Now, instead of spending $500 on the macro, spend $5 and get yourself a remote trigger. A low aperture means a LONG exposure time, so use the remote trigger so you can't bump the camera, and get a blurry image. Voila! Perfect figure pictures!
Yeah, but I also want it for regular photography.
Shooting at the lowest aperture do more harm than good. You'll gain a slight increase in depth of field but your images won't turn out sharp as compared to shooting between f/5.6-f/11 (f/stop is depending on your camera/lens). Play around with your camera, taking shoots at different aperture to find out the sharpest aperture. Google Diffraction if you wanna know more about it.
If you need the whole figure to be in focus, move the camera back a little, you can always crop the end image.
I could've sworn stopping down a lens increases the optics of a lens.
Nikkor Macro 85 mm - F/3.5 is a nice one its around $490. Or the Nikkor Macro 60 mm - F/2.8 for about $540. The Nikkor Macro 105 mm - F/2.8 VR is badass but it's around $800. The 60mm can take some pretty sharp pictures and the contrast is also really nice.
Are the picture for the latter sharp as well?
I can get discounts off of Nikon easily, but I also wanted to see if anyone was going to recommend things from Sigma and other companies.
I might go with the 105 mm if the pictures are better than the 60mm, but if not, 60mm it is.
The 105 and 60mm quality are pretty much at par. It just comes down to how close do you want to get the subject(figures). 105 mm minimum focus distance is about a foot but the 60mm is about 0.60 feet.
I have a Tokina 100mm F/2.8 Macro lens that does extremely well. Reviews peg it at just below the Nikkor 105mm VR Micro, at about half the price. I got mine from Adorama for $400.
Another lens I would recommend that everyone have in their bag is a 50mm F/1.8. The Nikkor version can be had for around $125 (mine came from Amazon.com). Almost all of my pictures are shot between those two lenses.
I occasionally use the Nikkor 18-200mm DX lens if I need something a bit more versatile, though it isn't anywhere near as sharp as either of the purpose built prime lenses.
I've experimented with some of the general use Tamron lenses, I can't say I'm a huge fan. AF is extremely loud and slow. If you rely heavily on AF, you'll need to shift your lens shopping a bit. Neither of the lenses I referenced above have internal focus motors, so you'd have to manually focus them on your D3000.
Oh, if you want examples of things shot with the 50mm and 100mm, check out one of my sets on flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/asianed/sets/72157624238036371/
The earlier stuff was shot with the 50mm and later stuff was shot with the 100mm macro.
I thought about the Tokina as well.
If I get the Tokina, I might as well get another lens as well, such as a zoom lens.
Thanks for the help. ^^
I can't recommend the Tokina enough. It shoots great at the macro range! My favorite shot so far has to be the grasshopper, you can see all that detail in it's eye!
That was my favourite as well. ;D
I really enjoy shooting macro outdoors. At 100mm, you get super close up and can bring out a lot of detail in the subject.
Be warned though, neither of these lenses are good for wide angle shots (even the 50mm). On an APS-C camera, the 50mm is equivalent to about 75mm in film terms. That means it really shines in portraits and close up shots, but isn't good for much else.
For that reason, I've been shopping around for something that'll do well at the wider angle. Tokina also makes a wide lens and it's something I'll be considering. :)
This comment wins the topic really.
I've had the 18-55, and now have the 18-200mm, 50mm 1.8 and 35mm 1.8 on my D90 (obviously not all at once). Given the price of the 50mm lens, it's a steal, and it really does take great photos. It's the one that I'll be taking with me next time to WonFest (last time I only had the 18-200mm, and took some decent shots, but this time I know to have a prime and a circular polarising filter...
Ahh... filters. I typically shoot with a clear UV filter just as extra lens protection. For general indoor shooting, a polarizer really doesn't do much except reduce the amount of light coming into the lens and forces you to open the lens wider/longer. I generally don't use one unless I'm trying to reduce reflective glare off a surface or I'm trying to enhance colors in natural sunlight.
How does the 35mm DX compare to the 50mm? I've not actually seen anything done side-by-side and was curious if it was worth the investment if I already had a 50.
Exactly why I'm going to take a polariser to WonFes next time - so that the glass cases' reflections don't show up in my shots - typically they weren't much of a problem, but they were there in a few of my shots last year (for example): http://www.flickr.com/photos/andyboyh/3789822098/in/set-72157621945564376/
Well, the 35mm is a 'true 50' on a cropped/DX sensor - so it's got the same sweet spot as the old SLR 50mms - but truth be told I haven't taken a lot of comparison shots of the same subject with the two lenses to show you the difference yet. I'll make some shots and reply with some comparisons ;)
Nice! would be curious to see how the two lenses compare. I'm trying to stay away from buying too much DX glass in case I go to an FX camera, so that's really my biggest deterrent at buying one...
I'm a Canon shooter so I can't really comment on which Nikkor/Tamron/Tonika/Sigma lens would work best for you. I do have so general comments/ideas I would like to share.
First would be to pickup a 50mm prime lens (f/1.8 or f/1.4). These lenses are generally cheap/fast/and sharp. But most importantly it'll force you to think more about composition since you can't zoom in/out on the subject, you actually have to move the camera. 50mm is also great since it maintains the same perspective of the human eye, truly a WYSIWYG lens!
Second is about buying other lenses... Camera bodies come and go, but the bulk of your photography investment will be in the glass you attach to those bodies. If you plan to eventually make money with this, considering splurging a bit on the glass since as you upgrade bodies you can take the higher end glass with you. The only time I would caution against getting high end glass is if you are looking at jumping ship to another camera manufacturer. Nikon/Canon/et al; camera lenses and bodies do not play well with each other, so once you've invested in the glass you want to keep shooting with that company.
Lastly I want to put in a recommendation that you start thinking more about lighting. I looked over at your blog and I get the impression you are using a single light source, perhaps a bare bulb flash fired directly at the subject? Picking up a $10 diffuser or pointing the flash away from the subject and bouncing with some poster board will help massively in getting even lighting tones. Probably the best blog/resource for off camera lighting tips is Strobist, http://strobist.blogspot.com/
You are already taking steps in the right direction by getting that tripod and giving thought to what your lighting is, keep up the good work and perseverance! And remember cameras don't take good pictures, people do. So keep shooting!
Thanks. ;D
I might be getting the Tokina as stated above, and well as a 50mm prime. For my lighting, I new that you weren't suppose to aim the light directly at the subject, but forgot for the first post. So no my lights are facing a different direction and the lighting is starting to look nice.
I might as well buy the diffuser for the future as well.
Thanks again, ^^
what about this?
Tamron SP AF90mm F/2.8 Di 1:1 Macro (272E)
Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX
I used to be taking pic for snapshot and my dollfie & toys by using this lens.
I thought about getting that lens and had played with one before, though I've been trying not to buy DX lenses in case I move to a full frame camera. Still though, the Nikkor 35mm DX is pretty nice!
Rather than suddenly deciding that you want to spend 1000 dollars on a new glass, perhaps you should look at learning how to employ that 18-55 lens you have better. That thing is probably imho the single best best lens in terms of bang for your buck in Nikon's entire line up. I'm not ripping on your skills or anything, but the pics on your blog suggest maybe a little more practise might be needed. Please keep in mind, that just because you have a macro lens, your photos aren't going to be automatically better.
Also, do remember that the d3000 is the entry level of entry level dslr bodies. A 1000 dollar lens is more than likely wasted on the D3000, and you'd be better served looking for a better body.
That being said, the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX is probably your best bet. It's approximately 200 dollars and will serve you well even when you improve to the point where you want to take the upgrade path.
Yeah, I know my pictures suck. I'm more use to natural lighting.
The thing is with the $1000 dollar limit thing is that I know you can use the lens with the higher models, and I want to have high quality lens which will go with a good camera in the future. I've been thinking of upgrading for a while, and this summer I should get over $3000, which means I can probably buy a really nice camera.
Wanting better class is cool and all, but are you aware that spending that investment of glass means that you will likely be committing yourself to that brand for the foreseeable future?
Lens are not interchangeable between brands, except for this AF-S -> EF-S mount converter that does exist, but isn't perfect. If you spend your $1000 on the glass, are you ready to say, I will be using Nikon from now on?
Rather than saying I want a good lens, how about asking yourself what do I want to do that the 18-55mm VR kit lens does not allow me to do? Or a perhaps you can consider renting one of the lenses that are mentioned here, and then seeing if that lens will in fact provide you with the IQ increase that you wish to attain.
With the different camera lenses, I love the quality of Nikon cameras, and Canons just aren't really for me. Also, I can get discounts on Nikons (I think I got $200 off my D3000).
Also, I've been using this lens for a year, and I love it and all, but I feel restricted with a lot of the photography I do. I mostly do macro shots, and they don't look so good because of the fact that my zoom is only to 55mm (which is why I want to Tokina).
It came down to ergonomics for me. Before I bought a DSLR, I shot with a Canon SX10. When it came time to shop, I started trying out offerings from the Canon and Nikon lines. Strangely, the camera that felt the closes to what I was used to with the Canon point and shoot was a Nikon SLR. The layout, ergonomics, and shutter release on the Canon SLR wasn't anything like what I was used to.
Strange how that works, isn't it? The reason I bought into Nikon was because I liked a Canon point and shoot... XD
It'll always be a balance between the glass and the body. While it's true that super nice glass would be hindered by an entry level body, that shouldn't deter someone from buying it and using it. As long as someone stays committed to the hobby and to the manufacturer, a good piece of glass will stay with you your whole life! There is a downside to buying less expensive glass.
A cheaper lens will give you similar quality of a more expensive lens since the body is the limiting factor. What happens when you inevitably decide to upgrade the body? That cheap lens is now the limiter and holds back the body. To get around that, you end up buying the lens that you wanted originally, leaving you with an obsolete piece of glass that you'll end up putting away or selling.
Now, not to say that everyone needs to go out and buy the top of the line, but it's all about balance. Right now, I shoot with a Nikon D50, which is the "entry level" model from 5 years ago. It's a great body and has a lot of features that were later stripped out of Nikon's entry level line, but I plan on going to a D90/D7000 sometime in the next year. All of the lenses I've purchased are full frame capable lenses, which gives me the upgrade path to nicer cameras in the FX lines.
But in terms of value for money, nothing out there beats the 50mm F/1.8. The only real downside is that it won't AF on the D3000/3100/5000/60 bodies since it doesn't have an internal focus motor (and Nikon stripped out the in-body focus motor from those models).
As a side note, I also have an 18-200mm DX Nikkor lens. It's extremely versatile for general shooting and sells for about $800. It's nowhere near as sharp as any of the other glass I own, but that's the price you pay for versatility. >.>