Deciding between 2 cameras - my list of pros & cons but which matter most?

[ArtandStructure]

Thanks, Jesse, for your explanation. If I understand what you're saying... the same effect (mild telephoto/distance compression/flattening) would be evident with a 75-85mm lens on full-frame... approximately.

Yes, you've got it.

It's not a normal lens at this perspective by any means, but it's usable in a pinch if you can move. But I really like that mild telephoto effect - makes subject isolation much easier than with a wider lens, which happens to be one thing I like to do.

Agreed on the subject isolation, and I do feel the 50 on crop sensor is good for close portraits, but that is about it for me personally. As you mention it is more a mild telephoto than a normal and that is also part of the problem...we can only back up so far when we are indoors. I also just returned from New York and I don't think I used it much. It simply doesn't get back far enough for my tastes even when I've backed up as far as I can. I am sure it would be excellent on full frame, but (as far as Nikons go) the 35mm/1.8 is probably more useful for crop sensors if the image quality is on par.

Also, it's very, very affordable f/1.8 lens - under $150 brand new, and typically available for $100-110 used in excellent condition. I'd venture that most folks if they just get one, even if they don't know how they'll use it, will eventually stumble upon the things they can do with this lens that they just can't do with anything else at anywhere near the budget. Or the weight.

Again I think the 35mm would better satisfy this need and kudos to Nikon for providing it for DX users at near the same price. However, I still stand by my suggestion a second lens should be the 55-200mm before any of these more "specialty" lenses as it extends the shooting range greatly, is more versatile for more uses and allows the shooter to find what focal lengths he/she gravitates toward. I have seen this lens for $150-200 so we are still talking the same price range.

All in all it is a matter of preference and I certainly don't discount yours.

Again I don't mean to hijack the thread, and there are probably other threads dealing with lens selection, but I figure the shooting philosophy might be of interest to those looking to add to their kit.


All the best,


Jeses Widener
Art and Structure

 

[pdxflint]

Agreed on the subject isolation, and I do feel the 50 on crop sensor is good for close portraits, but that is about it for me personally. As you mention it is more a mild telephoto than a normal and that is also part of the problem...we can only back up so far when we are indoors. I also just returned from New York and I don't think I used it much. It simply doesn't get back far enough for my tastes even when I've backed up as far as I can. I am sure it would be excellent on full frame, but (as far as Nikons go) the 35mm/1.8 is probably more useful for crop sensors if the image quality is on par.

No argument on what you've said... it's more a matter of what you want to do with the lens. To me the 50mm on DX is not meant as an overall lens for snapshots indoors or general walking around - the 35mm would be much better suited for that, and in fact the plain old 18-55 kit lens would be better for that. But, for me, the 50mm is an easily overlooked lens for DX, because it actually comes closest to emulating the 85mm 1.8 on full-frame, at about $300-400 less. It's not a lens for everyone, but if you like the limited depth of field at mild telephoto, subject isolation (not just for portraits, but any creative framing,) than it's a great choice at small cost.

Again I think the 35mm would better satisfy this need and kudos to Nikon for providing it for DX users at near the same price. However, I still stand by my suggestion a second lens should be the 55-200mm before any of these more "specialty" lenses as it extends the shooting range greatly, is more versatile for more uses and allows the shooter to find what focal lengths he/she gravitates toward. I have seen this lens for $150-200 so we are still talking the same price range.

Actually, I don't consider the 55-200mm kit lens to truly be an alternative to the 50mm f/1.8 - although it is not a bad lens, especially for the money. They're just not comparable, both in purpose or performance. I have the original, non VR 55-200 Nikkor, and it's a fairly sharp lens, but I found it stayed in my bag most of the time. Problem was the 55mm short end was too long for general walking around (which is the 50mm 1.8's issue) and the long end was way too slow for hand held shots other than in bright daylight. The lens just didn't hit any sweet spots, so it fell out of favor. I replaced it with an 80-200 f/2.8 for $700 and haven't looked back. The 50mm 1.8 still gets action. I've thought about adding the 35mm 1.8 lens for a more "normal" walkaround lens, but from what I hear it's got some distortion and I think the older 35mm f/2 AF Nikkor would be my choice (and my suggestion to the OP who had a camera body that can use this older lens.) I happen to also like the non-G lenses with the actual aperture ring on them... something classic about them, and you can use them on older manual film cameras if you ever want to play with those...

All in all it is a matter of preference and I certainly don't discount yours.

Again I don't mean to hijack the thread, and there are probably other threads dealing with lens selection, but I figure the shooting philosophy might be of interest to those looking to add to their kit.

You're absolutely right, it's all about preferences - thank God for choices.

I don't think it's hijacking the thread...

 

[ArtandStructure]

Actually, I don't consider the 55-200mm kit lens to truly be an alternative to the 50mm f/1.8 - although it is not a bad lens, especially for the money. They're just not comparable, both in purpose or performance.

Oh I agree it isn't an alternative to achieve the same thing. My point was more for people looking to purchase their second lens, focal length is usually the primary consideration, often wanting more "zoom" (low-light, fast glass, etc. is usually a later consideration). Newer users are usually unsure what focal lengths they should be using and purchasing a 55-200mm gives them a greater range to work with and hone their preferences. For instance, I would not have realized how much I prefer the range and perspective (important emphasis to be noted below) of the 55-200mm over the 18-55mm had I not tried it. Plus the 55-200mm quickly became my lens of choice for portraits despite also owning the 50mm 1.8 because I found the telephoto zoom more versatile and less obtrusive (for my style).

We can look at the composition of an image of a particular focal length and imagine how varying depths of field could affect it, but it is more difficult to imagine what the same image would look like at different focal length compositions (especially as other things come into and out of frame) and I think in that regard a 55-200mm is more educational and informative for the newer user.

Even if we could more easily imagine what an image would look like at varying focal lengths, there is no getting around the practical experience of trying to shoot at varying lengths i.e...

1. Is the image we imagine at some focal length even possible to shoot given the physical constraints of getting around at some location?

2. In reality, do other things come into or out of frame when using the focal lengths we "imagined" would work?

3. Again, because focal lengths don't merely "zoom" but have different perspectives, the possibilities can't really be imagined without practical experience.

the long end was way too slow for hand held shots other than in bright daylight.

Just for the record I've had no speed issues with the 55-200mm while handheld. Sure, I can't shoot action at night, but everything else I've had no real trouble with. I do have the VR version. I have no idea how much difference that really makes.

I've thought about adding the 35mm 1.8 lens for a more "normal" walkaround lens, but from what I hear it's got some distortion and I think the older 35mm f/2 AF Nikkor would be my choice (and my suggestion to the OP who had a camera body that can use this older lens.)

Agreed. I've not seen the lens myself, only some images. It appears very sharp but I seem to notice a fair amount of cyan chromatic aberration. Newer Nikons can compensate if shot in JPEG, and Nikon's RAW interpreter may do so as well, but I use neither and am not sure I want to spend the time in post to clean it. I have no verdict one way or another on this lens at this time...just throwing it out as being a contender "on paper". I do agree with the 35mm/2 and to relate it back to this topic that is one of the advantages of getting the D90 given its focus drive motor.

I happen to also like the non-G lenses with the actual aperture ring on them... something classic about them, and you can use them on older manual film cameras if you ever want to play with those...

Totally agreed. I purchased the 80-200mm/2.8 in part for that reason.

I don't mean to universally debate the merits of one lens over another as personal preference makes much of that debate moot anyway, but I think the original context of the "what lens should I get?" was in regard to a new user, and hopefully I've elucidated why I think the 55-200mm is a most practical and educational next choice for new users.


All the best,


Jesse Widener
Art and Structure

 

[ArtandStructure]

I should perhaps clarify, when I say I find the 50mm a bit too flat and uninteresting for my tastes I mean so in regard to the 50mm as a "normal" or "walkaround" lens on a crop sensor. I do appreciate the compression and perspective effects of a telephoto, but one in a longer range, thus my liking the 55-200mm which, while I sometimes use at 55mm, I more often use at 80mm or 200mm.

So I am not saying telephotos or flattened perspectives are unappealing to me at all, just that the 50mm produces images to me which are "nearly but not so" in many regards as though I, as the photographer, would have wanted some other effect but settled for what I had on hand, being neither wide and deep enough nor long and compressed enough on the DX sensor. I do use the 50mm but probably only 5-10% of the time. Again this is strictly a crop sensor issue to me. I suspect the 50mm would be excellent in all regards on full frame...it is one of the primary things which makes me want to go full frame eventually.

My personal situational choices at this time (always subject to change):

When I shoot landscapes, I either shoot very wide with the 11-16mm or compress some part of the landscape more abstractly with the 55-200mm (undecided if I want to backpack the 80-200mm since I am not likely to use 2.8 for landscapes anyway).

When I shoot people I prefer the long telephoto as it is less obtrusive and also blows out backgrounds surprisingly well due to the distance involved (though the 50mm would do so better when the background is immediately behind the subject...of course I now also have the 80-200mm 2.8 so that element is rather moot).

Architecturally I find a wide range with my Tokina or a long range with the telephoto gets what I want depending on the situation, with the 55-200mm again being fine as I am not likely to use 2.8 for architecture. If I want a "normal" I usually go with the 28mm for the reasons I remarked previously regarding the geometry of the 28 over the 50.

For wildlife, the telephoto is the only realistic and practical option, 2.8 or not. For sports, generally the same.

For weddings, the telephoto is a must and while a normal is a general requirement as well, the 50 is too long on a DX sensor unless the wedding is outdoors and one has the luxury of space. Even then I prefer the more dynamic 28mm for group shots and the tele for solo or couple shots. A 28mm or the 18-55mm kit makes more sense for that purpose. Yes the 50 will get some nice depth of field effects for a wedding, but there will either not be enough room to back up for a number of group shots or too much time spent shuffling/positioning or changing to a lens that can get the shot that shots may be missed.

Again though, these are crop sensor personal preferences. On full frame the game changes a bit, where the 50mm becomes much more useful to me and may be my sole choice of lens in a mid range.

I would be interested to hear other people's situational choices and overall gear choices (with an eye to the practicality of what you carry with you) as I continue to try and fine tune my own choices.

I am transitioning my set a bit with my recent purchase of the 80-200mm. I expect my preferred crop sensor setup to be:

11-16mm f/2.8 Tokina
28mm f/2.8 Nikkor
*50mm f/1.8 Nikkor (least used, maybe 5-10% of the time, thinking of just going with 28mm entirely)
80-200mm f/2.8 Nikkor

When I go to full frame I would expect to go:

20mm f/2.8 Nikkor
50mm f/1.8 or 1.4 Nikkor (and maybe 28mm Nikkor, maybe)
80-200mm f/2.8 Nikkor (eventually moving to the 70-200mm 2.8)

Anyone else want to offer up their preferred setup?


All the best,


Jesse Widener
Art and Structure

 

[ArtandStructure]

I've just finished the articles I was referring to in regard to lenses. Specifically this one discusses focal length and shows the difference in "perspective" between varying focal lengths aside from just "zooming":

Wide & Telephoto

...with the most direct comparison being at the bottom of the page.

If I remember correctly, "zooming" focal lengths is also how Alfred Hitchcock achieved his "vertigo" effect in the movie of the same name when Jimmy Stewart's character looks down the winding staircase of the bell tower near the end. The effect is not merely zooming but actually changing perspective at the same time (since that's what changing focal lengths actually does) and in the film has a "liquid" or "pulsing" distortion effect.

As an aside, every photographer should own a copy of Vertigo. Gorgeously and uniquely shot and conceived.


All the best,


Jesse Widener
Art and Structure