kids at home lens advice?

Jakov Minic · Oct 2, 2004

I have D70 + kit lens and have realised that I need something faster in order to avoid using flash.

(17-55, 17-35, 28-70) 2.8 too expensive.
85mm 1.4 too long?
50mm 1.4 too long?
28mm 1.4 too expensive!
28mm 2.8?
24mm 2.8?

all suggestions welcome...

--
Free your mind and your ass will follow.

George Clinton

mironv · Oct 2, 2004

Jakov Minic said:
I have D70 + kit lens and have realised that I need something
faster in order to avoid using flash.

(17-55, 17-35, 28-70) 2.8 too expensive.

85mm 1.4 too long?

50mm 1.4 too long?

28mm 1.4 too expensive!

28mm 2.8?

24mm 2.8?

all suggestions welcome...

--
Free your mind and your ass will follow.

George Clinton

--What's wrong with using flash? In interior of house with ISO set at 400 you will need 1/30 1/60 speed and thats OK with 2.8 -4 f stop but to get better saturated colors and pics fill flash will work best.Just reduce by 1 stop so it will not be that noticable.Sigma have 1.8 EX line of 20mm,24mm,28mm but they big lenses.
Mironv

JoeFrost · Oct 2, 2004

Jakov Minic said:
I have D70 + kit lens and have realised that I need something
faster in order to avoid using flash.

(17-55, 17-35, 28-70) 2.8 too expensive.

85mm 1.4 too long?

50mm 1.4 too long?

28mm 1.4 too expensive!

28mm 2.8?

24mm 2.8?

all suggestions welcome...

Maybe a better flash? I've heard good things about the sigma 20/1.8. It's not too expensive and should be plenty fast. Hopefully, not too wide. Maybe the 35/2 as well.

Joe

Rich Carlton · Oct 2, 2004

The 1.4 lenses are not too sharp wide open and depth of field is extremely narrow--this makes it very difficult to capture moving objects (children). I get pretty good, natural-looking results with bounce flash--either bouncing off the ceiling or a wall. If you're using flash, you can drag the shutter a bit and use relatively slow shutter speeds to keep the area behind your subject from looking cave-like.

Mironv said:
Jakov Minic said:

I have D70 + kit lens and have realised that I need something
faster in order to avoid using flash.

(17-55, 17-35, 28-70) 2.8 too expensive.

85mm 1.4 too long?

50mm 1.4 too long?

28mm 1.4 too expensive!

28mm 2.8?

24mm 2.8?

all suggestions welcome...

--
Free your mind and your ass will follow.

George Clinton

Click to expand...

--What's wrong with using flash? In interior of house with ISO set
at 400 you will need 1/30 1/60 speed and thats OK with 2.8 -4 f
stop but to get better saturated colors and pics fill flash will
work best.Just reduce by 1 stop so it will not be that
noticable.Sigma have 1.8 EX line of 20mm,24mm,28mm but they big
lenses.
Mironv

--

Rich
http://imageevent.com/doctorevil

Jakov Minic · Oct 2, 2004

Thanks for the response!
The flash scares the kids away!
I'm sceptical toward third party lenses.

JoeFrost said:
Maybe a better flash? I've heard good things about the sigma
20/1.8. It's not too expensive and should be plenty fast.
Hopefully, not too wide. Maybe the 35/2 as well.

Joe

--
Free your mind and your ass will follow.

George Clinton

JoeFrost · Oct 2, 2004

Jakov Minic said:
I have D70 + kit lens and have realised that I need something
faster in order to avoid using flash.

(17-55, 17-35, 28-70) 2.8 too expensive.

85mm 1.4 too long?

50mm 1.4 too long?

28mm 1.4 too expensive!

28mm 2.8?

24mm 2.8?

all suggestions welcome...

Here's another thought: You're kit lens will cover the 24-70 parts of your questions. Just preset the zoom to one of those focal lengths and chase the kids around. See which focal length will work best for your kids/house/playing/whatever. Then buy the fastest prime at that focal length you can afford.

BTW, the 35/2 I referred to earlier is a Nikkor. Not a Sigma. I wasn't sure if that was clear in either of our posts.

Joe

Jakov Minic · Oct 2, 2004

Joe, thanks again for you swift reply.

Most of the time I zoom between 24-35 when chasing the kids around the house (and I know that the 35/2 is a Nikkor, just cannot find one in Holland).
So, let me rephrase the entire question.

I need a fast prime between 24-35mm that would allow me to chase my kids around the house and not spook them with a flash.
I can spend up to 500$.

