Quick question....

Old Perry

Was wondering what all this f1.4 and f2.8 jazz is about so was lookin at a few lenses (also wanted to get something wide angle aswell)to try out and found this, is it cheap and why?,

http://cgi.ebay.ie/BRAND-NEW-NIKON-35mm-AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-35-mm-f-1-8G-/290487416632?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item43a2663738 ,


(any other with an fstop thatwide was at least twice the price), im not a big fan of ebay and good deals sometimes seem to good to be true. What would you recommend with a budget of say 350 , would it be wishful thinkin to find somithin wider then 18mm .
Thanks for any advice offered

title change:Not so Quick Question

magicbastarder

that 35mm f1.8 can be got for €210 in dublin.
the f1.8 means that it lets a lot of light in. helpfully, the larger the number, the less light the lens can let in 'wide open' - it's the adjustable 'hole' the lens uses to control the amount of light the lens allows into the camera body. so small numbers usually mean a higher price - the lens above is a relatively simple design and mass produced, so it has a lower price tag than most other lenses of a similar max aperture.

pixbyjohn

Also that is a DX lens which means it is suitable for a crop sensor and not so suitable for a full frame.

magicbastarder

i should have mentioned that the benefit of large aperture lenses is that they're better in low light (because of the increased light gathering capability), plus they offer more control over depth of field.

Old Perry

magicbastarder wrote: »

that 35mm f1.8 can be got for €210 in dublin.
the f1.8 means that it lets a lot of light in. helpfully, the larger the number, the less light the lens can let in 'wide open' - it's the adjustable 'hole' the lens uses to control the amount of light the lens allows into the camera body. so small numbers usually mean a higher price - the lens above is a relatively simple design and mass produced, so it has a lower price tag than most other lenses of a similar max aperture.

Thanks, i understand that , it also allows for a larger depth of field ? ie.much nicer brighter aperture blurred backgrounds.

To make sense of what i said above if i were to buy a lense for landscape and architechture etc as i couldn possibly afford both which would be more beneficial to me a wide aperture or a wider lense?

I have the f4 18-55kit lens which is good but can be restricting in certain situations.Could i compensate for less wide angle by stitching photos together and cropping?

(Edit was typing this as ye posted them last two, thanks)

magicbastarder

for landscape and architecture, it's generally assumed that you want greater depth of field - and it's small apertures which give you that; so the f1.8 won't be of any benefit for that effect.

pixbyjohn

magicbastarder wrote: »

for landscape and architecture, it's generally assumed that you want greater depth of field - and it's small apertures which give you that; so the f1.8 won't be of any benefit for that effect.

But you can change the aperture down to f22 on that lens too, it is not a fixed aperture lens.

Dara Robinson

Old Perry, without getting too technical (and I am leaving out a lot and side stepping some stuff here also)

Wide angle (ie lower than 50mm) means you can get more information into the shot even though you are close to the subject. ie if you are shooting a bunch of people, with a wide angle lens you can get in close, have someone in focus, sharp and the main focus of the pic but also have other people to one side or both sides also in shot.

Depth of Field... Dont worry about that for the moment. Its very complicated (well not actual depth of field but what kind of D.O.F. you get from what lenses and so on is very much so)

Aperture (is 1.4, 5.6 and all that jazz as you put it) is basically how wide can the aperture open. The wider and lower the aperture the more light (the bigger the aperture number the smaller the opening for the light). The wider the aperture the more expensive the camera. The average aperture used by professionals is actually 5.6 (now as far as I know that was a blanket statistic so dont shoot me peeps, so no regard for circumstance or type of job).

The reality is that unless you have a specific need to work in low light conditions you should be fine with the cheaper lenses

CabanSail

Not going to repeat all the good advice above.

The 35mm will be a Normal Lens on an APS-C Sensor (also known as a Cropped Sensor) So is the equivalent of a 50mm lens on a 35mm Film or Full Frame body.

A popular choice for Landscapes & some Architechture is the Sigma 10-20mm. They are not the fastest lens but very good value for money.

You could stitch images together but it can be a lot of work to get it right. You also will not know if there is a mistake until you have left the scene.

Thecageyone

What do you guys think on the likes of Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5? I'm after something wide, but it'd be nice to have a bit of zoom on it too. I know these type of lenses aren't near as good as a constant aperture lens, like a 17-50 f/2.8, but the sigma has macro function too, could be a good all round lens? Anyone got one or similar and how good is the IQ across the range?

Heading to the States next week for a month, and there's a lot I will want to capture over there. I have a 50mm f/1.8 and a big lug of a zoom [70-210 w/macro] but that's just ridiculously heavy and I doubt I'll bring it. I can live without zoom, I guess, I'm thinking wide would be better but I need it cheap-ish.

Also, what way are prices in the states atm, generally? I know I can check Amazon etc ... but , high street prices. Anyone been in a cam shop over there lately?

Sorry to jump in, but no point in a separate thread for my query. And it's related.

Borderfox

Thecageyone wrote: »

What do you guys think on the likes of Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5? I'm after something wide, but it'd be nice to have a bit of zoom on it too. I know these type of lenses aren't near as good as a constant aperture lens, like a 17-50 f/2.8, but the sigma has macro function too, could be a good all round lens? Anyone got one or similar and how good is the IQ across the range?

Heading to the States next week for a month, and there's a lot I will want to capture over there. I have a 50mm f/1.8 and a big lug of a zoom [70-210 w/macro] but that's just ridiculously heavy and I doubt I'll bring it. I can live without zoom, I guess, I'm thinking wide would be better but I need it cheap-ish.

Also, what way are prices in the states atm, generally? I know I can check Amazon etc ... but , high street prices. Anyone been in a cam shop over there lately?

Sorry to jump in, but no point in a separate thread for my query. And it's related.

I had the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 and it was a fantastic lens, super sharp throughout the range. Only sold it when I changed to full frame, which was a pity. I think its replaced by the 17-50 so should be a very good buy, check the copy you get when you buy as there can be some variation between copies and if its in the states can be hard to return.

.Longshanks.

Borderfox wrote: »

I had the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 and it was a fantastic lens, super sharp throughout the range. Only sold it when I changed to full frame, which was a pity. I think its replaced by the 17-50 so should be a very good buy, check the copy you get when you buy as there can be some variation between copies and if its in the states can be hard to return.

I also had the sigma 18-50mm f2.8. Sharpness wise at 2.8.... it was good, but not great. Would still recommend it.

Promac

I was just lookin at the 17-70 - anyone any experience with that one? It's half the price of the 17-50

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-optical-stabilisation-Canon-Digital/dp/B002ZNJB32/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Extra zoom for less price but it's not fixed at f2.8. Will that make a huge difference?

Edit: other way round!

Thecageyone

That's the one I was eying up. Looks like a nice general purpose lens. I find i don't use long range zoom much at all lately. Something fast and wide with a little range to play with, can't go wrong right? It's not bad that it only closes to f/4.5 at 70mm, outdoors I rarely use wide apertures anyway. It would be nice to have the option, but as promac says, the 17-50 is twice the price. Would the IQ be much better?

Promac

How bout you get one and let me know how it works out?

Thecageyone

Heh, I'd buy one today if I had the cash on me But I know me, I'll scrape it together then think "hmmm, get bit more together and I can have that 17-50 2.8" and then ... I'll blow all the money on poker

Promac

Yeah, I'm getting married soon too ... stupid expensive hobby!

Edit: The photography that is!

Thecageyone

Dead right, I doubt Marriage is much of a hobby!

Let me shoot your wedding for €3000, I'll buy a D700 and that 17-50 2.8 and the sigma beforehand with your money and test both during the ceremony. I'll give you a good run down on each lenses performance next day Great deal that :P

magicbastarder

isn't there a tool which will analyse your images' EXIF data and show you a graph of your focal lengths used by how much you use them?

Old Perry

So do you think this would be a good buy, I have been interested to see what the f1s are like and also do a bit more landscape pictures but the 18-15mm would be just as good for this?
Would the 35mm be any good for shotting gig photos? (i do have a fair understanding of aperture and shutter speed and all that but thanks for the advice anyways)

Old Perry

magicbastarder wrote: »

isn't there a tool which will analyse your images' EXIF data and show you a graph of your focal lengths used by how much you use them?

Would be interested in this aswell,there was a thread containin info on it not so long ago , have been lookin for it but cant find it.

magicbastarder

Old Perry wrote: »

Would the 35mm be any good for shotting gig photos?

yep, cos it would allow you shoot without flash.

Thecageyone

Someone posted one of those tools on Flickr a while back, I was surprised to find that the aperture I us most is f/8, but second to that was f/2.8. 50mm was no doubt my most used focal length as it's the lens on the camera 90% of the time.

Old Perry

magicbastarder wrote: »

that 35mm f1.8 can be got for €210 in dublin.

where in dublin ? seen one on the birmingham cameras website for 189euros, never bought second hand before anythin to look out for when trying it out?

Thecageyone

Old Perry wrote: »

Would the 35mm be any good for shotting gig photos? (i do have a fair understanding of aperture and shutter speed and all that but thanks for the advice anyways)

Yup, so long as you're not way back from the stage. Up close you'll have a wide enough angle to get most of the stage in all at once, and it's fast enough to cope with poor lighting without having to go OTT on the ISO front. I've used my 50mm at gigs with good result, sometimes wish I had that bit of extra width from a 35mm or 24mm

Old Perry

Thecageyone wrote: »

Yup, so long as you're not way back from the stage. Up close you'll have a wide enough angle to get most of the stage in all at once, and it's fast enough to cope with poor lighting without having to go OTT on the ISO front. I've used my 50mm at gigs with good result, sometimes wish I had that bit of extra width from a 35mm or 24mm

Would you be using much iso? or would you be able to crop pictures for closeups?
im no pro so we're not talkin the o2 or anyting just like bar and hotel gigs for fun.
Thanks by the way

magicbastarder

Old Perry wrote: »

where in dublin ? seen one on the birmingham cameras website for 189euros, never bought second hand before anythin to look out for when trying it out?

i got it in gunns for €210; €189 is a good price, it's €243 in conns.

Thecageyone

For Local gigs it's the perfect lens really, you just zoom with your feet as with most primes.

i don't like to go over ISO 640, I'll keep it to 100-200 wherever possible. I much prefer to open up the aperture than ramp up the ISO. But only because my camera doesn't handle higher ISO very well, and I'm left smoothening out noise in post processing. Not always avoidable though, as using the wider aperture can lead to softness, if you want more sharpness across your frame you need to close it in a bit. If you're anyway steady using slower shutter speeds that comes in to play a lot at gigs too.

here's one I took using the humble kit lens, hadn't got the 50mm at the time:



f/4.5, shutter 1/30 sec [evident on his strumming hand, but adds motion to it ] , ISO: 640

took a bit of work in post to brighten up but I managed to kill most noise. It's how you work those 3 controls that matters. if I'd had the 50mm I wouldn't have gotten such a wide shot, but I could have used an aperture of 2.8 focused mainly on the guitarist out front and used a lower ISO. But you do the best you can with what you have on you at the time

Old Perry

Ive to much money and not enough will power sometimes, might just pick that second hand one up and see how it goes, will post a few of the pics later as some friends have a gig comin up soon.

Thecageyone

Wish I had that problem!

magicbastarder

if i had a choice of new for €210 or s/h for €189, i know which i'd choose.

Old Perry

magicbastarder wrote: »

if i had a choice of new for €210 or s/h for €189, i know which i'd choose.

Thats also true, in your opinion is it worth that money when i have an f4 18-55 already and would esentially only be gaining 2 extra stops at 100quid each.

magicbastarder

two stops is potentially the difference between working at 1/60s and 1/15s. you'd be a better judge than me as to whether that's worth €200 to you. i will freely admit to being a prime snob, mind you.

Old Perry

magicbastarder wrote: »

two stops is potentially the difference between working at 1/60s and 1/15s. you'd be a better judge than me as to whether that's worth €200 to you. i will freely admit to being a prime snob, mind you.

Does prime mean fixed focal? what are the advantages of prime to a varying focal length lense?

Thecageyone

That's exactly what prime lenses are. Generally the optics are better quality, they don't have to shift around, they stay put in the one place. Basically the glass is specifically designed and cut for that one focal length, less room for error and you rarely get distortion with primes. Zooms are well prone to it at either end of their range.