Beginning into photography

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
Leonard Migliore
Leonard Migliore Forum Pro • Posts: 16,332
I knew you'd get back to me
1

PhotoTeach2 wrote:

Leonard Migliore wrote:

Hight Fly wrote:

I'm slowly getting to a conclusion.

Either I get a Sigma 17-50, or a Nikon 16-85.

On Top of that I can get a very nice telephoto lens 70-300m, from Nikon maybe.

The problem is that I keep changing my mind over and over! At the beginning I thought: "we'll go for the 16-80" then I realised it was too much money to begin photography with and it would be better to spend it carefully so I thought about other things... And now I'm there. Who knows what I'll buy at the end?!

I would say the only thing that stops me from taking those options is that I wonder if I'll have sharp portraits or not. Nevertheless, I think I will be totally satisfied the first months and then I'll probably know what focal length I want for Christmas and get a 50mm or a 85 (if I have the money haha).

That's one of the joys and dangers of having a camera with interchangeable lenses: You always want to buy a new lens that does something your existing lenses don't quite do.

The good news is that those lenses exist. The bad news is that they cost money. You will eventually figure out what lenses suit your individual style and use them. With my D300, I typically carried a 10-24, a 16-85 and a 70-300 for landscape photos. I used a 35mm f/1.8 for party pictures, an 85mm f/1.8 or a (manual focus) 105mm f/2.5 for portraits, a 55mm f/2.8 for close-ups and copy work and a 300mm f/4 for wildlife. But that's a whole bunch of lenses...

Now Joe is probably going to jump on this and say that the magic FZ1000 covers all that range with its fixed zoom and takes movies and has WiFi too. And well it might. It may even make toast.

Do you prefer white/wheat or French bread ??? (buttered ???)

Sourdough. I'm in the San Francisco Bay area.

But I would be very surprised if the FZ1000's 16X zoom is as sharp as a 16-85.

It is a LEICA lens and probably is. There have been posters who were long time Canon/Nikon professionals, (like I), who felt it was sharper than their prior Canon/Nikons.

Well, the lens on my RX100 says Zeiss and it has lousy corners. I'm quite sure that that "Zeiss" lens has never been near Oberkochen. The 16-85 DX Nikkor is very sharp and has high contrast until it gives up around 75mm. At 35mm it's not significantly worse than a 35mm prime. I would be quite surprised if a 16X zoom on a $600 camera could match it. Note that the FZ1000 lens has to be about twice as sharp as a DX lens to resolve the same number of lines per picture height on its 1" sensor. Leica might be able to build such a lens but it would have a Leica price.

I'm sure the FZ1000 lens is satisfactory for most photographic needs.

It certainly can't duplicate the sharpness and focus selectivity of an 85mm f/1.8

It is definitely sharper than my Nikon 85mm, (and 70-200 f/2.8). BUT ... I can't duplicate f/1.8, (or f/2.8 @ 200mm but that was a @ $2000+ lens)

There's not much that's sharper than an 85mm Nikkor. Is something wrong with yours?

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-F18G-mounted-on-Nikon-D500---Measurements__1061

or copy artwork like a Micro Nikkor.

I could use a Raynox "macro" adapter, (but have not done so).

One of the attributes of Micro Nikkors is that they have a flat field. This is quite helpful in copying flat artwork. You don't need a macro adapter to copy a 16X20 painting, you need a lens that covers the whole field sharply. I expect the FZ1000 lens to have substantial field curvature at any of its focal lengths.

So the D300 allows you to get lenses that do exactly what you want, and to do those things with professional quality. I have found this to be a great advantage.

I suggest that 50% of the general-public who buys a dSLR never gets more than their standard "kit" lenses.

I agree. Their DSLR's should be forcibly ripped from their hands.

I agree that does not apply to DPR users, but I suggest that not more than 50% of "beginners" here never get more than their "kit" lenses.

So WHY should they PAY more and have the inconvenience of having to carry/CHANGE lenses if a FIXED lens can provide more speed/convenience with a "continuous" zoom that is wider/longer and FASTER than those "kit" lenses.

That's a tautology. If somebody's not going to change lenses, they shouldn't get an interchangeable lens camera.

So the FZ is absolutely not for someone who seriously intends to get a "fast" prime lens.

But they can get UWA and Macro with (Raynox, etc.) adapters. I use Raynox 3062 @ 5072 for 12mm-EFL.

You can always make do. Or you can do it right.

-- hide signature --

Leonard Migliore

 Leonard Migliore's gear list:Leonard Migliore's gear list
Canon PowerShot G12 Sony RX100 III Nikon D300 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +12 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow