MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Advice on lenses  (Read 16561 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.

« Reply #25 on: January 25, 2014, 09:51 »
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.

if we are going that "extreme" perhaps he doesn't even need to learn Photoshop (BTW I mainly use GIMP), I guess he can upload stuff straight from the camera without any editing, if that is the microstock you want to approach that is fine but please don't advice a 18-200 lens to start with, get a 50mm and use your feet ;)

Ron

« Reply #26 on: January 25, 2014, 09:55 »
0
I bought a 50-250mm canon because I could afford it. At some point it was holding me back, in fact, I never used it again. I lent it to a friend of mine and I will probably never see it again. I invested in one quality fast lens and I love it to date, best investment I ever made (besides my 6D)

« Reply #27 on: January 25, 2014, 10:57 »
0
Well, I owned 3 18-200, and gave them away, because I upgraded to full frame.

I would still recommend it for stock.

« Reply #28 on: January 25, 2014, 11:07 »
0
I would be interested to know what the OP decided - since he started this thread on 6th January.


« Reply #29 on: January 25, 2014, 11:22 »
0
I have a Nikon D50. I understand cheap glass isn't as good, but I am sure there are alternatives that don't suffer too much. I haven't decided on any just yet. I am just looking for good AF lenses that allow the most light in. I am a sucker for shallow depth of field with a nice bokeh. My current manual  lenses can achieve this with my current lenses, but manual can be hit or miss with focus sometimes. My 18-55mm stock lens just doesn't let enough light in for my liking (f3.x)

« Reply #30 on: January 25, 2014, 11:55 »
0
BTW I have a degree in computer graphics (specifically animation) and I am trained in studio Photography. I am a developer in my day job, so I know the equipment and software well. I know what U want in a lens, however, I don't have the funds to spend on the equipment that my employers have. I used to have access to a variety of high- end lenses with my past employer, but now I have to rely on my own equipment.

Stock is a side thing I do to supplement my income along with freelance work. Most of my portfolio is CG and I make the most from animations. I want to bump my returns by using my studio photography experience.

Anyway with that said, I am looking for decent quality at a good price. I do enjoy the manual lenses, but I feel I can become speedier if I had AF

« Reply #31 on: January 25, 2014, 11:55 »
+1
I am a sucker for shallow depth of field with a nice bokeh.


Me too.

Apparently your D50 has an internal focus motor and is therefore compatible with AF-D lenses. So the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D should suit you very well. You should be able to get one new for $100 - $150.

It's affordable but also a classic (as is the Canon equivalent).

« Reply #32 on: January 25, 2014, 11:59 »
0
I forgot to say thanks guys I do appreciate the advice

« Reply #33 on: January 25, 2014, 12:03 »
+1
BTW. Old DLSRs are not competitive anymore.

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

BS I get great shots from my D50 still. Sure I'd love an upgrade, but not a necessity

« Reply #34 on: January 25, 2014, 12:20 »
0
BTW. Old DLSRs are not competitive anymore.

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


BS I get great shots from my D50 still. Sure I'd love an upgrade, but not a necessity


I started out in 2007 in stock with a d 50, and it is problematic, because there is not much to crop from with 6,1 mpix.
Also my version was a noise monster. Maybe yours arent, and maybe not in the studio.
I would still recomend the 18-200 because:

CONTRA:
It has vignette
It is very not sharp at 18-22 and 170-200.
It has heavy cromatic abbrevation in some situations
People laugh at you, and you loose street respect among photographers

PRO
It is cheap
It is reasonably sharp in the range from 22-170
It can produce tack sharp pictures
AF is fast, and precise.
It has VR that compensates for ever so much camera shake, but not motion blur.
It can be handheld at 1/60 or even 1/30 at 200 mm and get sharp images.
the close range is good, and it is close to becoming a macro.
It is very versatile, and you can photograph everything with it. Landscapes, portraits, product and wildlife.

of my stock port is done with that lens and a d 200, of which I have also had 3, since i upgraded to a new d 200 every time I dropped the set on the floor and broke it.