Are the primes at f/2.8 fast enough (sharp enough) for a shutter speed of let's say 1/250 and ISO 400?

JoeFrost said:
Here's another thought: You're kit lens will cover the 24-70 parts
of your questions. Just preset the zoom to one of those focal
lengths and chase the kids around. See which focal length will
work best for your kids/house/playing/whatever. Then buy the
fastest prime at that focal length you can afford.

BTW, the 35/2 I referred to earlier is a Nikkor. Not a Sigma. I
wasn't sure if that was clear in either of our posts.

Joe

--
Free your mind and your ass will follow.

George Clinton

S_Leeper · Oct 2, 2004

The sigma 20 f1.8 is very good, but not at f1.8... so no good for you, even if you were to consider third party.

The nikkor 35 f2 does well. Will you be able to use it at your below settings??? Depends on windows, angle of sun, etc. It does do well wide open... better slightly stopped down.

I find the nikkor's 50 & 85 f1.4 lenses to be good for my indoor natural light shooting. Most often use the 50mm at approx f1.8 - f2.4 (fuji 1/2 stops). I had the 28mm f2.8d... wouldn't recommend it for your uses.

I find that a shutter speed of 1/60 - 1/180 is often fast enough, even for moving kids. Also, using a shorter shutter speed I find using a higher iso is much more acceptable.

Jakov Minic said:
Joe, thanks again for you swift reply.
Most of the time I zoom between 24-35 when chasing the kids around
the house (and I know that the 35/2 is a Nikkor, just cannot find
one in Holland).
So, let me rephrase the entire question.
I need a fast prime between 24-35mm that would allow me to chase my
kids around the house and not spook them with a flash.
I can spend up to 500$.
Are the primes at f/2.8 fast enough (sharp enough) for a shutter
speed of let's say 1/250 and ISO 400?

Jakov Minic · Oct 2, 2004

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/jakovminic/album?.dir=/f8c7

As an example of what is troubling me, here are three photos I took today.
All of them @ ISO 1600, various focal lengths, the kit lens wide open.

--
Free your mind and your ass will follow.

George Clinton

JoeFrost · Oct 3, 2004

Jakov Minic said:
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/jakovminic/album?.dir=/f8c7

As an example of what is troubling me, here are three photos I took
today.
All of them @ ISO 1600, various focal lengths, the kit lens wide open.

All the nikon primes (except the really expensive one) are 2.8s. It'll gain you about a stop from the kit lens. You'll have the same exposure with ISO 800 instead of 1600. Maybe a little less noise, but they'll still be dark. An f/2.0 would get you into the ISO 400 range, with whatever shutter you were using on those pictures.

So if the shutter speed was fast enough on those and with a lens capable of f/2 you should be able to pull it off.

But, most of those appear to be underexposed. So you'd have to crank the ISO back up.

Good luck. If there are any places you can rent the Sigmas, I strongly suggest that as I don't think the affordable nikons are fast enough (unless you can find that 35)

Joe

S_Leeper · Oct 3, 2004

JoeFrost said:
Jakov Minic said:

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/jakovminic/album?.dir=/f8c7

As an example of what is troubling me, here are three photos I took
today.
All of them @ ISO 1600, various focal lengths, the kit lens wide open.

Click to expand...

All the nikon primes (except the really expensive one) are 2.8s.
It'll gain you about a stop from the kit lens. You'll have the
same exposure with ISO 800 instead of 1600. Maybe a little less
noise, but they'll still be dark. An f/2.0 would get you into
the ISO 400 range, with whatever shutter you were using on those
pictures.

So if the shutter speed was fast enough on those and with a lens
capable of f/2 you should be able to pull it off.

But, most of those appear to be underexposed. So you'd have to
crank the ISO back up.

Good luck. If there are any places you can rent the Sigmas, I
strongly suggest that as I don't think the affordable nikons are
fast enough (unless you can find that 35)

Joe

The first question is what was your shutter speed(s)?

You might have to consider quitting coffee so you can go to a lower speed, like 1/30. (I actually say this with some seriousness, as when I do without for a couple of days I can regularly shoot at 1/30 with no problem & 1/20 often...)

If you really want to take a lot of pics in the house without flash also consider some supplemental lighting, especially bounced. Would probably only be able to do this for primary room & even with extra light will only give you 1 - 2 stops... but that is all you really need. (Another thing I did, more to provide some soft & balanced lighting for my living room than for pictures, but was pleasantly surprised with photographic benefits... I use full spectrum flourscent[sp?] lights bounced off ceiling.)

One other trick when doing low light is to set contrast to minimal ("org" on the fuji S2).

Based on your focal length preferences, I would suggest that you try the nikkor 35 f2. (Warning if you buy used make sure you get a newer used as some older models had problems.) As stated earlier I (generally) prefer the 50 & 85 focal lengths I do have the 35 & use it often inside.

Don't rule out the flash. I found that my kids & their visiting friends don't generally mind the flash, especially when I am bouncing off the ceiling & not aiming at their eyes.

Finally, keep having fun!!!

dog010 · Oct 3, 2004

Do try to experiment with some fill flash techniques-- easier if you have an external strobe rather than the on-camera flash.

Otherwise I think a good, sharp prime would do the trick.

I'd back:
24mm f/2.8D
or
35mm f/2D

Anything longer will need a faster shutter speed and you'll probably be hovering around 1/30-1/60 @ISO400-800.

Both are definitely cheaper than the extreme options (17-55 and 28 f/1.4) and are known to be excellent performers.

--
Michael King

Who cares how you get the shot; just photograph it and photograph it well

http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=816617&include=all

A Owens · Oct 3, 2004

Your budget of $500 will probably not solve your problem if you go the lens route.

Get an SB800 flash, a remote and a tripod and get the kids used to it. I had the same problem and solved it by putting my camera on a tripod, giving the remote to the kids and letting them take their own pictures. After a while they tired of it and never had a problem with the flash again. Got some really interesting shots too!

Jakov Minic · Oct 3, 2004

Thanks, that's a nice idea.
I guess I will have to get the kids used to the flash.

There is one thing I have realised though; of course I have been using my flash in the past, but somehow, my favorite photos turn out to be those without additional lighting.

The other route would be to save up for the 28/1.4, but as you know the kids grow up so quickly, one hasn't got the time for saving up...

It is a shame and I am frustrated that technology has advanced so much, but yet, a lens that could see things as a human eye can in low-light and not cost more than 1500$ is not possible.

And what's with all the fancy +1000$ zooms (17-35, 17-55, 28-70), they are also not faster than f/2.8?

A Owens said:
Your budget of $500 will probably not solve your problem if you go
the lens route.

Get an SB800 flash, a remote and a tripod and get the kids used to
it. I had the same problem and solved it by putting my camera on a
tripod, giving the remote to the kids and letting them take their
own pictures. After a while they tired of it and never had a
problem with the flash again. Got some really interesting shots too!

--
Free your mind and your ass will follow.

George Clinton

Jakov Minic · Oct 3, 2004

Thanks, I'll see if I could get a hold of the two primes and see if I could make some sharper shots with them. At least I have found out I should avoid the 28/2.8.
Incidently, I got lens fever and just ordered the infamous 85/1.4!

I know it's a bit to long on a digital camera for inside the house, but it would be perhaps wiser to invest on getting a bigger living room than the 28/1.4...

dog010 said:
Do try to experiment with some fill flash techniques-- easier if
you have an external strobe rather than the on-camera flash.

Otherwise I think a good, sharp prime would do the trick.

I'd back:
24mm f/2.8D
or
35mm f/2D

Anything longer will need a faster shutter speed and you'll
probably be hovering around 1/30-1/60 @ISO400-800.

Both are definitely cheaper than the extreme options (17-55 and 28
f/1.4) and are known to be excellent performers.

--
Michael King

Who cares how you get the shot; just photograph it and photograph
it well

http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=816617&include=all

--
Free your mind and your ass will follow.

George Clinton

Jakov Minic · Oct 3, 2004

The shuter speeds were ranging from 1/13 - 1/30, which means I was pushing the lens and my shaky hands to the limit. (I don't drink coffee, but thanks for the thought.)

In general, I would be satisfied with ISO 800; shutter at 1/60; and I suppose f/2 would do the trick.

I'll see in the meantime if the 85/1.4 I just ordered will bring some light to my living room...
Thank you for your thorough response!

S_Leeper said:
JoeFrost said:

Jakov Minic said:

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/jakovminic/album?.dir=/f8c7

As an example of what is troubling me, here are three photos I took
today.
All of them @ ISO 1600, various focal lengths, the kit lens wide open.

Click to expand...

All the nikon primes (except the really expensive one) are 2.8s.
It'll gain you about a stop from the kit lens. You'll have the
same exposure with ISO 800 instead of 1600. Maybe a little less
noise, but they'll still be dark. An f/2.0 would get you into
the ISO 400 range, with whatever shutter you were using on those
pictures.

