MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Advice on lenses  (Read 16562 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 06, 2014, 14:45 »
+2
Hi all,
I have an older Nikon DSLR which I love. I have a stock 18-55mm lens as well as a a few manual lenses (85-200mm and a 50mm f1.8). I am looking for lenses that won't break the bank that are AF. I want an AF 50mm at the least that is f1.8. I am open to OEM non-Nikon lenses as long as they work. Any suggestions?


Rinderart

« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2014, 14:26 »
+1
Glass and Optical quality is Far more important than any camera.

« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2014, 14:38 »
0
Like you, I have an old 50mm f1.4 Nikon lens I bought on ebay years ago - not AF - so getting an AF is something I've thought about myself - I don't think a small prime like a 50mm AF is very expensive, though if you already have a 50mm you might want to consider the 35mm f 1.8 (more on that below).
 
Don't know whether you have a full frame Nikon or a DX - I have both and if you have a DX, I'd highly recommend the Nikon 35mm f 1.8  - it is super sharp, lets you focus really close (I think within 11 inches - check this I'm working from memory here) and is roughly equivalent to a 50mm.  It only works on DX cameras.

I bought a D5100 as a lighter backup camera a few years ago, and there are many times I just use it with the 35mm and don't bother taking anything else along. It's great in low light and lets me take almost macro like images because it focuses so closely. I've sold a lot of the images I've taken with it - even of things like butterflies. And it works well for walking around the city. A good practical lens and not very expensive.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2014, 14:41 by wordplanet »

Ron

« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2014, 14:42 »
0
Is there an equivalent to the Canon 50mm 1.8 for Nikon? The nifty fifty. Its only 110 dollars and tack sharp. If Nikon has something similar I would got for that one to start with.

« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2014, 14:50 »
0
I have the d7000 an my most favourite lens is the afs 85mm 1.8g
The lens is also suitable for FX
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-F18G

« Reply #5 on: January 24, 2014, 14:51 »
0
What body are you using, just so we can make informed recommendations?  Some AF and AF-D lenses won't autofocus on bodies that don't have a built in motor (like the D40,D40x, D60, D3100, etc.)

 

« Reply #6 on: January 24, 2014, 15:02 »
-9
I would recommend the 18- 200 VR,  and if you are on full frame the 24- 85 kit lens.

All the hype about "fast lenses" and 2,8 or more is not important. The lenses do NOT matter much.

Sharpness you would say?
Forget it. Sharpness is an illusion you can reach in many ways. Photoshop is one, downsizing is another one and light is the third.

There is no point in investing in sharp and fast lenses for microstock. Not for 38 cents.
Just take a photo of a roadsign, and earn a couple of downloads.
Thats where we are. The content and trendiness of the image would beat anything you can get from a lens, anytime.
Yoy would probably be better off by adding an orange plume, in photoshop to your pictures instead of buying a lens.

« Last Edit: January 24, 2014, 15:06 by JPSDK »

« Reply #7 on: January 24, 2014, 17:23 »
+4
Don't buy cheap glass; eventually you'll realize what a waste of money it is and put it away where you never have to look at it.  Good lenses are at least as important as your camera body in creating the best quality images.  Get the best ones you can afford.  Primes are far less expensive than zooms of equivalent focal length.  I like zooms because they're convenient, and because sometimes you can't move closer or further away.  But for the cost you can't beat primes; I keep a 50mm F/1.4 and 85mm F/1.8 in my bag.  My other go-to lenses are 105mm F/2.8 macro (amazing for head shots), 16-35mm F/4 for landscapes, 24-70mm F/2.8 for general use, and 70-200mm F/4 for studio and sometimes wildlife.  The 24-70 is expensive, the 70-200 less so, and the other two are under $1000 and well worth the money.

Oh, and you can never make an image sharper after the fact.  What you can do is either reduce resolution or increase edge contrast.  Both will give the appearance of a sharper image, but at some cost.  Get the sharpness right in camera.

ACS

« Reply #8 on: January 24, 2014, 18:10 »
0
If your old Nikon has a focus motor (D100, D70, D80, D90 but not D40) the best option is 50 1.8 AF-D. Cheap, sharp, lightweight > a must have lens.

« Reply #9 on: January 25, 2014, 00:49 »
0
I see  I get many minuses from my anti- equipment advice.
That must be because people think we are in a photo club.
But we arent. Friends, this is microstock.

The goal is to produce cheap images cheaply, and not come up with an excuse to invest and add further items to your collection.

And yes, you may get a competitive edge, a small one, by having faster glass. It is up to you to calculate if it pays back for you.

I have a decent amount of lenses, including some of the above mentioned, but it proves that what sits on the camera, and what my stockphotos are shot with, is a kit zoom.
So, we can say, that the kit-zoom paid for my collection of useless hobby lenses.

Ron

« Reply #10 on: January 25, 2014, 03:02 »
+7
You get down votes for saying stuff like, lenses are NOT important, focus is an illusion and its only for microstock

Lenses ARE important, focus is actually a real thing, and why limit yourself to cheap glass just for stock?

Its dumb advice.

« Reply #11 on: January 25, 2014, 04:01 »
-3
I said.
Sharpness is an illusion. That is something very different.
But I should have said: "Sharpness is an illusion based on focus".

You can photoshop more sharpness than the lens can ever produce. Not to mention light.

But now, can anybody tell me WHEN exactly fast lenses are important?

« Reply #12 on: January 25, 2014, 04:09 »
+2
Quote from: Henri Cartier-Bresson
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept.