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-88729p2.html?sort_method=newest&safesearch=1

Goofy

« Reply #35 on: January 25, 2014, 12:38 »
+1
In summary,

Remember that you're shooting images that net around $.60 (USD) thus keep the equipment (camera, lens, computer, software) in ratio with your earnings (present and future).

Thus buying a Hasselbald MF camera with Zeiss lens makes no sense for the vast majority of us. Heck even the Nikon D800e with Zeiss glass makes no sense. Just keep it in perspective. I started with a Canon T2i Rebel with a 28-135 lens for my first year. Later on got a 50mm and 24-70 lens but not until I had built up a base salary to justify the purchases...

 ;)


« Reply #36 on: January 25, 2014, 12:53 »
0
That is a good summary.
And I remembered that I have a lens for sale cheaply, like you can have it, if you come and get it and bring a couple of beers.

Ninor AF 85 mm, 1,8
Almost mint condition, works perfectly.

« Reply #37 on: January 25, 2014, 13:07 »
0
Dingles,  I see nothing wrong with wanting to stick with your D50 for now as you start out, it's a fine camera.  After 11 years in the photography business, I've just started contributing to Microstock this past year and have been uploading images from my back catalogue from older cameras including a D50 (which I still own) and  an even older D100.    I'm happy to report that images made with these cameras are being accepted and selling.

As for a fast lens, in 2003 I bought a used 50mm F1.8 lens for about $85 and it was a workhorse for me until I sold it 2013 on ebay for $75.  I'd say it's the best 10 bucks I ever spent, but in truth it paid for it self more times than I count.  I recommend it for your D50. 

« Reply #38 on: January 25, 2014, 13:50 »
0
BTW. Old DLSRs are not competitive anymore.

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


BS I get great shots from my D50 still. Sure I'd love an upgrade, but not a necessity


I started out in 2007 in stock with a d 50, and it is problematic, because there is not much to crop from with 6,1 mpix.
Also my version was a noise monster. Maybe yours arent, and maybe not in the studio.
I would still recomend the 18-200 because:

CONTRA:
It has vignette
It is very not sharp at 18-22 and 170-200.
It has heavy cromatic abbrevation in some situations
People laugh at you, and you loose street respect among photographers

PRO
It is cheap
It is reasonably sharp in the range from 22-170
It can produce tack sharp pictures
AF is fast, and precise.
It has VR that compensates for ever so much camera shake, but not motion blur.
It can be handheld at 1/60 or even 1/30 at 200 mm and get sharp images.
the close range is good, and it is close to becoming a macro.
It is very versatile, and you can photograph everything with it. Landscapes, portraits, product and wildlife.

of my stock port is done with that lens and a d 200, of which I have also had 3, since i upgraded to a new d 200 every time I dropped the set on the floor and broke it.

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-88729p2.html?sort_method=newest&safesearch=1


I have no issue with noise as long as I keep the ISO in check. Never had much vignette issues (although I often add vignette in post...must be the artist in me). Never had issues with Chromatic Abrasion either...at least nothing noticeable. I personally like a bit of imperfection in my photos, except when doing studio shots. Even though it may be cheap now, it was not a cheap camera in 2007 :)...

« Reply #39 on: January 25, 2014, 13:54 »
0
the nikon d 50 cost 1000 dollars back in 2005.

« Reply #40 on: January 25, 2014, 13:55 »
0
Dingles,  I see nothing wrong with wanting to stick with your D50 for now as you start out, it's a fine camera.  After 11 years in the photography business, I've just started contributing to Microstock this past year and have been uploading images from my back catalogue from older cameras including a D50 (which I still own) and  an even older D100.    I'm happy to report that images made with these cameras are being accepted and selling.

As for a fast lens, in 2003 I bought a used 50mm F1.8 lens for about $85 and it was a workhorse for me until I sold it 2013 on ebay for $75.  I'd say it's the best 10 bucks I ever spent, but in truth it paid for it self more times than I count.  I recommend it for your D50.

Thanks for the advice man, I guess the good thing about lenses is they really don't loss much value. I think I'm going for a AF-D 50mm 1.8 for now. I'll stick with my manual 70-210mm lens for now. An 85mm 1.8 sounds like fun also. I guss in short there really aren't many off-brands for Nikon lenses and I don't want to mess with adapter mounts for AF.

« Reply #41 on: January 25, 2014, 13:58 »
0
the nikon d 50 cost 1000 dollars back in 2005.

I spend around $800 in 2005, but that isn't cheap for me...but it is all relative. I was thinking of upgrading since I only need the body and would love to add HD video to the mix. I saw some Nikons running around 4 and up. One thing I do not like about some of the new nikons is the lack of the digital display on top...looks like they all expect you to use live view in the LCD now...good for focus, but a pain for checking settings.

« Reply #42 on: January 25, 2014, 14:04 »
0
The only possible downside of buying the 50 mm AF-D version of the f/1.8 is the issue of its compatibility with cameras which you might own in the future. For example - if your D50 ever fails you might want to replace it with, say, a D3100, D3200 or similar lower end Nikon.

The AF-S NIKKOR
50mm f/1.8G
will work with all Nikon DSLRs. It might be worth spending the extra money.

« Reply #43 on: January 25, 2014, 14:08 »
0
The only possible downside of buying the 50 mm AF-D version of the f/1.8 is the issue of its compatibility with cameras which you might own in the future. For example - if your D50 ever fails you might want to replace it with, say, a D3100, D3200 or similar lower end Nikon.

The AF-S NIKKOR
50mm f/1.8G
will work with all Nikon DSLRs. It might be worth spending the extra money.


Thanks that is good to keep in mind.

« Reply #44 on: January 25, 2014, 14:14 »
0
the nikon d 50 cost 1000 dollars back in 2005.

I spend around $800 in 2005, but that isn't cheap for me...but it is all relative. I was thinking of upgrading since I only need the body and would love to add HD video to the mix. I saw some Nikons running around 4 and up. One thing I do not like about some of the new nikons is the lack of the digital display on top...looks like they all expect you to use live view in the LCD now...good for focus, but a pain for checking settings.
Im in Europe. But that was with the kitlens 18-55, and despite what people say it was a good lens.

« Reply #45 on: January 25, 2014, 15:57 »
0
the nikon d 50 cost 1000 dollars back in 2005.

I spend around $800 in 2005, but that isn't cheap for me...but it is all relative. I was thinking of upgrading since I only need the body and would love to add HD video to the mix. I saw some Nikons running around 4 and up. One thing I do not like about some of the new nikons is the lack of the digital display on top...looks like they all expect you to use live view in the LCD now...good for focus, but a pain for checking settings.
Im in Europe. But that was with the kitlens 18-55, and despite what people say it was a good lens.

I hear ya. The 18-55mm lens is great. I use it all the time.

« Reply #46 on: January 28, 2014, 09:30 »
0
But now, can anybody tell me WHEN exactly fast lenses are important?

The ability to focus in low light conditions can be useful. For me it is. I like to shoot in a low lit studio environment.

« Reply #47 on: January 28, 2014, 09:57 »
0
But now, can anybody tell me WHEN exactly fast lenses are important?

The ability to focus in low light conditions can be useful. For me it is. I like to shoot in a low lit studio environment.

That is actually a valid argument.
Funny thing is that my best lens, has problems with focusing in semi dark conditions and then I just turn on a lamp or the pilot lights.
But thats a different story.

« Reply #48 on: January 28, 2014, 10:26 »
+1
Since aperture selection greatly impacts the Depth of Field and therefore the overall appearance of the resulting image, fast lenses also provide the photographer with more creative control than slower lenses - in addition to low light performance.

I'm not saying that everyone needs an arsenal of fast glass, but a 50mm 1.8 is so inexpensive and offers so much in that regard, I would recommend one to anyone.         

