Lens help for a newbie with a D50.

Well I returned both my Kodak 850 and Canon S2 and bought the D50. A lot more money but in the one day I've had it, it seems to be worlds better than the other 2. Anyways, being kinda new to "real" photography what I want to to is indoor and outdoor sports shots of my kids. Indoor gymnastics and then outdoor football. I want to get a zoom lens but I'm not sure if I have to stay with the Nikkor lens or are there other brands less expensive just as good? Also what are the zoom in mm equivilents to say a 12X optical zoom? Was also wondering what the differance is between the AF, AD and AF-S lens? Thanks for any info and advice.

as far as zoom power goes it is a ratio. 20mm to 200mm would be 10x. so would a 10mm to 100mm. Most lenses are 3x or 4x as an example 70mm - 300mm is aprox 3x. if you want to shoot inside get as fast of a lens as you can afford. AF = Auto Focus. AF-s = the lens contains the af motor (quicker generally)

subysti said:

Well I returned both my Kodak 850 and Canon S2 and bought the D50.
A lot more money but in the one day I've had it, it seems to be
worlds better than the other 2. Anyways, being kinda new to "real"
photography what I want to to is indoor and outdoor sports shots of
my kids. Indoor gymnastics and then outdoor football. I want to
get a zoom lens but I'm not sure if I have to stay with the Nikkor
lens or are there other brands less expensive just as good? Also
what are the zoom in mm equivilents to say a 12X optical zoom? Was
also wondering what the differance is between the AF, AD and AF-S
lens? Thanks for any info and advice.

Click to expand...

OK thats makes some sense. The old camera had a 6.0mm - 72mm lens which was a 12X. Are those numbers the focal distance? I just want to make sure I get something with that strong a zoom, it had a good zoom distance, just crummy pics.

subysti said:

Also what are the zoom in mm equivilents to say a 12X optical zoom?

Click to expand...

Your Canon S2 has a 12x zoom of 36 mm - 432 mm in 35mm equivalent. That's equivalent to a 24 - 290 on your D50, due to the crop factor.

I'm no expert on sports photography, but in general, for sports use, you can get fast aperture and fast-focusing, like the 70-200 2.8 ($1500 + -) or a used 80-200 AF-S ($1000-$1200-ish at keh.com), -or- inexpensive, like the Sigma 70-300 APO (sub-$200) or Nikon 70-210 ($250-300 used).

The inexpensive lenses will be usable outdoors, but you will have to pre-focus and let the action come to your focus spot, and be prepared for a lot of out-of-focus shots. Indoors, with flash, you can use the cheap lenses, but you will still likely need to boost your ISO. I have heard some say that it is tough to get a reasonable shutter speed in some indoor venues with even a 2.8 lens at ISO 800.

I have had some success shooting skiing outdoors on sunny days with my 28-200 D (not the newer G model), which certainly falls into the cheap and slow category, so it is doable -- just be prepared to bump into your equipment's limitations (as I do) if you don't go for the $$$ good stuff.

Were I in your shoes, I'd ideally go for the used 80-200 AF-S (make sure it is this one for fast focusing) and a Kenko Pro 1.4x teleconverter. The package would be about $1300-$1400, but will give you the results (just lose the TC indoors). If you need even more reach outdoors, you can always buy the 300 f/4 AF-S ($850-ish at keh.com). Slap a 1.4x TC on it and you're at 420mm (630mm 35 mm equivalent)

-Gian


My small and slowly growing gallery: http://www.pbase.com/gfabbri

You have already gotten very good advice on getting a fast lens. The 70-200 VR would be ideal, and the Sigma 70-200 HSM (fast internal focusing motor) would be a budget alternative, although it will still run you approximately $800. If those options are out of your budget goal, then you might try to get by with a fast prime like the 85mm f/1.8 or the 180 f/2.8. You can find them both used at reasonable prices (try KEH.com) and they focus reasonably quickly on a D70 even though they are not AF-S lenses. Since the D50 is so similar, I would expect similar performance on it. Both are excellent optics for the money, so I'd pick the focal length you most need and give one of them a try. Most places have a return policy on used lenses, so you might plan a purchase around a time frame where you could give the lens a good workout. FYI, an f/2.8 lens is really not very fast for indoor work with a moving subject. You've got to keep the shutter speed up, and an extra stop or so really helps you in that regard.

Good shooting,

Gene

I know you mentioned that you wanted zooms, but you might also want to consider some primes. With primes, you can get faster lenses at lower costs.

For indoor shots, I'd definitely get a fast lens. If you are able to get close to your subject (i.e. in gymnastics), I would consider the 50mm f1.4 lens. I took these photos (without flash) of my nephew doing trampoline in a poorly-lit area with this lens. http://www.pbase.com/j_harvey/trampoline I had to bump up the ISO and shoot at at about 1/320 sec. to reduce blur. The photos aren't the sharpest, but the conditions were very tough (low light and fast moving kid).

For outdoor situations, you might be able to get away with slower lenses and save a lot of money if it's sunny. If it's later in the day and the light is low, or if it will be very overcast or if you just want a really good lens, consider the Nikkor 80-200mm lens, the 70-200mm VR, or the 180mm. All are fast telephotos at f2.8. The 180mm lens is a fair bit smaller than the other two but it doesn't zoom (I have this one and it's spectacular). The 70-200mm VR is an outstanding lens, but it is very expensive and the VR won't help reduce blur if your subject is moving--it only is of benefit to reduce blur due to the camera shaking. The 80-200 is a very good lens.

--
Jen

http://www.pbase.com/j_harvey

OK now I confused. I thought the F number was the size of the shutter opening. You are saying I need a fast F1.8. Can't I adjust the shutter speed on the camera? Also, what is a Prime lens. I thought that was a brand name.

The Nikkor AF-S zooms are around $250 ish, are these any good?

This one is $200.00

Zoom Normal-Telephoto 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DX Autofocus Lens for Digital Cameras

The f # refers to the size of the aperture opening. This is separate from the shutter speed.

The lower the f number, the bigger the aperture opening can be adjusted to, and the faster the shutter speed can be, and still get correct exposure. That’s why a lens with a low f number is considered fast.

A prime is a lens with a fixed focal length, (no zoom). Primes are lighter, and usually sharper than zoom lenses.

I really like my 55-200, but opinions vary, (it’s considered consumer lens, not pro quality by most).

You are on a slippery slope, my friend. There is no limit to the amount of money you can spend on lenses, and only you can determine what are your needs and how much any given lens is worth to you. In answer to you specific questions; a prime len is a sinlge focal length, and therefore not a zoom. Primes are almost always optically superior to zooms, and can also be a stop or two 'faster'. Regarding the value of a 'fast' lens, yes you can always slow down the shutter to make up for low light, but in a sports situation you won't be able to freeze the action. In Nikon terminology, an AFS lens has the focus motor in the lens, which almost always means that the autofocus will focus faster than a non-AFS lens, and an AFS lens will usually be more costly than a non-AFS lens.

Now, more about the slippery slope. Here you need to be honest with yourself about your tendencies. If you have an appreciation for having 'the best' stuff in life, and/or if you can spot extremely small differences in photographs and those small differences matter to you, go for the best lenses now and save yourself money in the long run. What you don't want to do is to go for the 'value' lenses now, like say a 28-105 Nikkor, only to find that you start discovering its limitations later. Then you need to sell it, usually at a loss, and get a better lens which has had a price increase since the last time you checked. Wash, rinse, repeat. You will find dozens if not hundreds of posts here from people who continually buy and sell and buy and sell and eventually end up with what they should have gotten in the first place. I know, I did that too, then I learned. So, you need to know yourself to make the correct choices for you. Take some time to ponder this.

Most of all, have fun.

--
-Mark

so what lens do you currently have? You might be better able to use ISO 1600 on the D50 than I can on my D70 or D2H. Try it out on the indoor shots you want to be able to take and see how the exposure is, even if your lens is too wide to get a great shot of your subject. See what the f number and shutter speed are for the shots and whether you have motion blur. I think you will have to test some to see how your D50 will work in the situations you describe. I know on my D2H and D70, I really need a fast lens to get a decent shutter speed and stay at ISO 800 or less. But you likely have better high ISO performance.

good shooting,

Gene

Thanks for all the info everyone, this seems to make some more sense now. I didn't get any opinions though on the Nikkor lens I posted. Is it any good or will I have to spend upwards of $500 for anything good. Please remember, these are home pictures and I'm by no means a professional. I just want some good pics maybe up to 8 x 10, thats it.

Thanks again everyone.

Maybe we all should have asked the obvious question -- what is your budget? And will this amount need to cover telephoto and "normal"-range use?

-Gian


My small and slowly growing gallery: http://www.pbase.com/gfabbri

Well my budget is around $300 or lower but then again I don't want to spend $200 and get junk. Right now I have the 18-55 Nikkor DX AF-S lens it came with. That works well and I get nice shots with it for my tastes but I just need more zoom capability that will work inside for say up to 100 feet. I tried the sport mode on the camera and it seems to get fairly good shots although a little under exposed and then a little grainy when I turn up the ISO. I guess shooting indoors with moderate lighting and fast moving objects is the worst possible setting to take pictures.

You are correct that indoor shots of fast moving subjects are pretty demanding. Given your budget, whatever you get will be a compromise. For the best quality for that budget, I'd consider the 85mm f/1.8, which will give you true low light capability, but not the flexibility of a zoom. A good alternative that is cheaper would the 50mm f/1.4 and much cheaper would be the 50mm f/1.8. But, you will have even less reach with those. I think all of the zooms in your price range are going to be a compromise, and the 55-200 might be fine so long as you understand that it is not intended as a lens for low light sports work and you will really have to crank up the ISO to get a suitable shutter speed. The 35-70 f/2.8 can be found used close to your budget, and it is an excellent lens but won't give you much reach.

Good luck,

Gene

--
Craig in Ga. (USA)
As you go thru life, don't forget to stop along the way to smell the roses.

I bought the D50 a few weeks ago. I looked on the message boards for help with finding a lens that would take good indoor shots, and almost everyone said you could not go wrong with the Nikon 50mm f/1.8.

I bought one at Ritz Camera for $117.00 and have been very happy. The photo below was taken with this lens. I didn't use a flash, and actually had to darken the photo a bit with the Nikon software. I'm really looking forward to buying the 85mm f/1.8 to get more range. I sat in the front row to get this photo. Get as close as you can, and maybe shoot in JPEG FINE or RAW and you'll get decent results even if you're cropping a lot. Good luck.



--
Brad Waldera

Here is a site that explains some Nikon lingo:
http://chemlab.pc.maricopa.edu/nikon/nk6.html

We had bought a good Canon point and shoot (P&S)... would have largely wasted $500 if a daughter would not use it, because we had been used to a good SLR in film days (the old Canon A-1). Your D50 should serve you well, but get ready to spend some money on lenses. HOWEVER, you do not need to do that all at once.

I have an opinion on darn near everything here, but I do not really do sports/action stuff. That area gets tricky because you pay for "speed with quality" in lenses-- generally in cost and bulk. That f-stop/aperture which has confused you above is a key to speed. You are perhaps asking for the toughest task... my guess is that you would be best served for value and relative quality with a Sigma zoom in the 70/80-200 range with a 2.8 fixed aperture/"speed", given what you say you want to do. HOWEVER, that will not be a petite lens-- in bright sun you can get some sports shots with a smaller, cheaper zoom. Perhaps someone who shoots action who sees this can pick up on that... try not to get too confused-- it will be clear as mud soon! I have spent a good $5,000 all-in since april when we took the digital plunge, BUT we have captured a month in Europe and our teens in all sorts of venues... we can get the money back, but cannot recapture those slices of life-- sometimes, you even capture lightning in a bottle. Good luck in this sometimes magical brave new world!
--craig

subysti said:

Well I returned both my Kodak 850 and Canon S2 and bought the D50.
A lot more money but in the one day I've had it, it seems to be
worlds better than the other 2. Anyways, being kinda new to "real"
photography what I want to to is indoor and outdoor sports shots of
my kids. Indoor gymnastics and then outdoor football. I want to
get a zoom lens but I'm not sure if I have to stay with the Nikkor
lens or are there other brands less expensive just as good? Also
what are the zoom in mm equivilents to say a 12X optical zoom? Was
also wondering what the differance is between the AF, AD and AF-S
lens? Thanks for any info and advice.

Click to expand...

--
Craig in Ga. (USA)
As you go thru life, don't forget to stop along the way to smell the roses.

That picture looks great to me. My problem is that with Gymnastics to really cant get too close without getting hurt or thrown out of the gym. Thats why I was going for a zoom lens. Am I correct in assuming a fixed 85mm has no adjustment at all for distance like the 18-55 I have now?

I believe that is true. It's like a point & shoot, but you can crop what you don't need. The depth of field is also fairly narrow on the 50mm. At least the way I had it set up it was.
--
Brad Waldera

OK now you're throwing in other terms I don't know. What do ou mean by depth of field?