So if the shutter speed was fast enough on those and with a lens
capable of f/2 you should be able to pull it off.

But, most of those appear to be underexposed. So you'd have to
crank the ISO back up.

Good luck. If there are any places you can rent the Sigmas, I
strongly suggest that as I don't think the affordable nikons are
fast enough (unless you can find that 35)

Joe

Click to expand...

The first question is what was your shutter speed(s)?
You might have to consider quitting coffee so you can go to a lower
speed, like 1/30. (I actually say this with some seriousness, as
when I do without for a couple of days I can regularly shoot at
1/30 with no problem & 1/20 often...)
If you really want to take a lot of pics in the house without flash
also consider some supplemental lighting, especially bounced.
Would probably only be able to do this for primary room & even with
extra light will only give you 1 - 2 stops... but that is all you
really need. (Another thing I did, more to provide some soft &
balanced lighting for my living room than for pictures, but was
pleasantly surprised with photographic benefits... I use full
spectrum flourscent[sp?] lights bounced off ceiling.)

One other trick when doing low light is to set contrast to minimal
("org" on the fuji S2).

Based on your focal length preferences, I would suggest that you
try the nikkor 35 f2. (Warning if you buy used make sure you get a
newer used as some older models had problems.) As stated earlier
I (generally) prefer the 50 & 85 focal lengths I do have the 35 &
use it often inside.

Don't rule out the flash. I found that my kids & their visiting
friends don't generally mind the flash, especially when I am
bouncing off the ceiling & not aiming at their eyes.

Finally, keep having fun!!!

--
Free your mind and your ass will follow.

George Clinton

Jakov Minic · Oct 7, 2004

A friend of mine has a Nikkor MF 35mm f/2.

I wanted to ask you dear people two things:

Is it compatible with the D70?
Is the performance of this lens similar to the AF version?

Thanks a bunch!

--
Free your mind and your ass will follow.

George Clinton

Chuckm8189 · Oct 7, 2004

Jakov Minic said:
Thanks, that's a nice idea.
I guess I will have to get the kids used to the flash.

I have the same challenge trying to keep up with a 2 year old toddler that moves at light speed. He is use to the flash from my SB-800, but if I get too close, the flash overexposes much of the picture.

Bouncing the flash works well in most situations, and keeps the subject from being blinded. The remote flash (bounced) works well in some situations, but I find in my family room with vaulted ceilings that I could use a second flash to evenly illuminate the room. Thus, most of the time the flash is attached to my D70.

If, while bouncing, your pics are underexposed, you can increase the flashoutput rather easily.

HTH,
Chuck

AdamAufdencamp · Oct 7, 2004

Indoors I don't generally go anywhere near 1600 ISO. I loved the Nikon 50mm 1.8, but dropped it while changing lenses just a few months after purchase. Now have the Nikon 85mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.4. I very much believe previous posts on this forum that the 85 and 50 1.8 Nikons are very much acceptable alternatives.

The 85mm 1.4 is on my camera about 90% of the time. Just about all other occasions I'm using the 50mm 1.4. I rarely use a flash, but it does happen and my 8, 4 and 2 year olds have had their pictures taken enough that nothing really phases them. The 4 year old is especially fond of taking pics of ME. Which is a good things since I'd otherwise have no proof at all that I exist in my family! ;-)

Here are some indoor examples

It sounds like you have already pulled the trigger on 85mm 1.4. You are going to like it. It looks great on the D70!

-Adam

Jakov Minic said:
A Owens said:

Your budget of $500 will probably not solve your problem if you go
the lens route.

Get an SB800 flash, a remote and a tripod and get the kids used to
it. I had the same problem and solved it by putting my camera on a
tripod, giving the remote to the kids and letting them take their
own pictures. After a while they tired of it and never had a
problem with the flash again. Got some really interesting shots too!

Click to expand...

--
Free your mind and your ass will follow.

George Clinton

--
http://www.pbase.com/adamaufdencamp

Kent Johnson · Oct 7, 2004

Jakov Minic said:
I have D70 + kit lens and have realised that I need something
faster in order to avoid using flash.

(17-55, 17-35, 28-70) 2.8 too expensive.

85mm 1.4 too long?

50mm 1.4 too long?

28mm 1.4 too expensive!

28mm 2.8?

24mm 2.8?

all suggestions welcome...

--
Free your mind and your ass will follow.

George Clinton

kids at home lens advice?

Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Member

Senior Member

Member

Leading Member

Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Active member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts