New lenses?
August 10, 2008 3:04 PM Subscribe
Nikon lens-filter: My girlfriend has a D200 with a one lens, a 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D IF AF. She is thinking about about buying 1-2 more lenses. What should she choose?
Following up on this question, I ended up getting my girlfriend a D200 to replace her Nikon D100 which she had owned for ~5 years. She loves it, but getting it has made her think about expanding her lens collection. We'll be going through the Panama canal in the next few weeks which makes her especially interested in new lens options before the trip.
Right now all she has is a Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D IF AF lens which she loves and uses for practically everything.
If she were buying 1-2 more fundamental lenses, what would you recommend? Prime, zoom, what have you? She mostly does landscapes, a fair amount of dark/lighting compromised pictures, but enjoys shooting macro shots of flowers and bugs for fun. They must be sturdy, she has a high-action job and her gear gets kicked around a fair amount.
She says thanks for all of your help in this saga- she really likes the camera I/we chose.
Following up on this question, I ended up getting my girlfriend a D200 to replace her Nikon D100 which she had owned for ~5 years. She loves it, but getting it has made her think about expanding her lens collection. We'll be going through the Panama canal in the next few weeks which makes her especially interested in new lens options before the trip.
Right now all she has is a Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D IF AF lens which she loves and uses for practically everything.
If she were buying 1-2 more fundamental lenses, what would you recommend? Prime, zoom, what have you? She mostly does landscapes, a fair amount of dark/lighting compromised pictures, but enjoys shooting macro shots of flowers and bugs for fun. They must be sturdy, she has a high-action job and her gear gets kicked around a fair amount.
She says thanks for all of your help in this saga- she really likes the camera I/we chose.
Oh... I forgot to mention that yes they're expensive. I think the 18-200mm VR by itself is about $650. The D300 body by itself is about $1600, with the new VR lens it's $2250. If you buy the wider range VR lens you might be able to get some money back by selling the stock kit non-VR lens.
posted by thewalrus at 3:25 PM on August 10, 2008
posted by thewalrus at 3:25 PM on August 10, 2008
The best lens I bought for my DSLR, in terms of both general utility and cost:benefit, was a 50mm prime. I use Canon gear, but Nikon is the same. 50mm primes are great all-around lenses, they're generally cheap, and they give wonerful quality.
posted by rodgerd at 3:31 PM on August 10, 2008
posted by rodgerd at 3:31 PM on August 10, 2008
The 18-200mm VR is indispensable.
But you don't say what she's using it for. For example, if she wants to do landscapes, she should have a wide angle. I like my 10-20mm. Between that and the 18-200mm, I have my needs taken care of 98% of the time.
By comparison, if you're shooting wildlife, you need a telephoto greater than the 200mm. Those can get very pricey.
posted by mikeand1 at 3:39 PM on August 10, 2008
But you don't say what she's using it for. For example, if she wants to do landscapes, she should have a wide angle. I like my 10-20mm. Between that and the 18-200mm, I have my needs taken care of 98% of the time.
By comparison, if you're shooting wildlife, you need a telephoto greater than the 200mm. Those can get very pricey.
posted by mikeand1 at 3:39 PM on August 10, 2008
I have the 55-200 VR. It's not expensive, but is awesome! A friend has the 18-200 and hardly uses anything else.
How 'bout a fast prime lens? An old 50mm 1.4 will work as good low-light portrait lens. Go wider for a more "normal" field of view.
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 3:51 PM on August 10, 2008
How 'bout a fast prime lens? An old 50mm 1.4 will work as good low-light portrait lens. Go wider for a more "normal" field of view.
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 3:51 PM on August 10, 2008
I don't understand some of the recommendations here. She already has a mid-range zoom.
I have a very similar setup and the exact same camera. I also shoot primarily landscapes and architecture. My workhorse lens is the Tokina 12-24mm. Outstanding wide angle, very good for dramatic shots. Personally, I like the lens better than the similar Nikon.
I like having the Nikon 50mm f1/1.8 around, too. It's less than $100 and sometimes I think of it like a bodycap that I can shoot portraits with. You can turn it backwards and shoot macro stuff with it.
posted by fake at 4:02 PM on August 10, 2008
I have a very similar setup and the exact same camera. I also shoot primarily landscapes and architecture. My workhorse lens is the Tokina 12-24mm. Outstanding wide angle, very good for dramatic shots. Personally, I like the lens better than the similar Nikon.
