How to choose a DSLR lens?

gary82

I'm new in the world of DSLR since I got my Nikon D60 with 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 kit lens a few weeks back.

Before that I was shooting with a Fuji s6500fd bridge camera which had a 28-300mm f2.8-4.9 non-changeable lens.

I'm finding the Nikon very slow now in comparison so have been looking at range of lens available and I've been a bit confused. There seems to be a huge variation in price for what appear to me to be similar spec lenses. And lenses that look to me to be telephoto lenses are marked as macro (can it be both?).

I used to do a bit of surf photography from the beach, and found the 300mm end of the Fuji very useful and I could get good shots at 1/4000th of a second on a decent day, but still had to crop a bit after that. Could you recommend a lens for taking high-speed shots at a distance? (high mm and low f number right?)

Or for general use, is there something like my old Fuji lens that'd work on the nikon? Or are you better getting specific lenses for smaller ranges of zoom.

It's all a bit over my head so if you've any info or links on choosing a lens I'd welcome it!! Also any good links explaining the physics involved would be interesting! Thanks

silverside

your starter for 5:

I'm surprised if you find the Nikon slower to operate - is that what you mena by slower ?

good high speed long lenses are heavy and expensive... especially once you get above 200mm.. but with a good DSLR you can crop and its not so noticeable. to give an indication, on canon you can get a 200mm f4L for about 500 and a 2.8 for more than double that, i guess Nikon is the same. I got a cheap (70 quid) 55-200 and its even worse pic quality than the kit lens, but it good light its acceptable.


The lenses that cover both short and long (like 18-200 or 28-300) arent quite as good, or expensive, but handy for walkabout or not having the hassle of changing.

look at some of the sports photographers profiles for ideas of what they use, i reckon surf photography is one of the most challenging types cause you cant get up close and the action happens very fast.

Anouilh

You might find this useful.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php?cat=1


There are a lot of user reviews linked to each lens type and they might help you decide.

For sports you will need a fast lens. If you give more information on the sort of photos you mostly take, it will help people here give more guidance.

AnCatDubh

Page 46 of understanding exposure goes a long way to describe some of what you are detailing. If you haven't already got it then it is probably a purchase to make before buying the lens and will only cost you maybe €20.

What do you find slow - the kit lens at f3.5? as in slow aperture?

You've correctly identified that the focal range of the S6500fd has a 35mm/DSLR equivalent as you've stated BUT the aperture handling of fixed lens digital cameras aren't an exact match to 35mm/DSLR's in the context of resultant depth of field. According to Peterson (p.46) your f2.8 on the fuji will have a 35mm/DSLR equivalent of f11 in terms of depth of field (should be quite sharp). One way of testing this (and I found this to be true with my bridge prior to DSLR) is to try achieve a decent shallow depth of field (large bokeh) at f2.8. The only way I found of achieving this in my experience with my fuji bridge was to use distance to subject. It didn't matter what i cranked the aperture to. It made next to zero of a difference.

The thing to take note of here is the example that he (Peterson) later gives; he describes shooting a scene on his DSLR at f/22 for max depth of field, ISO 100 with a shutter speed of 1/30 requiring stabilisation (tripod) compared to the same scene on a fixed lens camera at f/5.6 (equivalent of the DSLR's f/22) with a resultant shutter speed of 1/500 - net effect being no stabalisation (tripod). I think this may explain the ability to shoot at 1/4000 as described in the opening post. How I think this is relevant to your query - it suggests your fuji bridge probably had/has better capacity than your DSLR to shoot at low aperture giving really fast shutter speeds with great depth of field keeping everything sharp. I guess at the other end of the spectrum, the fixed lens inability to produce really good bokeh is one place where the DSLR will outperform the fixed lens.

Your kit lens obviously lacks range hence something in the - 300mm range will give you similar zoom capability to your S6500fd. The S6500fd has 10 times optical zoom. Stepping back from your 300mm desired zoom at the long end thus gives you about 30mm. So to get something equivalent to what you previously had, you would need a focal range of 30 - 300mm. IIRC there is an 18 - 250mm tele available or 18-270 in the Tamron range.

Basically the maximum aperture (lower value) you get the better in terms of low light handling the lens will have. But remember if buying a zoom it will have an aperture rating which describes the aperture range along the zoom of the lens soooooooooo, if for example you had a 30-300mm lens with f/2.8-5.6 aperture rating it will mean that at the 30mm end of the zoom, you would have a maximum aperture (lowest value) of f2.8 available to you but at the 300mm end it will have a maximum aperture of f/5.6.

I'm guessing your shooting of water sports will be done with mostly reasonable light so you may be able to get away with something like the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 (if on a budget). It won't perform great under low or fading light but will do fine under a nice bright day. The nikon heads will be able to help here on what other options.

Unless you are planning on shooting the space shuttle returning to earth then you shouldn't have a requirement for a shutter speed of 1/4000 with the type of photography that you describe. Someone who shoots water sports will be better able to advise, but i'd expect shutter speeds of 1/250 or 1/500 would be fine which in turn is getting more light in through the lens and onto the sensor meaning that aperture will be a bit more forgiving if you have something at for example f/4.

The other part of the equation to consider is ISO and the D60's range and handling of same. If you can increase the ISO to 1600 or 3200 with reasonable results, it will compensate somewhat for lack of available aperture or shutter speed. I'm not a nikon shooter so someone else may be able to assist.

Some of the Nikon shooters will be able to advise on what is available in the Nikon lens range. I shoot Pentax

In camera terms you have moved from a very nice family saloon (the fuji) to a sports coupe (the D60). Thus I think the only thing that you should be missing is a bit of focal range to let your sports coupe exceed your expectations of the family saloon - the kit on the D60 like all kits being very limited for the kind of purpose that you intend with it.

EDIT: Above post updated to incorporate the clarification Nilhg prompted. I'm still open to corrections on this.

Anouilh

I found these two threads after reading your post:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikkor_70-300mm_vr/discuss/72157603995861051/

http://www.flickr.com/groups/digital_sports_photography/discuss/72157617996995745/

Also, apologies for not reading your post fully.

Perhaps getting closer to the action in a boat would be an option?

eolair

Shoot RAW - that way you can shoot at -1 -1.5 EV, and get a faster shutter speed, then recover the image and exposure later in software. The pics may no be as clean as if you'd shot at 0EV, but you will have the shot.

You'll need shutter speeds of at least 1/length of lens, assuming no vibration reduction (VR) in the lens. So 1/500 is probably the max you need to go to.

DX sensors already give you a 1.5 zoom factor - so your 200 will seem like a 300, your 300 will be a 450 etc.

What may be cheaper is to buy a bigass prime @ 300, or short range zoom 200-300 using it for the distance shots, and get a cheap second hand body (eg d70s) and stick your kit clens on it for any close work.

Ultimately I think you'll just have to save and get yourself a decent lens. The good news is that it'll last forever, and stay with you as you change bodies.

nilhg

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Page 46 of understanding exposure goes a long way to describe some of what you are detailing. If you haven't already got it then it is probably a purchase to make before buying the lens and will only cost you maybe €20.



You've correctly identified that the focal range of the S6500fd has a 35mm/DSLR equivalent as you've stated BUT the aperture capacity of fixed lens digital cameras aren't a 1 for 1 match to 35mm/DSLR's. It doesn't actually do f/2.8. Apparently no fixed lens camera will. According to Peterson (p.46) your f2.8 on the fuji will have a 35mm/DSLR equivalent of f11 which in theory makes you kit lens way 'faster' at f3.5. One way of testing this (and I found this to be true with my bridge prior to DSLR) is to try achieve a decent shallow depth of field (large bokeh) at f2.8. The only way I found of achieving this in my experience with my fuji bridge was to use distance to subject. It didn't matter what i cranked the aperture to. It made next to zero of a difference.


For aperture - again remember Petersons description of the fixed lens f/2.8 being equivalent in 35mm/DSLR world of f/11.

I haven't got Understanding Exposure to hand so I'm not sure what it says but I'd be extremely surprised if it says that in terms of exposure that f2.8 on a bridge is not equal to f2.8 on a DSLR or even on a MF body. Trying to compare the DOF of such different cameras just because they have similar equivalent 35MM focal lengths is really a waste of time, but f2.8 is always equal to f2.8 when calculating exposure.

eolair

an f is an f is an f, regardless of sensor size, for exposure.

Sensor size only affects crop/zoom and dof.

AnCatDubh

nilhg wrote: »

I haven't got Understanding Exposure to hand so I'm not sure what it says but I'd be extremely surprised if it says that in terms of exposure that f2.8 on a bridge is not equal to f2.8 on a DSLR or even on a MF body. Trying to compare the DOF of such different cameras just because they have similar equivalent 35MM focal lengths is really a waste of time, but f2.8 is always equal to f2.8 when calculating exposure.

You are quite correct - it's in the context of depth of field. I should have summarised further. He describes shooting a scene on his DSLR at f/22 for max depth of field, ISO 100 with a shutter speed of 1/30 requiring stabilisation (tripod) compared to the same scene on fixed lens at f/5.6 (equivalent of the DSLR's f/22) with a resultant shutter speed of 1/500 - net effect being no stabalisation (tripod).

OP - my post may have led you astray in parts and needs altering to reflect the above.

AnCatDubh

Updated and amended earlier post. Perhaps people could give it a read and cross check it for me. Thanks.

eolair

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Updated and amended earlier post. Perhaps people could give it a read and cross check it for me. Thanks.

correct - with the dslr, you're using the aperture to achieve the dof, with the P&S, the small sensor does it all by itself.

Ideo

I just scanned through all the posts but you could do no wrong running this software on all of your photos and then examining the data to see what focal length and aperture you use the most.

You can analyse the data it churns out and use this in deciding the lens. Just bare in mind that the data will cap at the 300mm lense your using so if your cropping to get beyond the 300mm to 400mm or so, you might want a lense longer than 300mm. Know what I mean?