Ask MetaFilter questions tagged with dslr and lens

DSLR n00b

chrisinseoul — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:00:36 -0800

New to the DSLR world, and I need the hive mind's help with a couple questions. I recently picked up a used Nikon D70 body (decent older DSLR, decent enough for the purposes of picking things up anyway) and a couple lenses (a 28-70mm and a 70-210mm lens, both Nikon). Over the past couple days I've spent free time reading through a manual that seems almost incomprehensible in places. I come from a fairly advanced point-and-shoot type camera, so I'm familiar with most of the terms like white balance, shutter / aperture priority, and the like. The advice of 'just shoot stuff' is certainly good, but a few things are bugging me.

#1: The longer lens (70-210mm AF 1.4-5.6 D) has one area to turn for manual focus and an aperture ring closest to where the lens hooks up to the body. There's no way to zoom in / out though - am I missing something here?

#2: I know the D70 has a crop factor of 1.5x. When I take a picture, it looks nothing like what I saw through the viewfinder. It's a *much* tighter shot than expected. Is there a way to adjust this, or is it just a mental adjustment?

#3: Looking to buy one more lens, primarily used for landscapes or macro. Is it possible to get wide angle and macro in a single lens without the cost breaking the bank?

Thank you O hive mind :)

Whats an ideal everyday lens for an EOS 450D?

WinnipegDragon — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:49:35 -0800

I need advice on a 'walking-around' lens on a sub-frame Canon DSLR. This is a followup to my previous question that I received some wonderful advice on. I'm hoping for more, hivemind!

My Rebel XSi/EOS 450D is now about four weeks old, and I've probably shot about 1,100 frames on it. I'm happy with the camera, I'm learning quickly and I'm ready to branch out into my first 'real' lens. I admit that this is partially fueled by my weekend rental of an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM that I took to the zoo, and immediately fell in love with.

So, I'm looking for a 'walking around' lens to be my primary lens that will be on the camera as a default. Ideally it would be good for architecural, landscape and street photography but still have a decent amount of reach for the occasional shot that requires it. A good maximum magnification factor certainly wouldn't hurt.

The best of these sorts of lenses always seem to be more than 20mm focal length at the wide end, and on a 1.6x crop body, it's far too wide for anything architectural or landscape. The few that are good at the wide end tend not to have a lot of reach so you end up with the opposite issue. There are one or two contenders in the EF-S series of lenses, but I'm wary about them since an upgrade to a full frame camera is not out of the question in the future.

I have a nifty fifty and have used it as my primary lens, as well as the 18-55 kit lens, but there are situations where these are just not the right lenses.

So, the contenders that I am considering, and their major concerns, are:

- EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM (expensive, not wide enough, slow)
- EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM (expensive, not wide enough, no IS)
- EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM (no IS, slow, practically no reach)
- EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (not wide enough, slow)
- EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (EF-S mount, slow, questionable optics)

Is there another option out there that I'm missing?

Help a DSLR Noob

Ziggy500 — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 08:36:59 -0800

[DSLR Noob Filter] Do I need to invest in a VR (vibration reduction) lens? Hi, I'm buying an entry-level DSLR (Nikon D60) and have the choice of buying a Nikkor VR 18-55mm lens or a non-VR 18-55 lens. The non-VR option costs about £60 less.

I don't really want to throw pots of money at this camera, but I don't want to skimp unnecessarily either, as I'm very keen to improve.

Do the photographers among you find the vibration reduction feature useful? Thanks for your help! :)

Cheap DSRL for low-light?

Monday, stony Monday — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:20:21 -0800

What cheap kit should I get to take relatively low-light photos? So I found out that shooting hockey indoors is out of my price/skills range. Still looking for a camera. My subjects would be people in low-light situations, at close range (players on the bench, people in the crowd). Later, I'd use that setup to shoot family gatherings. Ideally, I'd like to spend less than $1000. I own no lenses, or body. It seems that a DSLR with an APS-sized sensor + a fixed lens would offer me the best compromise in terms of low-light performance vs. weight vs. cost.

This leads me to:

This Nikkor lens + a D40 (or D60 if I should) seems like the cheapest/lightest setup with a "normal" (like a 50 mm lens on a 35 mm camera) perspective. Amirite? Is there a good reason to avoid the D40?
Should I step up to a Sigma 30 mm/1.4? Here in Canada it's more than double the price.

Fast 50 mm lenses are relatively cheap. Would putting one on an APS body be an hindrance, given that I intend to shoot in close quarters (e.g.: people in a living room)?

Finally, am I overthinking this? Would whatever cheap kit zoom be enough for my purpose? For "shooting around a hockey game", a zoom would be nice since I could get relatively "close" to the players on the opposite bench.

Oh, and should I care about stabilisation, since I'm shooting people?

What DSLR + lens to shoot hockey (indoors)?

Monday, stony Monday — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:48:50 -0800

I want to shoot indoor hockey with a DSLR. What should I get for ~$1000-1500? I'm looking at Canon and Nikon. I have some extra money, and my brothers are playing in a hockey tournament in a few weeks. I'd like to buy a DSLR and a lens so I can get OK-quality pictures. I've used P&S digitals to shoot hockey before, but there really isn't much lighting in an arena, and hockey players move fast, so the photos tend to come out blurry and/or noisy beyond repair.

I'd like to get a DSLR with a lens. I'm willing to pay extra if that means I can get much better results, but my funds aren't unlimited. Given my $1000-1500 ($2000 max) budget, it seems that a DSLR with an APS-sized sensor + the best zoom I can get (low aperture + fast AF, not necessarilly a huge focal range -- the rink isn't that large) would be my best bet. Am I aiming in the right direction? Alternatively, could I realistically shoot hockey with a fixed lens (and a single body)?

The camera would be used for general photography thereafter (which is why I'm looking mostly at Canon and Nikon), but hockey is likely to remain an important subject.

Also, if you have any tips or links to articles on shooting hockey, feel free to share.

Best low-light lens for Nikon D80?

bollockovnikov — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:03:51 -0800

I am looking for a lens for my Nikon D80 that works well in low-light conditions. Something relatively compact and not too expensive would be best. I already own a 18-200mm VR lens, which is OK in low light, but not very compact.

I would obviously like my new lens to be useful in a range of situations, but I am more interested in the portrait to 10 metres range.

I do not own a flash unit and don't intend to buy one.

Thanks

Best lens for low-light photography with a Nikon D50?

inatizzy — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 09:54:46 -0800

What is the best lens to use with a Nikon D50 for low-light situations where the subjects are moving? I would like to photograph people at swing dances, which are usually low-light settings and the people tend to move fast.

A friend has gotten some really amazing shots using a Canon EOS 30D with a fixed 28mm lens. (exposures were typically lasting .005-.01 seconds, f 1.8 or 2.) No blurring, beautiful colors. Really just gorgeous portraits of people having a good time, like a freeze-frame in the middle of their dance, and just enough blurring in the background to bring the viewer's focus to the subject.

I have a Nikon D50 and this friend has told me Nikons are not as good as Canons in low-light situations. But I don't really want to invest a lot of money in a whole new body *and* lens.

Is there a lens for the D50 that could accomplish this? (And that would be not-too-expensive? I'm happy to buy used.) In case it matters, right now I have the Nikon 18-200mm lens, which has been fine for everyday shooting but doesn't do as well in really low light. I might be willing to sell this lens to put the money towards the low-light one. (esp if the low-light one could also be used for more general settings like outdoors in the afternoon.)

thanks for your advice! :)

Old Lens with New dSLR?

awesomebrad — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 20:41:32 -0800

dSLRfilter - What will a dSLR think about my 30 year old lens? I've recently started photography as a hobby, and have been using a very old Nikon EM from 1979 that my parents had lying around the house. It only has one lens, a 50mm f/1. Series E, which I quite like. My limited but growing understanding of dSLRs tells me that because I won't be getting a full frame camera, the image is going to be different in some way because the lens is designed for film. What is that something? Is there anything else that will prevent it from working with a new camera?

Bonus: thoughts on Nikon D40 v. D60? I'd go with the D40, but I'm a bit concerned about not having a dust removal system...how big of a problem is that?

Inexpensive, basic lens for a Nikon D40?

The corpse in the library — Thu, 29 May 2008 11:33:53 -0800

Inexpensive, basic lens for a Nikon D40? I am overwhelmed by my options when it comes to lenses for my Nikon D40 DSLR. I have the 18-55mm it came with, but I would like something less bulky -- and less eye-catching -- for carrying around with me.

I see the Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor lens, and it sounds great -- but I don't want to lose the autofocus.

I also see the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM lens, and it sounds glorious -- but too expensive.

Is there a basic lens out there, around $100, that will work with my D40, including autofocus?

Strike a pose, please.

jadepearl — Mon, 05 May 2008 06:31:54 -0800

Getting a DSLR today. What lens options should make a good set to take the plunge? having read all the threads or at least the most recent ones on DSLRs and having handled the various body cameras at a store, I have settled on the Sony A200. Before all the hatin' starts I say that the reasons I decided on this system were:

it felt good in my hands
worked when chasing a VERY active 14 month old around the store;
photo lag was minimal to me;
photos looked good of said active child;
price point was reasonable for quality and features. Mr. Jadepearl is a Nikon man but he was disappointed in the performance of the D40 while the camera clerk told me that the introductory Canon in this range was not a good competitor on price performance at this level
Older Minolta lenses work with it

So, what lens do I need to make a complete kit? The immediate plans are to take photos of kids, plants, landscapes and scenes from a moving vehicle. Did I mention that I travel with two hand puppets that I pose in ludicrous poses at famous locations or break some rules on museum displays and proximity?

So what lens should I go for to cover the widest possible conditions for this photo newbie? I plan to have this camera for years and figure that Sony is seemingly committed to their camera line.

How useful is a 80-300mm lens for a DSLR?

unless I'm very much mistaken — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 06:52:28 -0800

Upgrading to a DSLR camera for the first time: how useful will an additional lens be? I want to buy an entry-level DSLR camera. I'm a keen walker, most of my photographs are landscapes and I don't want too much extra weight to carry if it can be avoided. For this reason, I am tempted by the Olympus E-410, shortly to be replaced by the E-420, but available in my budget range bundled with the 14-42 and 40-150mm lenses (it's a 4/3rds camera, so my understanding is that this means 28-84mm and 80-300mm in normal language).

This is the only DLSR deal I can find where I can afford the additional lens. I'm not likely to be able to be able to afford additional expenditure for at least 12 months. Am I likely to use the extra lens enough for this to tip the deal? (UK based, if that makes a difference)

understanding lens on a Pentax DSLR

bystander — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 19:45:36 -0800

Lens 101 for new Pentax K100d DSLR owner. I was lucky enough to get a new camera for Christmas, and it replaces point and shoot compacts.
I need to understand a bit about lenses for it, and hope askme can teach me.
My last SLR was before eBay existed, and the listings there confuse me.
Basically, I would like a wide, fast lens for portraits with big depth of field.
My camera came with a f3.5-5.6 18-50mm, and it is nice, but could use more depth of field.
So, how to get this inexpensively?
I would be happy with an old manual focus lens, but I gather the smaller sensor in the DSLR means a film lens is not as "wide" as it would be with a film camera. Does this also impact the aperature?
Are f1.4 or f2.0 all going to cost the earth?
Also, can you help me decode eBay listings to understand which mountings are compatible?
I saw this but could use a bit more clarity.

The photographer and the lens

oxford blue — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:44:27 -0800

What lens to buy? I'm thinking of upgrading my lens arsenal.

To wit, what say you about the following combination to replace my Canon 50mm 1.8 II.

-Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM
-Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
-Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

My interests are pretty eclectic, and I don't particularly restrict myself to one style or the other. However the plan is to slowly turn photography from a hobby into a source of income; as such I want to do more free lance gigs (I've done a few already), and expand my stock portfolio.

Would this combination of lenses work well? I know there is nothing truly wide, but Canon doesn't make an affordable (i.e non L) and fast prime that's truly wide, especially on a x1.6 sensor. I figure seeing how used I am to shooting on 50, it will feel, comparatively, 'wider'.

A possible alternative, that I'm not wild about, is simply getting the 17-55 2.8 IS. However I'm much in love with the speed and quality of primes, as well as their low weight and that they are pretty cheap. Plus, I'd like to keep my options open if I decided to switch to a full frame camera (EF-S lens aren't compatible) at some stage in the future.

I'm not really sold on third party lens. The gestalt seems to work better when it's homogenous.

Can you see any weaknesses? Something I've forgotten? Any advice would be swell.

Best walkaround zoom for Pentax K100D

blue shadows — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 19:04:39 -0800

I bought the Pentax K100D dSLR, partly on recommendations from here, and I love it. I have the 18-55 kit lens and the 50-200 zoom lens, which I mostly use. Now I would like to buy a faster in-between zoom, somewhere from 24-28 at the low end to 75-135 at the high end. I am trying to figure out whether to buy a Pentax, Tamron, or Sigma lens and am getting confused with all the contradictory reviews. The Tamron 24-135 is praised to the skies by some and trashed by others. I am leaning towards the Tamron 28-75 but would like something closer to 100 mm. Any advice?

Favorite Nikon Macro Lens?

jacksides — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:29:21 -0800

What's your favorite Nikon-compatible macro lens? I'm completely new to macro photography (and still pretty new to photography in general, having purchased my first DSLR a little over a year ago), and I'm leaning towards the Nikon 60mm f/2.8D AF, largely because of the price differential between this and some of the other Nikkor macros. Anyone have any great experience with some of the makeshift macro lenses (using extension tubes, reversing rings, etc)?

How-to buy a camera lens off craigslist?

docgonzo — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:32:07 -0800

Buying a used dSLR lens via craigslist: What to look for? How much to offer? I'm looking at buying a 28mm f/2.8D AF Nikkor lens for my Nikon d70s that I've found on craigslist. Intended use is nature/landscapes and low-light/night photography -- the kit lens is great but not very fast.

My questions: When I go to see the lens how do I check out its quality? I'll bring along the body and my Powerbook to check test shots. How best to tell the optics are still good and all the mechanics are in good working order? Also, the seller advises the lens was "made in Japan" -- What's the importance of this? Is it a good thing/bad thing?

Is this a good lens for my intended use or should I hold out for the 35mm f/2.0D AF?

Finally, if it's in good shape, how much should I offer? The lens retails new in Canada for $279.00

Decent budget lenses for shooting babies, beautiful scenery, (and maybe) blooms?

DakotaPaul — Tue, 08 May 2007 15:14:06 -0800

Prospective DSLR user ISO decent budget lenses for shooting babies, beautiful scenery, (and maybe) blooms. I plan on purchasing my first digital SLR—a Canon Rebel XT or XTi body—in the next couple weeks, and am going crazy deciding which lenses I need. I've looked at some previous threads here, Philip Greenspun's article on building a digital SLR system, and a few forum topics on photo.net and dpreview.com. Like a poster in a previous thread, I often find conflicting info, and, being new to DSLRs, not exactly sure what I really need to get the good photos I want.

We're expecting our first baby in November, and I'll be shooting the heck out of her. Many shots will be in our home, so I need a good low light performer. We often shoot our cats with a Fujifilm FinePix E550 point-and-shoot, and obviously they're nearly always blurry.

We hike often and I want to take good landscape shots in Yosemite, for example. I love wildflowers and I shoot nearly every species I encounter while hiking. My retired Nikon CoolPix 4500 was excellent for that.

What lens would work for indoor baby shots, landscapes, and maybe running-around-in-the-city shots? These are a few I've come up with:

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II, ~$80
Pretty fast, damn cheap. Useful for landscapes? Macros possible? (Something about reversing rings being used?) Good enough quality for 8x10 prints? Would be able to get a macro lens with saved $$$.

Canon EF 35mm f/2, ~$230
Too wide-angle for indoor baby shots? (I've heard about having "no straight lines in your photos".) Fast enough for that indoor use? Macro possible at all? It's cheap enough that I might be able to get a second, cheap macro/telephoto lens soon.

Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM, ~$400
Again, too wide-angle for indoors? At the limit of my budget for a lens and would have to wait a while on a true macro. But should be nice and fast for indoor shots. Good landscapes?

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM, ~$420
Pretty much same as above? Worth it for the extra half-stop? What other differences between it and the Canon 28/1.8?

I'm sorry for all the questions, but I'm new to all this. Thanks for your help.

What type of lens should I settle on for my DSLR?

tomorama — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:21:05 -0800

I'm going to be purchasing a DSLR camera, and am looking for some input on which lens(es) to purchase. The camera I've decided on is the Canon Digital Rebel XTi. I want to get a good quality lens, but am still quite amateur so I don't plan on spending a huge amount of money on expensive lenses. I also have more learning to do before I start dropping cash on glass.

I am going to be doing a wide range of general, day-to-day photography, such as NYC street photos, buildings, and people. I also want to do a good amount of night shooting.

I originally was drawn towards the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM because it's a good, fast lens that will work especially well in low-light and indoor shots. It seems like a good general purpose lens, but I am concerned about getting caught in a situation where I'd like to snap an acceptable landscape or quasi-distant shot, and wouldn't be able to (such as vacation scenery, or shooting down on the street from a window). Given this concern, would it be more beneficial to get a cheap prime lens like the EF 50mm f/1.8 II, and then putting the real cash towards an entry level zoom, perhaps with an image stabilizer? Or should I go with the 50mm f/1.4?

So, what do you photographers think? An experiences with the lenses I've mentioned? Any suggestions for things I haven't thought of? Am I too neurotic/uneducated about the capabilities of a general purpose prime lens.

Best lens for K10D camera

blue shadows — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:48:55 -0800

I am planning on buying my first dSLR camera, a Pentax K10D. What would be the best lens to go with it? I can only afford one, so I was going to get the Pentax 24-90 zoom but I am not able to find one. What other similar lens would you recommend?

Best every day dSLR lens and accessories?

geeky — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 07:13:26 -0800

This is a two part question: Which every day lens should I buy for my dSLR, and what other camera accessories should I get? There is I'm going to buy my first dSLR in the next few months. It will definitely be a Canon, mostly likely the 20d. I'm pretty sure I don't want the kit lens, though I'm not sure what to get instead. I'll end up with a variety of lenses eventually, but for now I just want a good every day lens to get me started. Money is not an issue so much as quality. I've been considering the Canon EF-S 17-85mm w/IS. Opinions? Suggestions? Bonus points for example photos. (Yes, I've seen the other related AskMe questions.)

See Flickr for an idea of the kinds of photos I like to take.

And for part two, what other acccessories do I need for my new camera? I will probably get an extra battery and some sort of case, but what else do I need to get me started? Flash, filters, cleaning equipment?

Budget first-lens wide-angle options for a Canon 350D purchase?

cortex — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:07:32 -0800

Budget first-lens wide-angle options for a Canon 350D purchase? I'm looking at buying the latter, and want to find the most bang for few bucks on the former. I'm considering getting a 350D, and for my first (and for a while only) lens, I'm interested in something relatively wide and fast. However, I get the impression that's not a very economical proclivity—especially the "fast" part.

What are my options if I want to spend less than $300, or less than $150, on a lens that at least trends wide-ish?

It's my understanding that a 50mm lens (acquirable for $80-ish dollars? new) behaves more like an 80mm for a non-SLR; I'm worried that my desire to get more than portraits would be stymied by such a lens. I want something wider.