I like having the Nikon 50mm f1/1.8 around, too. It's less than $100 and sometimes I think of it like a bodycap that I can shoot portraits with. You can turn it backwards and shoot macro stuff with it.
posted by fake at 4:02 PM on August 10, 2008
Response by poster: Looks like she could rent the 18-200 and check it out, but that seems like an expensive rental. We'll be gone 16 days, so that would be a 3 week rental @ $126.
posted by stewiethegreat at 5:05 PM on August 10, 2008
posted by stewiethegreat at 5:05 PM on August 10, 2008
Best answer: - A fast prime. 50mm f/1.8 is an excellent recommendation. (The 50mm f/1.4 is even better, but the f/1.8 is much cheaper.) You get a great depth of field, and can take pictures in significantly dimmer settings. (Example shot, though not the best.)
- A wider lens is nice, too. I have an 18-55mm lens (a cheap Sigma), and the view is amazing. If I can see it from where I am, I can probably get it in the frame. Something like a 15-30mm (or the 12-24mm that fake recommends) lens would be even more incredible.
- I have a 55-200mm zoom for light telephoto work. (Also a cheap Sigma.) Besides the obvious (taking pictures of things further away than your 105mm max), it has another neat benefit: as the zoom increases, the depth of field effectively shrinks. Example shot, I was maybe four feet from the butterfly. Not a "true" macro, but pretty darn close. (Pay attention to the minimum distance for focus. A lot of my pseudo-macro shots are about as close as the lens will let me focus, which is 3-4'.) Looks like Nikon's 55-200mm VR lens is only $220. The 70-300mm (no VR) is $135.
Keep in mind the old rule of thumb that you'll get camera shake if you shoot below 1/shutter speed, so at 200mm, you need a 1/200-second exposure or greater, or you probably can't keep the camera still enough. This is where VR helps a lot. (Don't forget, too, that you have to apply whatever 'FOV crop' you have on the D200. I'm a Nikon guy, so I'm not sure what it is, but probably 1.3-1.6x. I'm assuming the D200 isn't full-frame.)
posted by fogster at 5:09 PM on August 10, 2008
- A wider lens is nice, too. I have an 18-55mm lens (a cheap Sigma), and the view is amazing. If I can see it from where I am, I can probably get it in the frame. Something like a 15-30mm (or the 12-24mm that fake recommends) lens would be even more incredible.
- I have a 55-200mm zoom for light telephoto work. (Also a cheap Sigma.) Besides the obvious (taking pictures of things further away than your 105mm max), it has another neat benefit: as the zoom increases, the depth of field effectively shrinks. Example shot, I was maybe four feet from the butterfly. Not a "true" macro, but pretty darn close. (Pay attention to the minimum distance for focus. A lot of my pseudo-macro shots are about as close as the lens will let me focus, which is 3-4'.) Looks like Nikon's 55-200mm VR lens is only $220. The 70-300mm (no VR) is $135.
Keep in mind the old rule of thumb that you'll get camera shake if you shoot below 1/shutter speed, so at 200mm, you need a 1/200-second exposure or greater, or you probably can't keep the camera still enough. This is where VR helps a lot. (Don't forget, too, that you have to apply whatever 'FOV crop' you have on the D200. I'm a Nikon guy, so I'm not sure what it is, but probably 1.3-1.6x. I'm assuming the D200 isn't full-frame.)
posted by fogster at 5:09 PM on August 10, 2008
As mentioned above:
The Nikon 18-200 VR is fantastic, but pricey.
The Nikon 50mm 1.8 is very affordable and a great prime lens for low light.
The Tokina 12-14 that fake mentions is excellent.
posted by iamabot at 5:19 PM on August 10, 2008
The Nikon 18-200 VR is fantastic, but pricey.
The Nikon 50mm 1.8 is very affordable and a great prime lens for low light.
The Tokina 12-14 that fake mentions is excellent.
posted by iamabot at 5:19 PM on August 10, 2008
The Nikon 50mm 1.8 is great for portraits. It's essentially a macro on a digital camera and will flatten noses and do all kinds of flattering things.
I would also recommend a 28mm, which on a digital camera acts like a 50mm on a regular camera, because of the digital camera's half size sensor. HOWEVER, I own a D200 and for whatever reason it horribly overexposes the shots whenever I use this lense, which is a real bummer, since this is the lense I really want to use. It comes closest on a digital camera to providing a normal perspective photograph without the distortions you see on a macro or zoom. Test it before you buy it and make sure you don't encounter this problem. I even bought this lense twice and each time I had it.
posted by xammerboy at 5:29 PM on August 10, 2008
I would also recommend a 28mm, which on a digital camera acts like a 50mm on a regular camera, because of the digital camera's half size sensor. HOWEVER, I own a D200 and for whatever reason it horribly overexposes the shots whenever I use this lense, which is a real bummer, since this is the lense I really want to use. It comes closest on a digital camera to providing a normal perspective photograph without the distortions you see on a macro or zoom. Test it before you buy it and make sure you don't encounter this problem. I even bought this lense twice and each time I had it.
posted by xammerboy at 5:29 PM on August 10, 2008
BTW, what's your budget? I think a lot of us have given you recommendations for cheap-ish lenses, but I don't think you ever said it had to be. The 70-200mm f/2.8 with VR is supposed to be the lens to have for short telephoto work, but it's $1600. (I'm not fortunate enough to be able to afford one, but its popularity suggests that it's well worth the price.) $500 gets a 10-20mm Sigma, and $979 gets the 'replacement Bigma,' a 150-500mm lens.
Careful about renting lenses to take to the Panama Canal... It seems that many of the rental companies don't like their lenses leaving the country. (Yeah, I know, they'd probably never know...) Not saying you should rule it out, just that it's something non-obvious to look into if you're going to rent.
I keep linking to B&H Photo Video for lenses. I just happen to find their online store well-stocked and easy to navigate; I've never purchased from them, so don't consider it an endorsement.
posted by fogster at 5:30 PM on August 10, 2008
Careful about renting lenses to take to the Panama Canal... It seems that many of the rental companies don't like their lenses leaving the country. (Yeah, I know, they'd probably never know...) Not saying you should rule it out, just that it's something non-obvious to look into if you're going to rent.
I keep linking to B&H Photo Video for lenses. I just happen to find their online store well-stocked and easy to navigate; I've never purchased from them, so don't consider it an endorsement.
posted by fogster at 5:30 PM on August 10, 2008
Response by poster: Careful about renting lenses to take to the Panama Canal
Good point, fogster. To make things worse, I think our boat flies a Bahamanian flag (for tax purposes, of course). In terms of budget . . .
The 50mm, at ~$100 new from B&H is definitely in her budget.
The 55-200 seems to retail for ~$200 is in her range but I've been reading some of the reviews- it sounds like far and away the 18-200 is a far superior lens, but is less in her range @ ~679.
Maybe she could get it used somewhere? I'd say $500 total for two lenses, or $300 for one lens, but her budget is variable depending on how awesome the lens is and how much she decides she needs it once she gets her hands on it.
posted by stewiethegreat at 6:11 PM on August 10, 2008
Good point, fogster. To make things worse, I think our boat flies a Bahamanian flag (for tax purposes, of course). In terms of budget . . .
The 50mm, at ~$100 new from B&H is definitely in her budget.
The 55-200 seems to retail for ~$200 is in her range but I've been reading some of the reviews- it sounds like far and away the 18-200 is a far superior lens, but is less in her range @ ~679.
Maybe she could get it used somewhere? I'd say $500 total for two lenses, or $300 for one lens, but her budget is variable depending on how awesome the lens is and how much she decides she needs it once she gets her hands on it.
posted by stewiethegreat at 6:11 PM on August 10, 2008
I like the 35mm f/2 as a prime normal lens. Given the sensor crop, it's the equivalent of a 52.5mm lens on a 35mm SLR. I usually use my 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 or my 55-200mm f/4-5.6 (though the 18-200 is next on my list), but I like the 35mm when I'll be in low light, when I want the constraint of a prime, or when I'm going to be carrying the camera around all day along with a bunch of other crap and I don't want the extra weight and bulk of a zoom.
If she's into macro photography, the 105mm f/2.8 (not the current VR model; the one it replaced) is very nice, though the 18-200 is supposed to do a fine job with macro photography.
Ken Rockwell's reviews, to which stewiethegreat linked, are very useful.
posted by brianogilvie at 7:34 PM on August 10, 2008
If she's into macro photography, the 105mm f/2.8 (not the current VR model; the one it replaced) is very nice, though the 18-200 is supposed to do a fine job with macro photography.
Ken Rockwell's reviews, to which stewiethegreat linked, are very useful.
posted by brianogilvie at 7:34 PM on August 10, 2008
The 18-200 is a great lens, if you like extreme distortion, cheap build quality and so-so sharpness. Oh, and it's slow too. If you want 2 lenses to fill 2 different, specific roles (landscapes and macro work), then you should really be looking for 2 lenses that do those things very well instead of one lens that does both of those kinda-well.
For macro work, you can check out the Nikon 60mm f/2.8. There's a newer version out now with VR but the older one performs just as well optically and can be had for pretty cheap. Of course, if you've got the money, the 105mm f/2.8 VR is the lens to have for macro work. Sigma also makes one or two decent true macro lenses.
For wide angle landscape work you've got a lot more choices. I've never used it but from what I've heard the Sigma 10-20 is pretty good, as is Nikon's 12-24. The Nikon AF-S 17-35 2.8 is a great lens too, even greater when you use it on a film body or full-frame camera. And of course there's the Nikon 17-55 2.8. None of these are exactly cheap, however, but just like how you get what you pay for with a cheap lens, the same goes for an expensive one. It's worth it.
posted by Venadium at 7:42 PM on August 10, 2008
For macro work, you can check out the Nikon 60mm f/2.8. There's a newer version out now with VR but the older one performs just as well optically and can be had for pretty cheap. Of course, if you've got the money, the 105mm f/2.8 VR is the lens to have for macro work. Sigma also makes one or two decent true macro lenses.
For wide angle landscape work you've got a lot more choices. I've never used it but from what I've heard the Sigma 10-20 is pretty good, as is Nikon's 12-24. The Nikon AF-S 17-35 2.8 is a great lens too, even greater when you use it on a film body or full-frame camera. And of course there's the Nikon 17-55 2.8. None of these are exactly cheap, however, but just like how you get what you pay for with a cheap lens, the same goes for an expensive one. It's worth it.
posted by Venadium at 7:42 PM on August 10, 2008
If she's doing landscapea, she should pick up a wider lens (something starting at 18mm, if not wider). The 18-200 VR is the do-it-all lens, but someone mentioned a cheaper Sigma or Tokina, which'll fulfill the wide-end niche. In addition pick up a fast 50mm prime that can do macros as well.
Skip the telephoto lenses unless she actually needs 'em.
posted by hobbes at 7:43 PM on August 10, 2008
Skip the telephoto lenses unless she actually needs 'em.
posted by hobbes at 7:43 PM on August 10, 2008
Interesting you should say it sounds like the 18-200 is a far superior lens - just about every review I've seen says the opposite; pointing out the distortion at both ends and lack of sharpness all round, and only praising it as a general purpose "walk around" lens. Having tried one before buying a refurb 55-200 VR (AU$200 incl shipping from the US!), I can attest that the 55-200 is by far a better "cheap" zoom lens. Sure, it's annoying to change between a 18-55 and 55-200 occasionally, but not 4 or 5 hundred bucks worth of annoying...
But I wouldn't recommend one if her thing is landscape &/or macro - that suggests a wide like a Nikkor or Tokina 12-24, and a proper 55 or 60 micro-Nikkor. The old manual focus 55 & 60 micro-Nikkors can be had for (relatively) cheap from eBay or KEH, and will (I'm pretty sure) meter on a D200; a new 12-24 will probably blow the rest of the budget.
posted by Pinback at 9:33 PM on August 10, 2008
But I wouldn't recommend one if her thing is landscape &/or macro - that suggests a wide like a Nikkor or Tokina 12-24, and a proper 55 or 60 micro-Nikkor. The old manual focus 55 & 60 micro-Nikkors can be had for (relatively) cheap from eBay or KEH, and will (I'm pretty sure) meter on a D200; a new 12-24 will probably blow the rest of the budget.
posted by Pinback at 9:33 PM on August 10, 2008
Response by poster: Ok, update: she was offered a 18-200, 1.5 months old with receipts/warrantee, hood, lens pouch, and a Hoya 72mm multi-coated UV filter and a Hoya 72mm Circular Polarizer Glass Filter for $600, firm, by a local seller. What do you guys think? It was more than she was planning to spend, but if she falls in love with it she's thinking she could sell her 28-105 and she is definitely getting the 50 mm.
posted by stewiethegreat at 9:40 PM on August 10, 2008
posted by stewiethegreat at 9:40 PM on August 10, 2008
Response by poster: This gets more and more confusing. . .pinback, I was looking at Thom Hogan's reviews of both lenses- as well as the reviews on B&H and amazon. It sounds like the 55-200 is kind of cheap feeling and easy to damage (bad for her, she's hard on gear in her line of work).
Honestly, a lot of these reviews are over both of our heads. We (and mostly she) knows the basics, but trying to differentiate between a lot of these lenses seems difficult, and picking out a good 3-lens set (keep the 28-105 . . . sell it and get the 18-200 . . . keep both . . .) is really confusing.
Anyway, thanks everyone for their feedback. She is for sure ordering the 50 from B&H tomorrow, then agonizing over the rest of it this week.
posted by stewiethegreat at 9:58 PM on August 10, 2008
Honestly, a lot of these reviews are over both of our heads. We (and mostly she) knows the basics, but trying to differentiate between a lot of these lenses seems difficult, and picking out a good 3-lens set (keep the 28-105 . . . sell it and get the 18-200 . . . keep both . . .) is really confusing.
Anyway, thanks everyone for their feedback. She is for sure ordering the 50 from B&H tomorrow, then agonizing over the rest of it this week.
posted by stewiethegreat at 9:58 PM on August 10, 2008
50mm 1.4, without a doubt. Stop reading and go buy one.
Or if I haven't convinced you with my fervor, do a search on Flickr for 50mm and see the beautiful photos that self-confessed amateurs have shot.
I've got a D70 with the kit 18-70, and the VR 18-200, but all my best photos have been shot with the 50mm.
posted by gofargogo at 10:27 PM on August 10, 2008
Or if I haven't convinced you with my fervor, do a search on Flickr for 50mm and see the beautiful photos that self-confessed amateurs have shot.
I've got a D70 with the kit 18-70, and the VR 18-200, but all my best photos have been shot with the 50mm.
posted by gofargogo at 10:27 PM on August 10, 2008
A 50mm prime will open many doors in photographic possibility. Use those f stops in the ones and twos to get some really cool shallow depth of focus. As far as the 18-200 is concerned, many people love that lens. I didn't. It's just too soft (as in "not sharp") for me.
Of course, you might not ever notice. Then again, she's already got a normal-range zoom.
If the goal is to increase the range of shots you can take (and really take advantage of having a DSLR over a digicam) I agree with everyone else's suggestions of the 50mm and some sort of ultra-wide angle zoom (ie. 12-24mm). In the case of the zoom, all the third party lenses (Tamron, Tokina, Sigma) are pretty equal in terms of quality. Nikon's is better, but not by much and certainly not twice as good, as its price would have you believe.
posted by pantagrool at 3:32 AM on August 11, 2008
Of course, you might not ever notice. Then again, she's already got a normal-range zoom.
If the goal is to increase the range of shots you can take (and really take advantage of having a DSLR over a digicam) I agree with everyone else's suggestions of the 50mm and some sort of ultra-wide angle zoom (ie. 12-24mm). In the case of the zoom, all the third party lenses (Tamron, Tokina, Sigma) are pretty equal in terms of quality. Nikon's is better, but not by much and certainly not twice as good, as its price would have you believe.
posted by pantagrool at 3:32 AM on August 11, 2008
Her 28-105 f/3.5-4.5D IF AF lens isn't known as one of the more stellar performers in the Nikon line, especially on a DSLR.
Sell it, and put the proceeds toward an 18-200 VR. No lens changing means minimal potential for dust on the sensor.
The 18-200 will focus faster and with less hunting than her current lens and is at least as good optically if not significantly better. If memory serves me, it's also roughly about the same physical size and weight as the 28-105, but with a more compact included shade.
Down the lien she can pick up a fast 50mm lens very cheaply, as others have noted.
posted by imjustsaying at 4:26 AM on August 11, 2008
Sell it, and put the proceeds toward an 18-200 VR. No lens changing means minimal potential for dust on the sensor.
The 18-200 will focus faster and with less hunting than her current lens and is at least as good optically if not significantly better. If memory serves me, it's also roughly about the same physical size and weight as the 28-105, but with a more compact included shade.
Down the lien she can pick up a fast 50mm lens very cheaply, as others have noted.
posted by imjustsaying at 4:26 AM on August 11, 2008
i've been watching this thread and wanting to say something, but at the same time been worried about being off-topic. but with your latest comment ("trying to differentiate between a lot of these lenses seems difficult") i think it really is worth saying: you don't need to buy anything.
it very much sounds to me like you (addressing your girlfriend) are still having fun getting used to the camera, and to what you can do with it. so why not stick with what you have until you start to feel the limitations? once you sense that you are being limited, buy a lens to solve that specific problem.
also, is it really a lens you want? maybe the money would be better spent on filters, a tripod, better bag, or a flash? or a printer? or processing software? (or even having a few good meals out while on vacation!).
i guess one problem with what i am suggesting is that you may not know when you are limited. i would suggest joining an online commuity (flickr or whatever) where you can post your photos, meet up with other people, see what other people are doing, and generally expand your knowledge of what is possible with what equipment.
and just living with your camera you might hit issues (like the bulk of the thing, or the zoom drifting) that you want to address.
a few weeks isn't long to wait and gives you time to post more questions here along the lines of "i like this person's photographs, what equipment do i need to take something like that?"
remember that you already have a lens that covers the most popular focal lengths, and that is reasonably good quality. there's no rule that says you need more lenses; we buy so much junk we think we need there's no reason to actually go looking for excuses to consume. and buying gear doesn't make you a better photographer in and of itself (you could spend the time and effort you're putting into a new lens actually taking more photos!).
posted by not sure this is a good idea at 4:37 AM on August 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
it very much sounds to me like you (addressing your girlfriend) are still having fun getting used to the camera, and to what you can do with it. so why not stick with what you have until you start to feel the limitations? once you sense that you are being limited, buy a lens to solve that specific problem.
also, is it really a lens you want? maybe the money would be better spent on filters, a tripod, better bag, or a flash? or a printer? or processing software? (or even having a few good meals out while on vacation!).
i guess one problem with what i am suggesting is that you may not know when you are limited. i would suggest joining an online commuity (flickr or whatever) where you can post your photos, meet up with other people, see what other people are doing, and generally expand your knowledge of what is possible with what equipment.
and just living with your camera you might hit issues (like the bulk of the thing, or the zoom drifting) that you want to address.
a few weeks isn't long to wait and gives you time to post more questions here along the lines of "i like this person's photographs, what equipment do i need to take something like that?"
remember that you already have a lens that covers the most popular focal lengths, and that is reasonably good quality. there's no rule that says you need more lenses; we buy so much junk we think we need there's no reason to actually go looking for excuses to consume. and buying gear doesn't make you a better photographer in and of itself (you could spend the time and effort you're putting into a new lens actually taking more photos!).
posted by not sure this is a good idea at 4:37 AM on August 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
Honestly, a lot of these reviews are over both of our heads.
This thread's a little old now, but your comment reminded me of something... There's a lot of complicated optical science going into making lenses, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that even more pseudoscience goes into people describing lenses. I really like how Ken Rockwell puts it: people waste so much time shooting photographs of walls and test charts to 'analyze' whether their lens is optically perfect, that they never go out and take pictures.
One of my most often-used lenses is a 55-200mm Sigma lens that cost me maybe $75. I'm routinely blown away by how good the images it takes are. But that's probably because I never shot test charts. I bet it's a little soft at the edges, and I know that with the huge lens hood on it, sometimes there's slight vignetting at the edges.
One day I learned about sensor dust: little specks of dust, over time, adhere to the camera's sensor. I read that you can test for it by shooting something like a solid white wall (or the blue sky on a clear day) as stopped-down as you can (e.g., f/22 or f/32). You might have to enhance details in Photoshop to bring them out. And I was horrified to find a lot of sensor dust in my f/22 shot of my ceiling with levels tweaked in Photoshop. I spent about $75 on cleaning products, and hours on research, and got some of the sensor dust off. But some still lingered, and I drove myself crazy trying to get rid of it. Before I could, I needed the camera for something-or-other. After shooting, I looked at the pictures to see just how awful they looked, and noticed something: they looked great! I don't ordinarily shoot at f/22, and I don't ordinarily take overexposed pictures of my ceiling. If you go looking for problems, you'll find them. But it didn't show up in my photos, so I've since forgotten all about it.
The same happens with lenses. People put lenses through tests that have nothing in common with how they take normal pictures, and see all sorts of problems. They take photos of test charts, which are specifically designed to emphasize optical defects. They look at 100% crops of images, which isn't how anyone looks at my pictures. (Aside from me if I'm going gung-ho in Photoshop.) They look at the very edges of photos, which tend to be a little blurrier than the center. But no one puts key details in the edges, and you wouldn't notice in most cases anyway. It would be like complaining that a car has bad handling, but not really mentioning that you were driving it at 75 MPH on top of an icy road, or buying a hamburger, setting it on fire, and complaining that it was too hot. What they're saying is all true, but most of it is stuff that will only show up in situations that no one would shoot under.
I'm sure someone will disagree, but I'd give this advice: if you don't understand something in a lens review, it probably doesn't matter. If it's something important, or something that will affect pictures you take, it's going to be pretty clear from the review.
posted by fogster at 6:08 PM on August 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
This thread's a little old now, but your comment reminded me of something... There's a lot of complicated optical science going into making lenses, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that even more pseudoscience goes into people describing lenses. I really like how Ken Rockwell puts it: people waste so much time shooting photographs of walls and test charts to 'analyze' whether their lens is optically perfect, that they never go out and take pictures.
One of my most often-used lenses is a 55-200mm Sigma lens that cost me maybe $75. I'm routinely blown away by how good the images it takes are. But that's probably because I never shot test charts. I bet it's a little soft at the edges, and I know that with the huge lens hood on it, sometimes there's slight vignetting at the edges.
One day I learned about sensor dust: little specks of dust, over time, adhere to the camera's sensor. I read that you can test for it by shooting something like a solid white wall (or the blue sky on a clear day) as stopped-down as you can (e.g., f/22 or f/32). You might have to enhance details in Photoshop to bring them out. And I was horrified to find a lot of sensor dust in my f/22 shot of my ceiling with levels tweaked in Photoshop. I spent about $75 on cleaning products, and hours on research, and got some of the sensor dust off. But some still lingered, and I drove myself crazy trying to get rid of it. Before I could, I needed the camera for something-or-other. After shooting, I looked at the pictures to see just how awful they looked, and noticed something: they looked great! I don't ordinarily shoot at f/22, and I don't ordinarily take overexposed pictures of my ceiling. If you go looking for problems, you'll find them. But it didn't show up in my photos, so I've since forgotten all about it.
The same happens with lenses. People put lenses through tests that have nothing in common with how they take normal pictures, and see all sorts of problems. They take photos of test charts, which are specifically designed to emphasize optical defects. They look at 100% crops of images, which isn't how anyone looks at my pictures. (Aside from me if I'm going gung-ho in Photoshop.) They look at the very edges of photos, which tend to be a little blurrier than the center. But no one puts key details in the edges, and you wouldn't notice in most cases anyway. It would be like complaining that a car has bad handling, but not really mentioning that you were driving it at 75 MPH on top of an icy road, or buying a hamburger, setting it on fire, and complaining that it was too hot. What they're saying is all true, but most of it is stuff that will only show up in situations that no one would shoot under.
I'm sure someone will disagree, but I'd give this advice: if you don't understand something in a lens review, it probably doesn't matter. If it's something important, or something that will affect pictures you take, it's going to be pretty clear from the review.
posted by fogster at 6:08 PM on August 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/image-stabilization.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55-200mm-vr.htm
The human hand just isn't steady enough to get a perfect image onto the sensor in a high-resolution DSLR.
posted by thewalrus at 3:23 PM on August 10, 2008