« Reply #49 on: January 28, 2014, 10:39 »
0
There I disagree to a degree, first I have a 50mm 1.8, and I never use it, because it cannot zoom, it is inconvenient to work with.

The agencies, and the customers dont like shallow dof. Shallow dof is a technology based artefact that we try to avoid with: Stacking, aperture, light, and sensors so big that you can crop.
If you are not convinced then google model railway images and tilt shift lenses and compare.

It is only sometimes that shallow DOF is expressive  There are many examples, that a blurred background adds to the subject. They are standard in Yuris lifestyle pictures. A blurred light background fading into white. It is subjec and style specific and has a lot to do with the kind of the picture language we are used to.

« Reply #50 on: January 28, 2014, 10:49 »
0
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.

I've just spent the afternoon processing pics from 2005 when I was shooting with a Canon 300D and a 24-70 2.8L lens and - guess what - there's absolutely nothing wrong with the image quality (and if I missed the exposure a but then PS is able to bring the RAW files up nicely). It's true that the 6MP 300D won't make the larger sizes on several sites, but since the large sizes generally only sell as subs these days (or sometimes for peanuts on iStock) it doesn't matter that much.  Images that I shot around that time with the kit lens are still usable but are clearly inferior in quality. So the lens DOES matter.
As you are advising on the business side of microstock, I would have thought that the cheapest body that delivers acceptable IQ would be the optimum set-up. And if the 300D from 2003 can produce stock quality at today's level then any DSLR can.

ACS

« Reply #51 on: January 28, 2014, 12:21 »
0
If iso setting, exposure, lighting and composition are all fine, a 6 mp 10 years old D70 can deliver very good stock photos even with its kit lens 18-70. But this optimum conditions can usually be set in studios or for still life shots interiors.

But for editorials, landscapes, cityscapes, a 24 mp D5300 would be superior because of the flexibility of downsizing and cropping.

As for the lenses, I think almost all lenses produced by Nikon, Canon, Sigma, Tokina, Tamron etc. since 2003 can deliver enough quality for microstock under optimum conditons. CA, vignetting and color casts can mostly be corrected during post processing.

But of course a pricey good glass with VR system will give you more opportunities and save your time when post processing.

« Reply #52 on: January 28, 2014, 12:45 »
+1
There I disagree to a degree, first I have a 50mm 1.8, and I never use it, because it cannot zoom, it is inconvenient to work with.

The agencies, and the customers dont like shallow dof. Shallow dof is a technology based artefact that we try to avoid with: Stacking, aperture, light, and sensors so big that you can crop.
If you are not convinced then google model railway images and tilt shift lenses and compare.

It is only sometimes that shallow DOF is expressive  There are many examples, that a blurred background adds to the subject. They are standard in Yuris lifestyle pictures. A blurred light background fading into white. It is subjec and style specific and has a lot to do with the kind of the picture language we are used to.

I'm not sure if your reply was just to wind me up or not, but in case it's not, I disagree with a few of your points -

According to the Shutterstock 2014 trend report that Ron posted, customers do want shallow DOF shots.   I agree with you that some agencies are spotty about accepting them (a frustration for me), but it has been getting better.

My own experience tells me larger sensors (Full Frame, for example) produce inherently less DOF than small sensors (try to get a blurred background on a consumer level P&S). 

Cropping a large resolution image after the fact does not produce deeper DOF.

Shallow DOF is not a technology based artifact.  Among other things (dare I say primarily) it's a result of distance, focal length, and aperture.  Not entirely dissimilar to our own eyes.

I'm confused by your other points, they seem to be arguing for the artist merits of a Shallow DOF and not against them.

All in all, my point was simple.  If you have a fast lens it opens up shooting options in addition to low light performance, that don't exist if you don't have one.  $80USD on the used marked market buys you those options, with good optical quality, and a very low investment risk.  This why this lens is called a "nifty-fifty".       

I stand by my recommendation.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2014, 19:04 by SHSPhotography »

« Reply #53 on: January 28, 2014, 14:03 »
0
As I said earlier, I love my 50mm f/1.8 - though I have an old one without AF, getting the inexpensive one with AF is a great buy.

Some people here seem obsessed with whether any expense is worthwhile if you're only shooting for the micros, but as someone who obviously loves photography, or he wouldn't be doing it in addition to his day job to begin with, I don't imagine the only time the OP picks up his camera is to shoot microstock.  IMHO it's better to build up your equipment by purchasing the best you can afford so you have more options as time goes on, and starting with an inexpensive but excellent prime like the 50mm is sound advice.

I agree that a 6MP camera with a kit lens is more than adequate for microstock and even some traditional stock - I've sold many photos taken in 2006-2009 with my old 6 MP D70 & 18-70 kit lens on both the micros and on Alamy - and they passed Alamy QC back when you had to uprez them to 48MB (as opposed to the current 24MB) - but I don't think that's a reason to go for the cheapest equipment.

In my experience, once I bought the D700 and the Nikon 24-70mm, I found most kit/inexpensive lenses to be less than satisfying to use. For example, though I usually opt for the Nikon 70-300mm VR zoom as a lightweight alternative to my Sigma 50-500mm when traveling, I always feel a bit disappointed in those photos and constantly have to remind myself that I don't want to push it beyond 200mm. That's why the more expensive Sigma "Bigma" 50-500mm is far more satisfying to use. It's a fantastic lens. It is incredibly sharp throughout nearly its entire range & even quite sharp at 500mm. I've licensed photos taken at 500mm to calendar companies and magazines such as Coastal Living - nice high end RM work. Having good equipment gives you lots of options. And the Sigma cost me $900 (I got it refurbished in 2009) - I think the regular price was around $1,000. It has paid for itself. Personally, having equipment that delivers throughout its range is preferable to me over equipment, such as the 70-300 VR that was really a compromise - There are many times I've used it where I wish I'd brought along the Sigma instead, and only opted for the 70-300 to save my back. That's the kind of decision the OP needs to make when considering equipment - and his desire to move beyond the kit lens tells me that he's looking for lenses that are reasonably priced but that even someone not on such a tight budget would buy. Thus, the 50mm is a good choice for him because he won't feel like it's a compromise every time he uses it. And on a DX camera the 50mm is long enough for portraits and leaves you with great bokeh.

I'd also recommend the 35mm f/1.8 - inexpensive but incredibly sharp and focuses really close. As someone whose camera/lens of choice is the D700/Nikon Nikor 24-70mm, I'm never disappointed with the shots I get using my D5100/35mm f/1.8 Though this photo was obviously post processed, it was not cropped nor was the composition changed - nearly a macro taken with the 35mm: http://fineartamerica.com/featured/butterfly-fantasy-marianne-campolongo.html

« Reply #54 on: January 28, 2014, 21:21 »
0
There I disagree to a degree, first I have a 50mm 1.8, and I never use it, because it cannot zoom, it is inconvenient to work with.

The agencies, and the customers dont like shallow dof. Shallow dof is a technology based artefact that we try to avoid with: Stacking, aperture, light, and sensors so big that you can crop.
If you are not convinced then google model railway images and tilt shift lenses and compare.

It is only sometimes that shallow DOF is expressive  There are many examples, that a blurred background adds to the subject. They are standard in Yuris lifestyle pictures. A blurred light background fading into white. It is subjec and style specific and has a lot to do with the kind of the picture language we are used to.

I'm not sure if your reply was just to wind me up or not, but in case it's not, I disagree with a few of your points -
It was not

According to the Shutterstock 2014 trend report that Ron posted, customers do want shallow DOF shots.   I agree with you that some agencies are spotty about accepting them (a frustration for me), but it has been getting better.

Blurred backgrounds can support the subject. That we agree on. But not always, it depends on the keywords and the intent of the image. A tomato on white has no advantage of being half blurred, a bowl of tomato soup in a kitchen could benifit from blurred towels and chefs in the background

My own experience tells me larger sensors (Full Frame, for example) produce inherently less DOF than small sensors (try to get a blurred background on a consumer level P&S).

 If you photograph a microprocessor with a macro lens, you will only get a bit of it in focus, if you step back and take it from a  distance, you can get it all inside dof, thats where large sensors have an advantage. Because you have pixels to crop away

Cropping a large resolution image after the fact does not produce deeper DOF.

Shallow DOF is not a technology based artifact.  Among other things (dare I say primarily) it's a result of distance, focal length, and aperture.  Not entirely dissimilar to our own eyes.
Thats exactly what I mean by artifact, the human eye works the same way, mechanically, but the perception does not, because the brain "stacks" the information into a "Dof- free" image.

I'm confused by your other points, they seem to be arguing for the artist merits of a Shallow DOF and not against them.
Yes I got a little confused there, its not all black and white, sometimes good sometimes bad. 

All in all, my point was simple.  If you have a fast lens it opens up shooting options in addition to low light performance, that don't exist if you don't have one.  $80USD on the used marked market buys you those options, with good optical quality, and a very low investment risk.  This why this lens is called a "nifty-fifty". 

True enough, and cheap enough, so its not bad advice. Personally I would miss the zoom     

I stand by my recommendation.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #55 on: January 28, 2014, 22:22 »
0
Here are some places that sell used and refurbished lens. Sometimes they are as good as new. They rate them so you know the condition of the lens.
http://www.keh.com/ I've used them and haven't been disappointed yet

Also http://www.adorama.com sells used lens also as well as http://www.bhphotovideo.com

I prefer KEH over the other two. Take a look and you can see the prices and compare them. I've bought some lens off of e-bay and was never satisfied.

« Reply #56 on: January 29, 2014, 15:40 »
0
I have to give an enthusiastic +1 for KEH. I've purchased several things from them and have never had a problem. On the other hand, I've always read the listings carefully on eBay and have never had a problem with camera gear purchased there, either.

Also, I recommend the Tamron/Sigma/Tokina 3rd party lenses as a way to get the most bang for your buck. I have very little Canon glass and have never had trouble with rejections for anything other than my composition, LCV, etc.

« Reply #57 on: March 31, 2014, 10:38 »
0
I've seen somebody advices buying 18-200 VR. Don't do that, that's the worst glass I've ever seen. Even my kit lens 18-105 is way better than that one.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #58 on: April 01, 2014, 11:34 »
0
I think you could assume the same for any 10X zoom lens.  :) I had two of the Canon 35-350 and loved them. But really 10X superzoom? 18-200 is in the same realm, just asking too much, which gives up the quality.

Shorter zoom range, proportionally = better quality for the entire range of the lens.

If it's cost, the Nifty 50 is a wonderful lens.

Used is good advise.

Bottom line is pick the best lens you can afford, that matches what you shoot the most. That's the answer.

I've seen somebody advices buying 18-200 VR. Don't do that, that's the worst glass I've ever seen. Even my kit lens 18-105 is way better than that one.

« Reply #59 on: April 01, 2014, 12:44 »
+1
Quote from: Henri Cartier-Bresson
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept.
because the Lefts and revolutionaries could never build good cameras and lenses?

« Reply #60 on: April 03, 2014, 09:45 »
0
Quote from: Henri Cartier-Bresson
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept.
because the Lefts and revolutionaries could never build good cameras and lenses?
Flektogon, Sonnar, Practika, Biometar, Zenit ... cheap but good.

« Reply #61 on: April 04, 2014, 05:35 »
0
Many of us were weaned on Praktica cameras built like tanks!

« Reply #62 on: July 25, 2014, 04:27 »
0
See what a slow and cheap lens can produce. interesting, isnt it?:



no, is not interesting sorry :)


 

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
4110 Views
Last post August 30, 2013, 03:04
by ACS
2 Replies
4435 Views
Last post January 19, 2017, 10:06
by jonbull

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors