Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

hexcalibur

macrumors member
Jun 19, 2003
76
63
Vancouver
wonderful resource - thanks!

Hi there,

I'm going to pick up a Nikon D50 later this week once my classes have ended. The expertise you guys unloaded on this topic is fantastic. I'll be returning to this thread after I've wasted a couple hundred shots learning how the camera works.

Thanks a bunch from me too.
 

macpastor

macrumors regular
Mar 22, 2006
196
0
SilentPanda said:
That's some tasty information Abstract. I really want to get a telephoto lense for my D50 but shudder at spending a ton of cash... so I'm looking on eBay some... at least now I have a glimpse as to what is what.

I started with a 70-300mm Lens that retails for $160.00 WalMart was closing them out at $50 a piece. I have been impressed with the clarity of the lens. It gets you going for under $200, just to get started, then upgrade later when you got the $$$
 

Abstract

macrumors Penryn
Dec 27, 2002
24,837
850
Location Location Location
Oh, and if you're going to get a lens, I think most people starting out are absolute perfect with the el cheapo 70-300 mm lenses. Most people don't need any better, and if you actually think your photos look blurry using this cheap telephoto lens, it's probably your lack of tripod. You're gonna get some not-so-sharp photos if you shoot at 300 mm focal length by simply holding the camera in your hand. Lots will probably end up blurry.

However, if you really do plan on shooting lots and lots of sports, or you want to start working on bird photography, then yes, spend money on expensive lenses that reach to 200, 300, 400, or even 500 mm with a decent f/4 or possibly f/2.8 aperture size, because you'll need to.

If you're going to spend money, do so on a wideangle lense, like a 14 or 15mm prime, or one of those 12-24 mm, or 10-22 mm lenses. That's where money should go, not on a zoom that goes beyond 300 mm.
Oh, getting a macro lense (ie: the lenses capable of focusing on a subject only 10-20 cm away from you) might also suck up some money.

So if you're starting out, it's probably a good idea to get:

1) A wideangle lens
2) A "prime" lense like a 35 mm or 50 mm f/1.8 or whatever, since primes are generally very sharp and have massive apertures for a low price, which makes it great for taking photos in dark situations without flash, like inside some restaurants.
 

-hh

macrumors 68030
Jul 17, 2001
2,550
336
NJ Highlands, Earth
Clix Pix said:
Thanks, HH, for clarifying this even further. It's an important point that I think we were overlooking. Also, as I found when reading further down in the thread after having made my response, the OP is interested in doing things such as shooting cars at a car show, and wants to get closer to the subjects and yet have a wider view, so this is exactly the explanation he needs.

No problem. My concern for the OP is the same one I have, which is "how to get an affordable W---I---D---E angle lens with a 1.5x (or 1.6x) "crop" dSLR? My wife is going to simply kill me when I tell her that I need to go buy yet another lens (particularly since I just picked up an EOS 3).


Absolutely it's not imperative to have a straight continuous spectrum of focal lengths. Right now, with the exception of the 18-200mm VR, I have a gap in my lenses, jumping from the 17-55 f/2.8 up to the 70-200 f/2.8.

A perfect lead in! My standard carry is a WA zoom (19-35mm) and a Telephoto zoom (was 75-300 IS, now 70-200 f/2.8 IS), so I have a similar "chasm" between 35mm to 70mm.

Interestingly, its not that I don't have the middle covered (I have the Canon 28-135mm IS), but rather, I don't feel it to generally be worth carrying along that extra weight.


... there is indeed nothing wrong with good old "foot zoom!"

Absolutely. And the 35-70mm range is one that's fairly easy to walk to recompose.

In fact, I think it is important for all photographers to learn to zoom with their feet, put a prime lens on the camera and experiment with it. This is how you can learn to approach a subject from different angles, get different perspectives on it, etc. I think too often it's all too easy to become dependent upon a zoom and the easy focusing/composition that can be done with one.

Not only their feet, but also with their ... hips.

A generic rule of thumb in underwater photography is "Shoot Up", which is an admonishment to make the background be non-distracting bluewater instead of dark, cluttery bottom. I've found that this also applies to land photography, even simple portraits.

Here's an example, taken with a simple P&S. The models are my parents...Mom's first trip to Paris, and Dad's second (his first was in 1945):

paris_parents.jpg


Notice the small green fence behind them, and how the rear fencepost is "lower" than the front one because of perspective: this means that the camera's "eye level" was lower than this fence. The result was that the change in angles allowed even the top of the Eiffel Tower to be captured in frame.

A lot of compositions can be improved simply by changing your height: IE, don't be afraid to squat to get the shot.



-hh
 

davegoody

macrumors 6502
Apr 9, 2003
372
94
Nottingham, England.
Duh !!!!!!

There is no good way to shoot through glass. Too much reflection.

Of course there are good ways to shoot through glass, or water, or ANY reflective surface. Light is polarised, i.e. vertically or horizontally. (over simplification but bear with me). Putting a Polarising filter on the front of your lens allows you to cut out light with the polarisation in one particular direction. All of a sudden you can see through the glass etc that before was just a mess of reflection. There are also potential problems with shooting into reflected light in that it can frequently mess up the automatic exposure of your shots, the camera "assumes" you are shooting into direct light and gives a reduced shutter speed (or higher f/stop). Using a polarised stops this happening too.

There are a couple of things you MUST take into consideration:
1) A Polarising filter is dark, so you (or the camera) will have to compensate for the lower light levels falling on the sensor (as much as 2 stops)
2) If you are using a lens with AF (Auto Focus), you need a special type of Polarising filter called a Circular Polariser. Otherwise you will lose your AutoFocus ability.
<p>
Good Luck - http://www.lifetyme.co.uk - Wedding Photographer so know what I am talking about !
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.