« Reply #13 on: January 25, 2014, 04:15 »
0
It depends on what you shoot. At the moment I love my Sigma 105mm f2.8 Macro EX DG OS HSM - Nikon Fit

« Reply #14 on: January 25, 2014, 04:33 »
-3
BTW. Old DLSRs are not competitive anymore.

Actually I would advice the OP to get a new camera and not a lens.

Ron

« Reply #15 on: January 25, 2014, 05:32 »
0
Quote from: Henri Cartier-Bresson
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept.

Sure, what does that have to do with buying a good tack sharp lens? Or should we now all take blurry shots? I wonder how many will get accepted.

Here is your sharpness is bourgeois concept by the way, but you cant apply that to all images, you need sharp lenses.


Ron

« Reply #16 on: January 25, 2014, 05:34 »
+1
I said.
Sharpness is an illusion. That is something very different.
But I should have said: "Sharpness is an illusion based on focus".

You can photoshop more sharpness than the lens can ever produce. Not to mention light.

But now, can anybody tell me WHEN exactly fast lenses are important?
When you need shutter speed at lowest possible ISO in low light conditions.

« Reply #17 on: January 25, 2014, 06:20 »
+1
Sure, what does that have to do with buying a good tack sharp lens?

'K-all. It was a response to JPSDK's "sharpness is an illusion".

Without knowing what camera the poster is using the question is difficult to answer.

I have the following 50 mm lenses for Nikon fit.

1. Nikon AF-D 50mm f/1.4. This is a great lens with 7 aperture blades. But the AF-D f/1.8 is almost as good and less expensive. AF-D lenses will not autofocus on cameras which do not have an internal focus motor.

2. Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.8 G. This will autofocus on all Nikon DSLRs. The  7 rounded aperture blades make for nice out of focus areas IMO. I like the colors which this lens produces - presumably down to the improved coatings. I like this lens.

3. Nikon Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AI-S. Almost a pancake. Manual focus lens from the 80s. I like the colors it produces. I shot an annual company report using this just a couple of years ago. It has paid for itself about 3000x over.

4. Arsat H - 50mm f/2. Never tried it. 6 blades - Soviet. Completely manual. Almost as small as the pancake - but weights much more. I bought this because it exists in Nikon fit. I wonder whether it is radioactive.

2 and 3 are my favourites.

Ron

« Reply #18 on: January 25, 2014, 06:41 »
0
Sure, what does that have to do with buying a good tack sharp lens?

'K-all. It was a response to JPSDK's "sharpness is an illusion".


Ok, that wasnt clear to me as he wasnt quoted. Sorry.

« Reply #19 on: January 25, 2014, 06:44 »
0
like Ron said above get the 50mm and then the 24-70, 70-200 or some nice primes, don't you listen to Jens because he loves to distract us with his non-sense monologues

1 - metadata is the only thing that matters (pictures don't)
2 - sharpness is an illusion

 ;D

« Reply #20 on: January 25, 2014, 09:14 »
0
like Ron said above get the 50mm and then the 24-70, 70-200 or some nice primes, don't you listen to Jens because he loves to distract us with his non-sense monologues

1 - metadata is the only thing that matters (pictures don't)
2 - sharpness is an illusion

 ;D
Fine. I like to be quoted for that. Please continue.

But now, since Im being quoted Id like to phrase it a bit more precisely: The perception of sharpness is an illusion based on focus".

I shall think about a better version of the metadata quote also.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2014, 09:27 by JPSDK »

« Reply #21 on: January 25, 2014, 09:19 »
0
I said.
Sharpness is an illusion. That is something very different.
But I should have said: "Sharpness is an illusion based on focus".

You can photoshop more sharpness than the lens can ever produce. Not to mention light.

But now, can anybody tell me WHEN exactly fast lenses are important?
When you need shutter speed at lowest possible ISO in low light conditions.
So you need fast glass in low light conditions? in the meaning that the light is not optimal for the subject.

I prefer to photograph low light objects, like graveyards and vampires in their optimal light situation, which would be considered low for other objects like angels, snails and deserts.

Ron?... What about you. Isnt your  port mostly based on phoitoshop tricks, rather than lenses?
Mine is.



« Reply #22 on: January 25, 2014, 09:23 »
-3
See what a slow and cheap lens can produce. interesting, isnt it?:

Ron

« Reply #23 on: January 25, 2014, 09:26 »
0
You are missing the point, and I think you do it deliberately. I have a Danish mate, same character, just being stubborn for the sake of it.

« Reply #24 on: January 25, 2014, 09:41 »
0
You are missing the point, and I think you do it deliberately. I have a Danish mate, same character, just being stubborn for the sake of it.
It is deliberate, yes, Im trying to educate some business sence into you.
Its not easy since Im up against love for equipment and collection tendencies, not to mention that photographers can only look at the world through a viewfinder.

Im trying to express a broader view of things. From the microstock business side.
Microstock is NOT all about photos, and certainly not lenses, but more about relevant content, metadata and trend and distribution.
And I have not found the stone of wisdom, What I say is only part of the truth. Good lenses matter. But not as much as you guys think, and i think it is poor advice to give to a guy with an old DLSR, to begin to invest in lenses, he should rather get a camara, a kitlens, and spend his time on photoshop.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Lenses for 5d mark II

Started by CofkoCof « 1 2  All » Canon

28 Replies
29635 Views
Last post December 22, 2008, 14:11
by Read_My_Rights
2 Replies
3939 Views
Last post February 16, 2012, 12:10
by aeonf
3 Replies
3173 Views
Last post September 05, 2012, 11:25
by stockastic
12 Replies
4111 Views
Last post August 30, 2013, 03:04
by ACS
2 Replies
4436 Views
Last post January 19, 2017, 10:06
by jonbull

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors