Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Nikon 50mm Prime lens (1.4g or 1.8g) to big (tight FOV) for nikon d5200?
- Thread starter Chuck-Norris
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well played.
do you guys use lens filters for protection? if so hoya, tiffen, b+h?
I use a protective filter on each of my lenses. I am willing to accept a minimal sacrifice in image quality (which I don't actually see) for that layer of protection from fingerprints, etc.
I have one Nikon NC (neutral clear) and the others are Hoya.
I have one Nikon NC (neutral clear) and the others are Hoya.
i was looking at hoyas, didnt know nikon made there own, should i go for nikon or hoyas?
I don't have a strong opinion either way. I had read good things about both Nikon and Hoya. The Nikon NC seemed like an easier choice (because Hoya has multiple options as to coatings, thickness, etc.).
The Nikon NC was the only one I purchased new. I have a couple of used lenses that included Hoya UV filters.
As always, others may have different views.
The Nikon NC was the only one I purchased new. I have a couple of used lenses that included Hoya UV filters.
As always, others may have different views.
I don't use any filters.
I think Thom Hogan's site has a good piece about filters on it (it's actually got pretty good articles on a whole host of stuff!). I seem to remember he argues you should use the best you possibly can. The rationale is that if you are spending $$$$ on a lens it is counter intuitive to put a filter in front of it that will reduce the performance of the lens. Sounds logical to me.
I think Thom Hogan's site has a good piece about filters on it (it's actually got pretty good articles on a whole host of stuff!). I seem to remember he argues you should use the best you possibly can. The rationale is that if you are spending $$$$ on a lens it is counter intuitive to put a filter in front of it that will reduce the performance of the lens. Sounds logical to me.
Last edited:
Yep -- it's a good read: http://www.bythom.com/filters.htm
If you want the absolute best in terms of optics, don't use a filter unless you actually need one (i.e., a neutral-density filter or circular polarizer). If you are going to use one, try to use a good one.
I've used the nifty 50 quite a lot and I'm always very happy with the results. Even if I don't use that lens on a shoot, it was probably the first lens I stuck in my bag before I headed out.
found this picture from those "Club" and bar albums on facebook.
that pic is amazingly sharp and is somethign i wanna achieve indoors in that low light. is this something i can do on my d5200/35mm 1.8g lens setup? i get the feeling that might an external flash. but that sharpness is tight
Attachments
Yes, you can take this type of photo with your setup in terms of composition and sharpness. In fact, this photo probably was not taken at a particularly wide aperture, considering that the people in the background are not that out of focus.
Lighting is a completely separate issue. Judging by the light falloff (from the foreground subjects to those in the background) and the catchlight (reflection in the subjects' eyes), this particular photo was most likely taken with a flash. Based on the position of the shadows (under the subjects' noses and chins) it was probably camera-mounted (i.e., an external speedlight), maybe with a bounce or diffusion attachment like the LumiQuest ProMax or Big Bounce.
Do you need a speedlight to take this type of photo? Maybe. But that all depends on your ambient (available) light and the look you are going for. If you didn't have enough ambient light, could you do it with just the built-in flash as opposed to an external speedlight? Maybe, but probably not.
As Attonine previously noted, ambient vs. flash is a whole separate can of worms.
if i were to want to take a pphoto of in this environment smilar to the picture, what settings do you recomend to have in this type of photo?
I'm no flash expert, so someone else may be able to help you out more with this.
Yes, I think the 35mm will be OK. Personally, I would prefer a touch wider, but the best lesson in photography is to use what you have available, it will teach you a lot. You'll be fine with what you have.
Although a sharp shot is desirable, for portrait type work sometimes you don't want to over do things with a bitingly sharp lens. This picture is a good example. Some of the women have minor imperfections in their complexions. When dealing with individual portraits in particular, photographers often like a slightly softer resolving lens to be able to hide these imperfections. Of course, they can also be removed in photoshop. This is really the kind of thing wedding photographers and portrait photographers have to deal with on a regular basis.
You don't need a filter for this kind of shot.
Flash......This shot is made with flash. Usually when using flash for standard portraiture like the shot you showed, you don't open the lens wide, as the flash is going to be providing a bright enough light source, and as discussed before, you need a deeper DoF. The flash sets for the distance the subjects are, so 1meter, 2 meters, whatever you need. You will notice there is a woman over the shoulder of the Asian woman in the black dress. You will notice this woman's face is blurred, but not a huge amount, and was not hit by such an intensity of flash as the main group. This face is not massively blurred because the aperture is not wide open, probably f5.6, f8, something like this.
Flash is whole area of specialisation within photography. There are many different reasons to use flash, and many types of flash, and many different effects that can be gained by using flash. All of which I know next to nothing about!
Yes, I think the 35mm will be OK. Personally, I would prefer a touch wider, but the best lesson in photography is to use what you have available, it will teach you a lot. You'll be fine with what you have.
Although a sharp shot is desirable, for portrait type work sometimes you don't want to over do things with a bitingly sharp lens. This picture is a good example. Some of the women have minor imperfections in their complexions. When dealing with individual portraits in particular, photographers often like a slightly softer resolving lens to be able to hide these imperfections. Of course, they can also be removed in photoshop. This is really the kind of thing wedding photographers and portrait photographers have to deal with on a regular basis.
You don't need a filter for this kind of shot.
Flash......This shot is made with flash. Usually when using flash for standard portraiture like the shot you showed, you don't open the lens wide, as the flash is going to be providing a bright enough light source, and as discussed before, you need a deeper DoF. The flash sets for the distance the subjects are, so 1meter, 2 meters, whatever you need. You will notice there is a woman over the shoulder of the Asian woman in the black dress. You will notice this woman's face is blurred, but not a huge amount, and was not hit by such an intensity of flash as the main group. This face is not massively blurred because the aperture is not wide open, probably f5.6, f8, something like this.
Flash is whole area of specialisation within photography. There are many different reasons to use flash, and many types of flash, and many different effects that can be gained by using flash. All of which I know next to nothing about!
I'm not trying to be difficult or enigmatic, but it depends.
Assuming that it is not a brightly-lit environment, and that you are shooting with ambient light only (i.e., no flash), you might consider high(er) ISO, wide(r) aperture, and slow(er) shutter speed. But you also need to consider the trade-offs. For example, if you shoot at f/1.8 (or 2.8, 4, etc.), will you have the depth of field you need? If you shoot at a slow shutter speed, can you avoid camera shake and/or motion blur? I can't answer those for you in the abstract.
If you are shooting with a speedlight, you can go low(er) with the ISO, narrow(er) with the aperture, and fast(er) with the shutter speed than you could without. But there are trade-offs, and each of those settings affects something in the overall image.
If you shoot in manual (M) mode, you have full control over each of these settings. But you could do it in other modes (A, S, P, or even (gasp) automatic modes) as well -- you are just letting the camera make more of the decisions.
If you don't want to be bothered with all of the settings, a reasonable compromise can sometimes be to shoot in aperture-priority (A) mode with auto-ISO. This lets you control the aperture (i.e., to determine depth of field) and lets the camera control the shutter and ISO.
Last edited:
If you are interested in learning about using a speedlight effectively, I'd highly recommend looking at www.strobist.com. The Lighting 101 series is a great place to start.
I think im gonna try those B+w filters, there made in germany and seem good quality. I see they have ones with MRC and ones without. does it matter? i think the store only carrys there Haze 1 UVA models
I forgot to ask, I notice on the metal f mount on both the camera and lens have grease. Was it bad I cleaned it off?lol
I never had noticeable amounts of grease on the mount of any lens or camera I've owned. I would assume it's safe to clean it off. The only reason I can imagine for having anything like grease on the mount is to form some kind of air tight seal to keep out dust etc. I don't think it's normal to have grease on the mounts.
like when i bought them both new they had a bit of grease i noticed, i assumed to prevent rust or something and wiped it off
have you guys ever used those silicone cover cases?
http://www.mycameracase.eu/media/ca...3525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/n/i/nikon_031_120.jpg
I agree with Attonine -- it seems like a gimmicky solution in search of a problem to solve. Don't let me stop you if you want to try it, but I don't see any need for it.
Last edited:
First off WHY? Filters never improve the image quality, even the best ones don't.
But lets say you are on a boat and there is blowing salt spray so you want something you can clean now and then over the lens. FOr that kind of work, bring multiple filters and change them, clean then when you get home. How to choose the best filter? It's easy. Stand with your back to a bright light source, an outside window in the daytime works or a table lamp in an otherwise darkened room. Now try to use the filter as a mirror to see the light source that you are facing away from. A very good filter will have anti-refletion coatings on it that make the light hard to see. A filter with poorer coatings will make a pretty good mirror. The best I've seen are the Hoya HMC and Nikon's are not much worse. The worst is the glass on any Apple product, those are nearly perfect mirrors.
But finger prints and imperfect cleaning will turn a good filter into a good mirror. So say that if you are going to clean it a lot you may as well not go for the beat coating as it will not last long and the best optical coating also are the best at showing finger marks and what not.
However if the purpose of the filter to to be a mechanical "bumper" and prevent damage and also to allow cleaning the B+W filters are the best because they are in very strong BRASS (no aluminum) rings. The coating is not as good as HMC but for harsh environments and frequent cleaning being strong matters more.
For critical work, take the filter off the lens.
Last edited:
THis photo was obviously done with a flash. Notice how the light falls off with distance and we see the refllected light on the models.
Also NO. It would the VERY hard to shoot this with a lens set to f/1.8. With a lens that fast the area of focus is very small, so small that you can't get both the eyes and the ears in focus at the same time and group shots are very hard at f/1.8 because everyone in the group must be the EXACT same distance from the camera, to within inches.
That said, of course any f/1.8 lens can be used at f/8.0 of f/5.6 or whatever you like. But the very wide (fast) setting is best used for portraits of one person
You example was shot with a lens stopped down to maybe f/5.6 or so?? and a flash. Maybe a bounce or defuser over the flash. You say it is "sharp". But I disagree. It is "ok" or "good enough" but actually it is a bit soft and lacks the details you could get if shot with more care. But for something you are posting to Facebook, it is better than 99%. It is just that we have gotten used to cell phone photos.
That said, for photos of women some times it's best to blue out skin texture and back in the film era photographers would buy soft-effect filters and even put fine net over the lens. Placing black or pink fishnet stocking ovr the lens was a common Hollywood trick in the 30's to 50's
Last edited: