The Next Step for a Beginner

[Ricky]

So as you may know, at the moment my gear is as barebones as you can get. Really all I have is the Nikon D5000 body, the stock 15-55mm lens, a polarize filter, and a basic tripod. What I would like to do is invest in a couple other lenses. While I know photography isn't exactly a cheap hobby to be in, getting lenses realitively cheap would be nice.

I think most everyone here are Canon owners, but I figure this question wouldn't really be brand specific. What size lenses would you recommend for someone just starting out? And what should I be looking at specs wise for a lens when shopping around?

[everlastingimages]

I guess it depends on what type of photography you are into? What is your primary subject matter? That will best determine the tools that you will need. My second shooter is all Nikon, I'm sure he can help with advice.

[Thomas McKown]

I'm guessing you like landscapes since you seem to shoot a lot of panos. If this is your primary interest, you could aim towards buying equipment oriented towards that.

In that's case, the first thing I would recommend would be a solid tripod and a panorama head. Pano heads can get very expensive, but the good news is that there are a few budget options out there that work really well. The first option I would suggest is the Panosaurus.

link

This is what Sprinkle suggested to me and what I still use. The advantages are that it's incredibly cheap, ($85) he gives detailed instructions on calibrating it for each lens, and it works really well. The disadvantages are that it's really bulky and it's made out of plastic.

If you want a nicer more expensive option, you should consider the Nodal Ninja.

link

This is MUCH more compact, made of metal, and feels much smoother to use. They are a bit more expensive though, ranging from $200 to $350 depending on what you get. You can spend more than that, but you really wouldn't need to.


You also want to buy lenses geared towards what you want to shoot. If you primarily want to shoot panos, you would be looking for prime lenses like the 50mm or the 35mm. (85mm if you want really high resolution panos.) If you want a good general landscape lens, I would suggest a wide angle lens like the Sigma 10-20mm. If you just want a good walk around lens, what you already have might work well. You could also consider something with a little more zoom range if you need it.

A common first addition to the kit lens is the 50mm f1.8 because of the wide aperture and the fact that it is about $100. Those are very sharp, very cheap, and great for low light. And, if you pick one up used, you can probably get one really cheap. That would be awesome for panos!

One last thing, I buy most of my equipment used, and I find most of it at fredmiranda.com. They have an excellent buy and sell forum. Also, they have tons of user reviews on lenses, so you can get an idea of what you are buying before you do.

[sprinkle]

What Thomas said ^ LOL

If you live close I will sell you my old panosaurus really cheap.

[Ricky]

Thanks for the tips so far, didn't know the panorama heads existed hah, one of those would be quite useful. I genrally am more of a landscape person than anything, I kind of feel awkward taking portraits for some reason

I've seen the 50mm f1.8 lens you pointed out before, I guess I never really gave it a thought because of the 18-55mm lens I have already. What would be the difference between that lens and my current one at 50mm? I think this is where more of the technical details would come in handy for me to learn I was also eyeing up a 55-200mm lens as it seems like whenever I see some wildlife in front of me, my current zoom isn't near enough to get anything close to a decent shot of it.

And Sprinkle, I may be interested I'm in Orange County, California though, so, not sure if that's considered living close or not

[Thomas McKown]

Jul 29, 2010 20:04:33 GMT -5 Ricky said:

Thanks for the tips so far, didn't know the panorama heads existed hah, one of those would be quite useful. I genrally am more of a landscape person than anything, I kind of feel awkward taking portraits for some reason

I've seen the 50mm f1.8 lens you pointed out before, I guess I never really gave it a thought because of the 18-55mm lens I have already. What would be the difference between that lens and my current one at 50mm? I think this is where more of the technical details would come in handy for me to learn I was also eyeing up a 55-200mm lens as it seems like whenever I see some wildlife in front of me, my current zoom isn't near enough to get anything close to a decent shot of it.

And Sprinkle, I may be interested I'm in Orange County, California though, so, not sure if that's considered living close or not

I know what you mean, I avoided taking pictures of people for a long time. I did find out that I like it a whole lot more than I thought I would though in the end.

There are many advantages with primes over zooms; you lose the ability to zoom, (obviously) but you typically gain a lot of other features such as these:
Primes are usually sharper, lighter weight, have a much wider aperture allowing much more shallow depth of field and the ability to shoot in lower light, and many times they are cheaper.

While you already have the equivalent focal length on your kit lens, you will find that with the 50mm f1.8, stitching will be much more accurate on a panorama head. The reason is that a pano head centers the perspective of the camera's lens so that every single shot is taken from the exact same perspective.

To show you what I mean, try this: Put your finger in front of your face and look at something behind it in the room with one eye closed. Now switch eyes without moving your hand. Your finder moves because the perspective changes. Now try simply using one eye and looking all around your finger. No matter what you look at, your finger never moves because the perspective is exactly the same.

Primes are easier to do this with because you can dial in the exact center of the lens at home, write down the setting on your pano head, and then quickly replicate the exact same setting in the field when you are taking a shot. Now, no matter what angle you point your camera, everything will stitch perfectly, and I mean perfectly.

Of course, you can always just adjust your pano head for either 55mm or 18mm and always be sure to have the settings exactly the same so long as you don't bump the zoom ring.

[tommyh]

You wouldn't be able to autofocus with the 50mm 1.8 on your D5000.

Here's what I suggest:
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/585343-USA/Nikon_2180_AF_S_Nikkor_50mm_f_1_4G.html

I honestly believe everyone should have at least ONE fast prime. The main difference between this lens at 50mm and your current lens at 50mm is the quality in color, contrast, sharpness, glass, and overall performance.

Because of the 1.4 aperture, autofocus will be noticeably quicker than your current lens. It also gives you a LOT more depth of field (how much is in focus) control. Here's an example photo that I have taken with a 50mm 1.4.



Here's a link to the full hi-res file:
thphoto.smugmug.com/Portraits/rosiep/D3S4304/923563545_iCUrE-O.jpg

As you can see, ONLY her eye is in focus. Also, this lens is a KILLER in low light situations. It never leaves my bag and I always use it at a wedding.

[Sara Adams]

Aug 1, 2010 9:24:25 GMT -5 tommyh said:

thphoto.smugmug.com/Portraits/rosiep/D3S4304/923563545_iCUrE-L.jpg

As you can see, ONLY her eye is in focus.

Fact of the day:

[FearingPix]

lmao!!

[everlastingimages]

Better example of DOF control:



The only thing in focus on this photo, is anything that fell on that specific DOF's focal plane.

135mm, f/2.0

[everlastingimages]

The only thing to understand about primes is that they take a lot of getting used to, 50mm and wider lenses will have more DOF, even wide open then a telephoto prime at 85mm and greater. Sensor size also comes into play, a 1.6 crop factor will increase your DOF, so on a D5000 you're not going to get the same effect that you would get on a D700.

Primes take a lot of practice to use to get your desired effects, but they are well worth the investment hands down. Nikon's 35mm 1.4 is a great lens, as is their 85mm 1.4, but Nikon really lacks good prime glass compared to Canon. Not bashing Nikon though, because their zooms are awesome, and I think that as Nikon updates their prime line we'll have a comparable lineup.

[Thomas McKown]

Aug 1, 2010 23:56:48 GMT -5 everlastingimages said:

...Sensor size also comes into play, a 1.6 crop factor will increase your DOF, so on a D5000 you're not going to get the same effect that you would get on a D700.

Well not exactly, it only seems to. I know what you mean, but I just want to clarify so there is no confusion. The depth of field is actually the same when using a smaller sensor, you just have a different (cropped) field of view. Since wider lenses have more depth of field, it is easier to achieve a more shallow depth of field with a full frame sensor because you can shoot with a longer lens and get the same field of view as you would with a wider lens on a cropped sensor.

[Ricky]

Some good info here, thanks everyone I may go with the 1.8 and give it a go, can't reall go wrong for the price there. The 1.4 that Tommy suggested seems nice too, but I'm not hardcore enough with photography to warrent the $300 price difference between the two. I understand photograph is an expensive hobby, so I don't mind sacrificing a little bit of quality or features if it's at a good price. I guess I'm the bargain-bin photographer hah

[tommyh]

It won't autofocus on your camera, by the way. just so you know lol

[Ricky]

Auto focus still isn't worth $300 extra to me I tend to do manual focusing the majority of the time with the kit lens, so that won't be much of an issue to me.