Photography Dslr Camera Lenses And Stuff...

[Redbaron]

Hey lads,

 

Looking at a few DSLR Cameras, want to take some good shots next trip, also as my son gets more and more active at 4 yo - he does more exciting things, and would love to capture some memories etc. Then there's the obligatory family occasions and sporting events etc.

 

My question... Other than price, is it better to buy a single lens which covers all ranges (eg 18-135/200/300mm) or go with a twin lens kit (18-55mm + 55/70-200/300mm). All the lenses I'm looking at have their version of image stabilization/vibration reduction etc.

 

The main factor in my decision will be photo quality - or is quality the same? Obviously it would be more convenient at times to have it all on a single lens, but if quality suffers I'd rather carry two.

Minor factors - more to carry with 2 lenses/cumbersome changing lenses, single lens is more expensive. As far as I can see, having 2 lenses - if I'm at a sporting event I'd have the bigger lens on for the whole day unless we are shooting posed pics in which case the time to change lenses is irrelevant, but it is one more thing to carry.

 

Any ideas. FWIW I'm looking at Canon (EOS 55D or 1100D) and Nikon D3100 or 5100.

 

As usual, thanks in advance for any advice.... With luck will have some good pics to put up after this trip in Feb where I plan to make a fortune and retire in style by charging people 10B to have their photo taken with the likes of KS, Flash, Stick and the surviving members of the London Contingent..

 

Stay well

[expat]

Generally accepted principles of photography in my experience:

 

The most important thing is the photographer. In other words a good photographer with bad equipment beats the reverse.

 

The most important piece of equipment is the glass. Nothing beats a good lens. The back is less important. This is a general rule that can be taken too far, of course.

 

My advice would be to choose between Nikon and Canon first, then buy a used back one or two generations back (you can get them for very reasonable prices), and use the money saved to buy the best glass possible (glass, by the way holds its value--backs do not).

 

To answer your other question, a 'do it all' lens, i.e. one with a wide focal range, will never be as good as a more specialized lens. In fact, prime lenses (as opposed to zoom lenses) are usually the best possible. Some zoom lenses approach primes in quality, but you're going to pay for it.

 

There *are* some cheap, high quality options. Both Canon and Nikon have a 50mm 1.8 prime (the Canon's nickname is the nifty fifty) that is very affordable, around 100 bucks (and that's why almost everyone has one when starting out). The additional quality you get by stepping up to the 50mm 1.2 for is marginal--like going from a fine 100 dollar bottle of wine to a 1000 dollar bottle. You pay a lot for that marginal increase.

 

Hope this helps.

[Coss]

Generally accepted principles of photography in my experience:

 

The most important thing is the photographer. In other words a good photographer with bad equipment beats the reverse.

 

The most important piece of equipment is the glass. Nothing beats a good lens. The back is less important. This is a general rule that can be taken too far, of course.

 

My advice would be to choose between Nikon and Canon first, then buy a used back one or two generations back (you can get them for very reasonable prices), and use the money saved to buy the best glass possible (glass, by the way holds its value--backs do not).

 

To answer your other question, a 'do it all' lens, i.e. one with a wide focal range, will never be as good as a more specialized lens. In fact, prime lenses (as opposed to zoom lenses) are usually the best possible. Some zoom lenses approach primes in quality, but you're going to pay for it.

 

There *are* some cheap, high quality options. Both Canon and Nikon have a 50mm 1.8 prime (the Canon's nickname is the nifty fifty) that is very affordable, around 100 bucks (and that's why almost everyone has one when starting out). The additional quality you get by stepping up to the 50mm 1.2 for is marginal--like going from a fine 100 dollar bottle of wine to a 1000 dollar bottle. You pay a lot for that marginal increase.

 

Hope this helps.

 

What Expat said...

 

As he is far better photo jockey than I.

 

My comments are: I am extremely happy with my Nikon D300 and a 18~200 VR lens.

I've bought more lenses since, but that's the obsessive in me.

90% of my photos walking around in LOS are taken with the 18~200 VR lens.

 

Others though prefer Canon.

 

Coss

[Redbaron]

Thanks for the advice lads. Re prime lenses - was aware they are the goods, which made me think two shorter lenses may take better photos than one long lens.

 

Tried a few today, and had a look around... Had been leaning towards the Nikon 3100D with either the twin lenses at $950(18-55; 55-200) or a single (18-105mm) $1100, or 18-200 for $1800 odd. Then I had a crack at the 5100D at around $1300 (usually $1500) with the twin lenses (18-55; 55-300). Could be the goods, apparently the better quality second lens alone is worth the price difference.

 

Have spoken to a few people who own Canons (admittedly some were salespeople) and regret it after having a try of the Nikons. Bang for buck, the Nikons appear to deliver more in both camera quality, and lenses. Even the salespeople from stores which were in general flogging Canons to death (some big promo), once they realized I was willing to listen and pay good money for good stuff recommended the Nikons.

 

On the longer lens conundrum, I'm still split. It would definitely be convenient to have one long lens, but I have some issues with my left hand and the longer lens may simply be too heavy to hold steady for every single photo, especially while zooming - until I start on the prime lenses. Then there's the big price difference.

 

In any case... having fun shopping

[expat]

Actually, I believe Canon has the best line up of lenses--and they are generally a bit cheaper than Nikon.

 

For backs, last I checked, Nikon had a *slight* advantage.

 

The 18-200VR that Red mentioned is a great lens and not that heavy from my understanding and just a notch below professional level. Get the cheap 50 prime no matter what you do.

[The_Munchmaster]

...To answer your other question, a 'do it all' lens, i.e. one with a wide focal range, will never be as good as a more specialized lens. In fact, prime lenses (as opposed to zoom lenses) are usually the best possible. Some zoom lenses approach primes in quality, but you're going to pay for it...

 

As Expat says a lens that tries to cover a wide range of focal lengths is a compromise over individual lenses (assuming of course that they are decent lenses). However these 'do it all' lenses still take decent images and suit many people who don't want to carry a few lenses and keep changing them. Also if you only view your images on your laptop or make small prints of them then you probably won't notice much difference anyway.

 

I also agree with Expat that Canon have the best lenses and range of lenses but Nikon may edge it on the bodies, although I'm a Canon man and have no actual experience of Nikon.

 

Remember when buying lenses that the crop factor of the bodies sensor means that the effective focal length of a lens is actually longer than stated, eg., all Canon crop sensor bodies have a crop factor of 1.6. This means for example that a 50mm lens on a Canon crop sensor body has an effective focal length of 80mm. On a Nikon crop sensor body it would have an effective focal lenth of 75mm because Nikon croppers have a crop factor of 1.5. This is handy for extra reach but makes wide lenses longer which is not so handy.

 

[Hugh_Hoy]

If you've narrowed your selection down to Nikon or Canon, I would suggest that you first decide which camera fits best in your hand. It's quite an investment, and I really think that if you are going to use the camera a lot, comfort and ease with which you can control the camera is important (for me, anyway).

 

I guess I'm partial to Canon (own about 4 of them), but also a Nikon. I've purchased them over the years for various reasons. My latest purchase was an upgrade to a 50 mm 1.4 Canon lens. I love it. It's my "primary lens". Not good for group shots in a small room, but dynomite for scenics, at least adequate for portraits, and outstanding for low-light (need flash a lot less to brighten a room, for instance). Well worth the $400 I paid for it. I'd guess that 2 variable lenses would do you fine. As you probably know by know, they're often packaged in "kits" at reasonable prices (which often include a camera bag).

 

You might want to check out this very good site: http://www.dpreview.com/ Lots of good reviews and specs, as well as what you can expect to pay.

 

Have fun.

 

HH

[Coss]

and this guy talks sense

 

http://www.kenrockwe...ded-cameras.htm link

 

he was the one that said something like "by the time you figure out which lens you want to change to, the photo's gone" so the 18~200 is a good choice for most things link

 

What Munchie said about crop factor is true, but the Nikon "DX" are for DSLR only, so are what they say they are, i.e. a 50mm is a 50mm with no crop factor to consider.

[The_Munchmaster]

....What Munchie said about crop factor is true, but the Nikon "DX" are for DSLR only, so are what they say they are, i.e. a 50mm is a 50mm with no crop factor to consider.

 

Coss, I don't think your statement (i.e. a 50mm is a 50mm with no crop factor to consider) is correct. Tried researching it on the web but all very confusing. However Canon also make 2 types of lens EF and EF-S. The EF lenses can be used on both their full frame (digital or film) and crop sensor cameras but the EF-S lenses can only be used on their cropped sensor cameras (similar to Nikon DX format). However the crop factor still applies to the stated focal length of the EF-S lenses, e.g., I have an EF-S 10-22 but on my Canon 7D it is equivalent to 16-35. I don't think the Nikon DX lenses are any different in this respect.

[expat]

What Munchie said about crop factor is true, but the Nikon "DX" are for DSLR only, so are what they say they are, i.e. a 50mm is a 50mm with no crop factor to consider.

 

Erm, something's wrong above--I think you mean they are for 1.6 crop backs only and not for full frame, chai mai?

 

Oh, and for a kid, you want fast glass (i.e. large aperture, i.e. low f-stop number, like the 50mm 1.4 you have) because you will be shooting indoors often and the kid will be moving. Unless you want to shoot with a flash (a whole huge ball of wax as far as I'm concerned--stick to non-flash to start). Zooms never are as fast as primes. Zoom with your feet.

 

I have an old back with only a few shots on it you can buy for song. 30D--nice camera. Get the 50mm 1.8 and you've got a great set up to start for only a few hundred bucks.